JUDGMENT : ARUN MISHRA J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code recorded by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sihora, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 1030/92 as per judgment dated 12-8-1997, accused/appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 500 was imposed, in default of payment of fine, appellant to undergo further R.I. for two months for committing murder of his wife Kambai on 12-6-1992 at about 7 A.M. at village-Chhetapahari. It appears that she died on the same day at about 7.45 P.M. Accused Latora inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Kambai with the help of a Baka, a sharp edged weapon. 2. As per prosecution case, Kambai marriage was performed with someone else, later on she accepted the accused to be her husband, accused used to met out ill treatment to the deceased and wanted to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene as such she came to her parental house prior to three days of the incident. Accused was not doing any kind of work, that was the reason for altercation between husband and wife, before the date of accident accused came to the village Chhetapahari, parental village of the deceased. In the morning about 7 A.M. when Kambai was returning after answering call of nature, accused came armed with a Baka and inflicted injuries on the head, waist, etc. Kambai raised hue and cry, while inflicting injuries accused uttered to the deceased that why she did not perform the work and had involved the elders unnecessarily, on hearing hue and cry raised by Kambai, Pyarelal (PW-7), Chhuttan (PW-3), Mohanlal (PW-6), Bharoselal (PW-4) and Sukbariabai (PW-5) reached to the spot, accused Latora ran away from the spot, Kambai informed the incident to the aforesaid witnesses, she was taken to P.S. Sleemnabad, she herself lodged FIR (P.11) at P.S. Sleemnabad, it was reduced in writing by Pawan Dev Singh (PW-9) and the offence at Crime No. 93/92 was registered, she was medically examined by Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) at Sleemnabad. He has found five incised wounds, first and second incised wound were found on the head whereas third incised wound was on waist region, fourth incised wound was on the back lower part on Rt. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) at Sleemnabad. He has found five incised wounds, first and second incised wound were found on the head whereas third incised wound was on waist region, fourth incised wound was on the back lower part on Rt. side back at the level of T12-L1 area, injury No. 5 was on the index finger of right hand. Injuries were caused by sharp cutting object and were dangerous to the life, thereafter her dying declaration was recorded by C.R. Jatav (PW-11), Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) has certified that deceased was in fit state when her dying declaration (Ex.P/12) had been recorded by C.R. Jatav, Executive Magistrate cum Naib Tahsildar. After the treatment meted out by Dr. S.K. Pathak at Sleemnabad, Kambai was referred to Jabalpur for further treatment, she came to Jabalpur at about 3.35 P.M. and was admitted in Ward No. 2, she died at 7.45 P.M. on 12-6-1992 itself as mentioned in report (P/2) with respect to death of Kambai. Statements of witnesses were recorded, inquest and spot map were prepared, post-mortem was performed, accused was arrested, from his possession weapon of offence i.e. Baka was also seized as per seizure memo (P/6). Articles were sent for serological examination except on the control soil, on other articles presence of blood was found. Accused had been charge-sheeted for commission of an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that he had been falsely implicated for commission of offence. 4. The prosecution in all has examined 11 witnesses, in defence 3 witnesses have been examined. The trial Court has convicted the appellant, consequently the appeal has been preferred. 5. Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that none of the eye-witnesses infact have witnessed the incident. Deceased Kambai was not in a position to give dying declaration as her parietal lobe had been cut up to the depth of ½ inch as stated by Dr. R.D. Namdeo (PW-10) who had performed post-mortem. Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) has stated that in case parietal lobe including peritoneum of the brain is cut and injured comes to the state of shock may not be in a position to speak and would become unconscious, thus, learned counsel has submitted that there was no possibility for Kambai to give aforesaid dying declaration. Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) has stated that in case parietal lobe including peritoneum of the brain is cut and injured comes to the state of shock may not be in a position to speak and would become unconscious, thus, learned counsel has submitted that there was no possibility for Kambai to give aforesaid dying declaration. He has also submitted that it was unusual that it was recorded in front of P.S. Sleemnabad. C.R. Jatav (PW-11) had reached Sleemnabad by chance. Thus, his statement does not inspire confidence. On the dying declaration recorded left hand thumb impression had been obtained whereas it was mentioned in FIR that her right hand thumb impression was obtained as left hand of Kambai had been injured in the incident. Thus, obtaining the left hand thumb impression in the dying declaration makes it doubtful. Deceased was not in a position to put her left hand thumb impression on the dying declaration (P/12). He has further submitted that there was Chhod-Chhutti as stated by defence witnesses and by the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, that was the reason for false implication of accused appellant, thus, guilt of appellant has not been proved beyond periphery of reasonable doubt, thus, appellant be acquitted. 