JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. N.P. Das and Mr. P.C. Gayan, Learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2006 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 27/05, arising out of GR Case No. 749/02, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302/IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for another six months. 3. The prosecution story unfurled in the FIR, Exhibit 1, as lodged by Sri Prashanta Dey, PW-1 is that one Sri Chandan Dey, a resident of Rangia, married his sister Smti Mamoni Dey as per their religion/custom and in the marriage he paid a large amount of dowry to the bridegroom, Sri Chandan Dey but he was not satisfied with the dowry and started to beat his sister Smti Mamoni Dey badly demanding cash amount from her. The complainant, Prashanta Dey managed to pay to the said Chandan Dey cash amount of Rs. 26,000/- by selling his land but he was not satisfied and has been "oppressing" his sister Mamoni Dey physically demanding more dowry. 4. Few days before the date of occurrence the complainant's said sister and her husband Sri Chandan Dey came to Morigaon and stayed in the house of the accused/appellant Sri Mangal Mazumdar of Pachatia who was the brother-in-law of Chandan Dey. On 15.12.2002 at about 11 P.M. Smti Mamoni Dey was set on fire for the purpose of killing her. 5. On the basis of the said FIR, a case being Morigaon Police Station Case No. 134/2002 under Section 498 (A)/307 IPC was registered and investigation was made by the Police. 6. Injured Mamoni Dey, while she was being treated at Guwahati Medical College Hospital, succumbed to her injuries in the hospital on 20.12.2006 and accordingly, Section 304 (B) IPC was added to the above case. The Police after completion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused Mangal Mazumdar @ Haripada Mazumdar and under Section 304 (B)/34 IPC against accused Chandan Dey who absconded and a case against him was filed and he was declared as absconder. 7. The Police after completion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused Mangal Mazumdar @ Haripada Mazumdar and under Section 304 (B)/34 IPC against accused Chandan Dey who absconded and a case against him was filed and he was declared as absconder. 7. Since the offence under Section 302/IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon committed the case against the accused Mangal Mazumdar @ Haripada Mazumdar and the said case was registered and tried by the said Learned Sessions Judge. 8. Mr. J.M. Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel, challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant has forcefully argued that no conviction and sentence could be ordered solely on the basis of dying declaration Exhibit 3, in as much as the prosecution has failed to submit any certificate of fitness of the deceased to show that she was able to make dying declaration, which was not written in Assamese, that is the language in which the deceased made her dying declaration. 9. The Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that PW-4, Dr. Hussain Ahmed, who was present at the time of making the dying declaration heard directly from the patient and translated into English and Dr. Partha Pratim Dutta reduced the same into writing in presence of other witnesses but the said Doctor, namely, Partha Pratim Dutta was not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the veracity of the said dying declaration is under serious doubt and it is not at all a reliable piece of evidence. 10. It was further submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel, that delay in lodging the FIR was not explained and the said FIR being lacking in details of the occurrence and having found omissions in the statements of PW-1,2 and 6 made before the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the involvement of the accused/appellant in the alleged offence committed in the instant case, has cast serious doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case and as such the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 11. The Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. 11. The Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. P.C. Gayan, in support of the impugned conviction and sentence has strenuously urged that conviction can be ordered solely on the basis of dying declaration made by the deceased in presence of the Doctors, who were in a position to know the fitness of the deceased to make the dying declaration. 12. It is also submitted by the Learned Public Prosecutor that the delay in filing FIR or the absence of details of the occurrence in the FIR or omission in the statements of witnesses under Section 161and 164 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the involvement of the accused/appellant in the alleged offence would not help the accused/appellant once the fact of making the dying declaration is found on record and the same is found admissible under the law. 13. From the evidence on record it is an admitted position that the deceased Mamoni Dey was married to Chandan Dey (accused absconder) and dowry demands were made by him from the guardian of the deceased. It is also an admitted position that prior to the incident i.e. 15.12.2002, Mamoni Dey was brought to the house of accused Mangal Mazumdar and the alleged offence was committed in his house. 