JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated October 3, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast Track) Kota, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to. suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,0001-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The conviction of appellant is primarily based on the dying declaration of Anita. In cases of homicide, statements made by a person, since deceased, are admissible to prove the cause and circumstances of the man's death. Such statements are called 'dying declaration'. The admissibility of 'dying declaration' rests on the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a man's mind' the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath - 'NEMO MORITURUS PRAESUMUNTUR MENTIRI'. The general principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, a situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of justice. 3. It is the prosecution's case that on March 7, 2001 at 6.30 PM Ramesh Chand ASI Police Station Railway Colony Kota (Pw.8) recorded parcha bayan (Ex.P-11) of injured Anita (since deceased) at MBS Hospital wherein she stated that 3-4 months prior to the incident her Nata-marriage was performed with the appellant and he was to pay Jhagra-money. On the day of incident around 12 o' clock her mother, sister and uncle came to take Jhagra-money from the appellant, thereupon appellant quarreled with them and said that he had no money at that time, he also gave two blows with his shoe on her person. Thereafter the injured went to take bath at the hand-pump. The appellant chased her and after pouring kerosene on her set her ablaze and fled away. On raising alarm her uncle rushed and put off the fire and removed her to hospital. On that Parcha bayan a case was registered under sections 307 IPC and investigation commenced. In the course of the investigation, injured succumbed to her injuries and section 302 IPC was added. On raising alarm her uncle rushed and put off the fire and removed her to hospital. On that Parcha bayan a case was registered under sections 307 IPC and investigation commenced. In the course of the investigation, injured succumbed to her injuries and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence. Three witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment took us through the material on record. 5. On the body of Anita 90% burns were found. As per Post Mortem report (Ex.P-9) following ante-mortem injuries were seen on the dead body : "Epidermal to Demoepidermal burn present all over body. There were 80% to 90% burns over body." In the opinion of Dr. P.K. Tiwari (Pw.7) the cause of death was shock as a result of burn injury. 6. Before analysing the submissions advanced before us we deem it necessary to narrate the principles governing dying declaration, Lald down by the Apex Court in the various judgments. They are as under : (i) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination K. Ramchandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618 . (ii) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. Rashid Beg v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 264 . (iii) A dying declaration which suffer from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. Ram Manorath v. State, (1981) 2 SCC 654 . 7. It is in view of the above parameters that we have to adjudge the acceptability of the alleged dying declaration. Ramesh Chandra ASI (Pw. Rashid Beg v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 264 . (iii) A dying declaration which suffer from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. Ram Manorath v. State, (1981) 2 SCC 654 . 7. It is in view of the above parameters that we have to adjudge the acceptability of the alleged dying declaration. Ramesh Chandra ASI (Pw. 8) in ,his deposition stated that he recorded the statement of Anita (Ex.P-12) after obtaining the certificate from Dr. Rajeev Lochan (Pw.13) about her fitness for giving the statement. Shri Tirupati Kumar Gupta Judicial Magistrate (Pw.15) thereafter was called and he recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P-18) of Anita. Dr. Rajeev Lochan (Pw.13) made endorsement on the statement to the effect that Anita was in a fit state to give the statement. In the statement Anita alleged that it was the appellant who set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her. 8. We find that Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 has been followed by the investigating officer in letter and spirit. Rule 6.22 reads as under : "6.22 Dying declaration : (1) A dying declaration shall, whenever possible, be recorded by a Magistrate. (2) The person making the declaration shall, if possible, be examined by a medical officer with a view to ascertaining that he is sufficiently in possession of his reason to make a lucid statement. (3) If no Magistrate can be obtained, the declaration shall, when a gazetted officer is not present, be recorded in the presence of two or more reliable witnesses unconnected with the police department and with the parties concerned in the case. 9. Dr. Rajeev Lochan (Pw.13) who examined the deceased after the incident, deposed that he had certified the fitness of Anita to give the statement. Dr. P.K. Tiwari (Pw.7) who conducted autopsy on the dead body deposed that the deceased died because of 80% to 90% burns. The cause of death was shock caused due to burn injuries. Testimony of prosecution witnesses could not be shattered in the cross-examination. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sh. Tirupati Kumari Gupta who was posted as Judicial Magistrate on the date of incident. We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel that dying declaration could not be made sole basis to come to conclusion that appellant was guilty. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sh. Tirupati Kumari Gupta who was posted as Judicial Magistrate on the date of incident. We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel that dying declaration could not be made sole basis to come to conclusion that appellant was guilty. Dying declaration of Anita (Ex.P-18) has been subjected by us to close scrutiny and we find it trustworthy. Corroboration of dying declaration is necessary only when it is suspicious. Ratio indicated in Bhupan v. State of M.P., 2002 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 275 : 2002 AIR SCW 482 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. Having carefully scanned the dying declaration we find that the dying declaration made by Anita was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It does not suffer from infirmity and it can form the basis of conviction. Geeta Bai (Pw.1) was declared hostile and we do not see any truth in her testimony since she is an interested witness, being thickly related to the appellant. 11. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeals and the same accordingly stand dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC are maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******