6. On the contrary, Shri S.K. Rai, learned GA appearing for State has submitted that in this case there are two dying declarations of the deceased in the shape of FIR (P/11) and another dying declaration recorded by C.R. Jatav (PW-11), Executive Magistrate cum Naib Tahsildar, that has been supported by Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1),who has clearly stated that deceased was in the fit state, counsel has further submitted that Dr. S.K. Pathak has clearly opined that it would have been possible for an injured to talk even after parietal lobe was cut, he could not give definite opinion whether after cutting of peritoneum of brain, it would be possible to talk, in view of his statement, it could not be said that deceased Kambai was not in a position to lodge the report and make the dying declaration. He has also submitted that there were other witnesses supporting the involvement of accused, he had ran away from the spot after inflicting injuries, there was no reason for the wife to implicate her husband falsely, dying declaration was sufficient to sustain the conviction as not only it has been proved, but it contains truthful version as to incident and has been substantially corroborated by medical and other ocular evidence on record. Consequently, he has submitted that no case for interference in this appeal was made out. 7. Main question for consideration is whether dying declaration of Kambai has been proved and it can be said to be reliable. Incident has taken place in the morning at about 7 A.M. Several incised wounds were inflicted on Kambai, P.S. Sleemnabad was situated from the place of incident at a distance of about 4 kms. Kambai was taken in a bullock cart to the Police Station and the report had been lodged with promptitude at 8.30 A.M. Report had been lodged by deceased herself, lodging of report by Kambai within 1½ hour of incident indicates that FIR was lodged promptly and in case she was not in a position to speak, someone else would have lodged the report, there was no reason for her lodging the report in case she was unconscious, other family members could have lodged the report. We find absolutely nothing to doubt that report (P/11) had been lodged by Kambai herself, thereafter her dying declaration (P/12) had been recorded by C.R. Jatav (PW/11), in the dying declaration at the beginning Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) has certified that Kambai was in the fit state to make the statement, at the conclusion of dying declaration it had been again certified by the doctor that deceased remained conscious while her statement was recorded. She has stated in the dying declaration that her husband inflicted injuries with the help of Baka on her head, waist and hand. She had gone to answer the call of nature, at the time, when her husband inflicted injuries, none else was present. She had come to parental house prior to 2-3 days as her husband wanted to kill her by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, that was the reason she came to her parental house, she was having one daughter, she could not state why her husband inflicted injuries on her. She had come to parental house prior to 2-3 days as her husband wanted to kill her by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, that was the reason she came to her parental house, she was having one daughter, she could not state why her husband inflicted injuries on her. However, husband had stated while inflicting injuries why she did not perform the work and had involved the elders in between them. C.R. Jatav (PW-11) has stated that he had received an information from P.S. Sleemnabad to record a dying declaration, he had recorded the dying declaration at about 11.15 A.M. on 12-6-1992, doctor had certified that she was fit in order to give statement, he had put the questions which were answered by deceased Kambai, he has corroborated recording of statement as per version of the deceased. He has further stated that he has received intimation at Sleemnabad itself for recording the statement, he had gone to Sleemnabad for some work. He had received intimation at about 11.00 A.M. Kambai was in a position to give statement. Merely by the fact that C.R. Jatav (PW-11) has received intimation at Sleemnabad itself for recording of dying declaration could not be said to be doubtful circumstance as C.R. Jatav (PW-11) had stated that he had come to Sleemnabad in connection with some other work, being Naib Tahsildar of the area, i.e., Sleemnabad, it was not unusual presence of him at Sleemnabad itself, he received the information for recording dying declaration. Recording of dying declaration has also been proved by Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1). He appears to be truthful and is not shown to be interested in any manner with the complainant. He has clearly opined that deceased was in a fit state to make statement when her dying declaration (P/12) was recorded by C.R. Jatav. 8. We find that it has been proved by aforesaid evidence that dying declaration (P/12) had been recorded by C.R. Jatav, when we come to reliability of the same, it has been recorded with promptitude and statement of deceased finds corroboration by medical evidence that injuries were inflicted with the help of Baka, five incised wounds were found on her person in certificate (P/1). Beside, we find that she had made oral dying declaration also as stated by Sukbariabai (PW-5), mother of deceased, that Latora had inflicted injuries. 