14. It will be proper to refer to some of the depositions made by the witnesses on the prosecution side. The PW-1, Sri Prashanta Dey, informant and brother of deceased Mamoni Dey in his examination-in-chief deposed that while he arrived at the house of accused Mangal Mazumdar at about 7 A.M. found that his elder sister was lying at the bathroom and her legs were outside the bathroom. The entire clothes of the body were burnt and the whole body was with burn injuries, hairs were also burnt totally. He also deposed that while he asked his sister she stated that Mangal Mazumdar set fire on her. 15. The said witness PW-1 categorically stated that the accused Chandan Dey was sitting near the deceased Mamoni Dey and while PW-1 enquired as to how occurrence took place, Chandan Dey rather got angry with him. 16. Both PW-2 Gauranga Paul, maternal uncle and PW-6, Smti Arati Dey, mother of the deceased, Mamoni Dey, stated that on getting the information about the occurrence, they also came and met her at Morigaon. 16. Both PW-2 Gauranga Paul, maternal uncle and PW-6, Smti Arati Dey, mother of the deceased, Mamoni Dey, stated that on getting the information about the occurrence, they also came and met her at Morigaon. On their enquiry, Mamoni Dey told them that accused Mangal Mazumdar, attempted to commit sexual intercourse and on his failure to do so she was burnt by the accused Mangal Mazumdar by pouring kerosene. 17. Sufficient evidence has been adduced by the prosecution in regard to dowry demands made by the accused husband Chandan Dey and his convict brother-in-law, Mangal Mazumdar and the payments made by the guardian of the deceased. PW-1 Prashanta Dey (brother of the deceased), PW-2 Gauranga Paul, (maternal uncle), PW-6 Arati Dey, (mother) of the deceased in their deposition narrated as to when and how dowry demands were made by and paid to accused husband Chandan Dey. The accused/appellant, Mangal Mazumdar as deposed by the said PWs, was the main person behind the arrangement and solemnization of marriage of Mamoni to Chandan Dey and also in making the dowry demands for him. It was the accused/appellant Mangal Mazumdar, who in their pursuit to get more dowry from the guardian of the deceased, brought her per force from the house of PW-2 in the night of 15.12.2002 and kept her in his house and set fire on her body by pouring kerosene oil causing injuries to her. 18. The evidence of PW-1, 2 and 6, clearly reveals that both accused husband Chandan Dey, and accused/appellant Mangal Mazumdar were present in the residence of Mangal Mazumdar, that is the place of occurrence, on the date and at the time of occurrence and they did not take any step to remove Mamoni to hospital for treatment although she was lying with serious bum injuries in the mid night and crying for help for hours until PW-1 and other neighbours arrived and was taken to Morigaon Civil Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Banshidhar Das, PW-8 at 7.30 A.M. of 16.12.2002 (Exhibit 4), who found 80% bum injuries and after preliminary treatment, referred her to Guwahati Medical College Hospital, for treatment. 19. Thus, the motive behind the offence of setting fire on the deceased is evidently clear and it was committed by the accused Chandan Dey and his brother-in-law/appellant for the purpose of getting more dowry. 20. 19. Thus, the motive behind the offence of setting fire on the deceased is evidently clear and it was committed by the accused Chandan Dey and his brother-in-law/appellant for the purpose of getting more dowry. 20. From the record it is found that the prosecution examined Dr. Hussain Ahmed, PW-4 and Dr. Suntanu Sarma, PW-5. PW-5, PW-4 deposed that while he was working as Registrar of Surgery in the GMCH on 17.12.2002 from 9 P.M. onwards recorded a dying declaration of deceased, Mamoni Dey in the Surgical Unit No. 2, on Police requisition in presence of Dr. Santanu Sarma, PW-5 (Registrar), Dr. Partha Pratim Dutta, (PG, Surgeon), Smti Manamai Pathak, (Sister) on duty Sri A. Rajbanshi, A.S.I. of GMCH Police Out Post and one Sri Saranga Pani Bhuiyan, (an attendant of another patient). It is categorically stated by PW4 that he directly heard the statement from the patient (Mamoni Dey) and translated them into English and Dr. Partha Pratim Dutta reduced the same to writing in presence of all the witnesses aforementioned. In his cross-examination the PW-5, denied the suggestion of the defence Counsel that the patient was not medically fit for making her dying declaration since there was no fitness certificate. PW-6, who saw the witnesses recording dying declaration stated that under the guidance and direction of Dr. Hussain Ahmed, the dying declaration of Mamoni Dey was recorded by Dr. Partha Pratim Dutta. In cross-examination, he said that he could not remember in what language Mamoni made the statement nor could he remember the entire wordings but he categorically stated that at the time of recording the dying declaration no relative of the patient was present. The appellant's Learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied upon the case of Darshana Devi v. State of Punjab as reported in (1995) (4) SCC 126 in support of the submission that the dying declaration, Exhibit 3, is unreliable, untrustworthy and inadmissible in law and no conviction and sentence could be imposed on the basis of such evidence. We have gone through the aforesaid case law cited by the Learned Senior Counsel. We have gone through the aforesaid case law cited by the Learned Senior Counsel. That was a case of oral dying declaration, not reduced to writing and which was found at variance in the statement of two witnesses with regard to the exact words allegedly used by the deceased and the said oral dying declaration was discarded by the Court as untrustworthy for conviction of an accused. Hence, ratio of the above case is not applicable to the present case. 21. In the present case, the dying declaration was made by the deceased in presence of attending Doctors and others and the same was reduced to writing in which the name of accused/appellant, Mangal Mazumdar was mentioned. The question is whether the said dying declaration is trustworthy and could be relied upon for conviction of an accused. 22. The settled position of Law is that if the dying declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by the deceased, who is physically in a condition to make such statement, there is no impediment in relying on such a declaration. However, the Apex Court in Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar as reported in 2001 CriLJ 2556, mandated that the dying declaration shall have to be dealt with care and caution and corroboration thereof, though not essential as such but is otherwise expedient to have the same in order to strengthen the evidentiary value of the declaration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another Case namely Panchdeo Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 CriLJ 973, held that the dying declaration must inspire confidence and the dying declaration alluring confidence of the Court would be a sufficient piece of evidence to sustain conviction. It was also held that Court must not look out for corroboration unless it comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration suffers from any infirmity. In another case of Ronald Kiprono Ramkat v. State of Haryana as reported in 2001 CriLJ 3942, the Apex Court observed that if dying declaration passes the taste of reliability and truthfulness it can form the basis of conviction even without further corroboration. 23. In another case of Ronald Kiprono Ramkat v. State of Haryana as reported in 2001 CriLJ 3942, the Apex Court observed that if dying declaration passes the taste of reliability and truthfulness it can form the basis of conviction even without further corroboration. 23. The reliability, truthfulness and trustworthiness of the dying declaration, Exhibit-3, cannot be questioned in the present case as the same was recorded by the attending Doctors who were treating the deceased in the hospital and who were in a better position to know the health condition of the patient at the relevant time and that the said patient was in a position to make dying declaration cannot be doubted. The usual formality of fitness certificate, when a dying person wants to make his/her statement before the Magistrate is dispensable when a dying declaration is made before the Doctor and as recorded by him. Moreover, while cross-examining, the PW-4 (Dr. Hussain Ahmed), the defence Counsel did not taste the Doctor in regard to fitness of Mamoni Dey. 24. In such a circumstances it cannot be concluded that Smti Mamoni Dey was not in a position to make any statement at the relevant time. 25. It has been held in several cases by the Apex Court that no Law mandates that dying declaration has to be recorded by a Magistrate only. We can cite the recent case of Rajendra and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra as reported in (2006) 10 SCC 759 in which it was held inter alia that more sanctity is definitely attached to a dying declaration recorded to a Magistrate since the recording of dying declaration by a Magistrate assures the Court that a statement has been accordingly understood and truthfully recorded by an impartial person. In the present case the dying declaration was made in the hospital on Police requisition and recorded by the attending Doctors who are not related to the deceased. It is also pertinent to note that no relative was there at the time of recording the dying declaration and there was no scope of turtoring her by interested or related persons. 26. The Learned Senior Counsel assailed the trustworthiness of the dying declaration on the ground that it was not recorded in the language the deceased made her statement and the Doctor who reduced it to writing was not examined. 26. The Learned Senior Counsel assailed the trustworthiness of the dying declaration on the ground that it was not recorded in the language the deceased made her statement and the Doctor who reduced it to writing was not examined. The reliability or trustworthiness of Exhibit 3, dying declaration, is sustainable under the law once it is proved that in fact the declaration was made voluntarily by the deceased. The factum of making dying declaration and recording was not questioned in the present case. It is only the manner in which the said dying declaration was recorded has been questioned. It is already held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no form or manner prescribed for recording the dying declaration. We feel it appropriate to cite the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh as reported in [1997] 1 SCR 190. In the said case deceased answered the question put to her by the Magistrate in Bagri language and it was recorded in Hindi in a narrative form. It was held by the Apex Court that the dying declaration could not go bad merely because the Magistrate did not record it in the form of question and answers. Para 11 of the said Judgment runs thus: Nor would a dying declaration go bad merely because the Magistrate did not record it in the form of questions and answers. It is axiomatic that what matter is the substance and not the form. Questions put to the dying man would have been formal and hence the answers given are material. Criminal Courts may evince interest in knowing the contents of what the dying person said and the question put to him are not very important normally. That part of the statement which relates to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death gets the sanction of admissibility. Here it is improper to throw such statement overboard on a pedantic premise that it was not recorded in the form of questions and answers. (Vide Ganpat Mahadeo Mane v. State of Maharastra') 27. We have perused the FIR Exhibit 1. It was lodged on 16.12.2002 at 11 A.M. The occurrence took place on 15.12.2002 at about 11 P.M. The FIR was lodged after about 12 hours from the time of occurrence. (Vide Ganpat Mahadeo Mane v. State of Maharastra') 27. We have perused the FIR Exhibit 1. It was lodged on 16.12.2002 at 11 A.M. The occurrence took place on 15.12.2002 at about 11 P.M. The FIR was lodged after about 12 hours from the time of occurrence. Such delay although not explained can be understood that it was not intentional in view of the fact that the informant PW-1 and other relatives including her mother and maternal uncle had to rush to the place of occurrence on being informed and they on reaching the house of Mangal Mazumdar had to remove her to the Morigaon Civil Hospital and they were busy in getting her treated by the Doctors. They had to think about the life of Mamoni in the condition in which she was at that time and accordingly it took sometime to file the FIR. Such a delay under such circumstances cannot be regarded as a serious lapse and fatal omission. 28. The other challenge of the defence Counsel on the absence of details of the occurrence in the FIR is also not a sound ground for discarding the FIR, Exhibit 1. The FIR, as has been held by the Apex Court, in many cases, is not an encyclopedia of facts concerning the crimes and it is not necessary that minutest details should be stated in the FIR. The latest case we may cite is of S. Sudarshan Redely and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh as reported in 2006 CriLJ 4033 in which it is held inter alia that it is sufficient since a broad picture is presented and the FIR contains broad features. 29. The defence by adducing DW-1, Sri Biren Das, tried to build up a story of commission of suicide by the deceased by setting fire on her body. This witness was not an eyewitness and he went to the house of Mangal Mazumdar from whom he enquired and came to know that the wife of his brother-in-law (Mamoni) committed suicide by setting fire on her body. The evidence of this sole DW is not trustworthy inasmuch as he was not an eyewitness but a person who had deposed as had been told by the accused/appellant. The evidence of this sole DW is not trustworthy inasmuch as he was not an eyewitness but a person who had deposed as had been told by the accused/appellant. Interestingly the accused/appellant, in order to prove his case that Mamoni Dey committed suicide by setting fire on herself, did not produce his wife as witness, who was present on the date and time of the occurrence. It is not at all a believable story that the young lady of 18 years old, who has been enjoying nuptial life only for about one year, although under some cruelty due to dowry demands, could resort to committing suicide. The extenuating circumstances are that the accused husband and his brother-in-law Mangal Mazumdar had been constantly putting pressure on the mother, brother and the maternal uncle of the deceased for more and more dowry and she was forceably brought from the house of her maternal uncle on the night of the date of occurrence to the house of Mangal Mazumdar for the purpose of putting more pressure on her for dowry demands. 30. We have closely examined the reasonings of the learned trial Court in support of its conclusion and we have found no infirmities therein. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned trial Court and find no ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby upheld and affirmed. 31. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. LCR may be sent down immediately. Appeal dismissed