9. Beside, we find that she had made oral dying declaration also as stated by Sukbariabai (PW-5), mother of deceased, that Latora had inflicted injuries. 9. Now coming to the evidence of the witnesses, Chhuttan (PW-3) has stated that he was sitting at about 50 metres away from the mango tree, he heard hue and cry of Kambai, on that he rushed towards the spot and saw Latora was inflicting the injuries, may be that this witness has reached the spot when injuries had already been inflicted by accused Latora on the person of Kambai, as it was only after raising hue and cry, he had moved to the spot, he was at a considerable distance of 50 metres away. Bharoselal (PW-4), father of deceased, has stated that Kambai had gone to answer the call of nature, he heard hue and cry raised, he went to the spot and saw accused running towards the forest, he was unable to give any reason why injuries were inflicted by accused. It appears that this witness had seen the accused running away from the spot. In cross-examination the suggestion was given whether he had seen accused inflicting injuries, he had answered in positive but his examination-in-chief appears to be more reliable that he had seen the accused running away from the spot towards the forest. Sukbariabai (PW-5) has stated that when she saw Kambai she was speaking and had made oral dying declaration, in the dying declaration she had stated the name of accused Latora to be the assailant. However, in examination-in-chief she did not state that she had seen the incident, but in cross-examination again a suggestion was made that whether she had seen the accused inflicting injuries, she had answered in positive. However, her statement in examination-in-chief appears to be correct that when she had reached, she found Kambai lying in injured condition and Kambai had made oral dying declaration to her. Mohanlal (PW-6) has stated that before hearing hue and cry, he went towards the spot, he came to answer the call of nature, he saw Latora inflicting injuries on Kambai, he stopped at some distance due to fear of Latora, however, this statement does not inspire confidence, it appears that he had also reached the spot after the injuries were already inflicted and hue and cry was raised by Kambai. Pyarelal (PW-7) also reached the spot on hearing hue and cry, he had also stated that he had seen Latora inflicting injuries on Kambai, injuries were inflicted on head, waist and hand. He saw from a distance of 40 ft., he made no attempt to catch hold of accused Latora, it appears that he had also reached after hue and cry as mentioned in FIR by Kambai that all these witnesses came to spot after injuries were inflicted by her husband on her person. She has clearly mentioned in FIR that Pyarelal, Chhuttan, her father and Mohan came to the spot, by that time her husband had run away. She has disclosed the incident to them, consequently, we find that the aforesaid witness lends support to the extent that the oral dying declaration was made and as discussed above some of them had seen the accused running away from the spot, thereafter bullock cart was arranged and Kambai was taken to P.S. Sleemnabad. 10. In the post-mortem report performed by Dr. R.D. Namdeo (PW-10), aforesaid five incised wounds were found, caused by sharp cutting weapon. Cause of death was due to injury on the head. When we consider the submission raised by Shri Tiwari that deceased was not in the position to give dying declaration, we find that Dr. R.D. Namdeo (PW-10) has clearly stated that whether Kambai was in a position to give dying declaration or not could be opined by the doctor who had examined her first, person would reach in semi conscious condition or not on infliction of such an injury would depend upon the resistance of body, he could not opine with precision that whether it would be possible for a person to speak if injury was caused by cutting of peritoneum or due to cutting of parietal lobe. He has specifically denied the suggestion that due to cutting of peritoneum, it would not be possible for a person to speak. When we consider to the statement of Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1), he has also clearly stated that deceased was in the position to speak, no doubt he could not definitely opine that whether due to cutting of peritoneum, it would be possible for a person to speak. Thus, it has not been brought on record with the help of medical evidence that deceased was not in the position to speak or to give dying declaration. Thus, it has not been brought on record with the help of medical evidence that deceased was not in the position to speak or to give dying declaration. No motive was attributed to these witnesses C.R. Jatav, Dr. S.K. Pathak and Dr. R.D. Namdeo why they would make any wrong statement or to side with the complainant, they had no grudge against accused as such we find that dying declaration of Kambai to be reliable one and recording of it has also been established. When dying declaration itself has been proved, it need not be corroborated as held by Apex Court in Muthu Kutty and Another vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tami Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 113 thus:- “15. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worth while to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Paniben vs. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 403 : AIR 1992 SC 1817 (SCC pp. 480-481, Paras 18-19) (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. [See: Munnu Raja vs. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 376 : (1976) 2 SCR 764 ]. 480-481, Paras 18-19) (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. [See: Munnu Raja vs. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 376 : (1976) 2 SCR 764 ]. (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. [See: State of U.P. vs. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 127 : AIR 1985 SC 416 and Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 169 : AIR 1983 SC 164 ]. (iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. [See: K. Ramachandra Reddy vs. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 473 : AIR 1976 SC 1994 ]. (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. [See: Rasheed Beg vs. State of M.P. (1974) 4 SCC 264 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 426]. (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. [See: Kake Singh vs. State of M.P. (1981) Supp. SCC 25 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 645 : AIR 1982 SC 1021 ]. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. [See: Ram Manorath vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 654 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 581]. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. [See: State of Maharashtra vs. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 Supp. SCC 455 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 364 : AIR 1981 SC 617 ]. (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. [See: Surajdeo Ojha vs. State of Bihar, 1980 Supp. SCC 769 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 519 : AIR 1979 SC 1505 ]. (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. [See: Surajdeo Ojha vs. State of Bihar, 1980 Supp. SCC 769 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 519 : AIR 1979 SC 1505 ]. (ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. [See: Nanhau Ram vs. State of M.P. 1988 Supp. SCC 152 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 342 : AIR 1988 SC 912 ]. (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. [See: State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan, (1989) 3 SCC 390 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 585 : AIR 1989 SC 1519 ]. (xi) Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. [See: Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 1 SCC 700 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 334 : AIR 1982 SC 839 ].” 11. In Vishram and Others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1993 SC 250 , the Apex Court has observed that when an oral dying declaration had been given to interested witnesses, in the FIR lodged by father of deceased son after admitting him to the hospital, it was mentioned that dying declaration had been given and necessary details were also given, the Apex Court held that possibility of false implication had been ruled out in the case. 12. 12. In State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1776 , on the basis of evidence, it was held that after sustaining the kind of injuries which were caused to the deceased, it was extremely unsafe to place any credence on such a statement as brain functions of injured could have been impaired, but in the instant case the medical evidence is to the contrary that Kambai was in fit state to give statement in the morning and ultimately was referred to Jabalpur where she died in the evening, she reached to Jabalpur at 3.35 P.M. thus, we find no merit in the submission raised by Shri Tiwari that she was not at Sleemnabad about 11.15 A.M. when her dying declaration had been recorded. Distance between Jabalpur and Sleemnabad is stated to be 65 kms. when she was taken to Jabalpur and reached there at 3.35 P.M., obviously it would have taken approximately two hours to travel the distance, thus, presence of deceased at Sleemnabad at the time when her dying declaration had been recorded could not be doubted. In Sohanlal alias Sohan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 4466 it has been opined that certificate of doctor as to fitness of deponent in dying declaration is not necessary when dying declaration has been recorded by Executive Magistrate and Magistrate has testified that deceased was in a fit condition to give statement, no circumstances had been brought on record to suspect his bona fides, nothing was brought out to show as he was interested in fabricating a case against accused, absence of doctor's certificate on declaration itself does not make declaration unreliable. In the instant case, certificate was given, even if there had been no such certification or it being doubtful, we find the statement of Executive Magistrate to be quite reliable, apart from that Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-1) has supported in the instant case that deceased was fit to give dying declaration. 13. Coming to the submission raised by Shri Tiwari that on the dying declaration impression of left hand thumb was obtained whereas in the FIR impression of right hand thumb was obtained for the reason that there was injury on the left hand thumb of deceased. When we consider nature of injuries on the left hand of Kambai, left hand thumb was not injured, injury no. When we consider nature of injuries on the left hand of Kambai, left hand thumb was not injured, injury no. 5 was in the shape of incised wound of 4” x 2” x 1” on the dorsal of right hand below the base of index finger, obliquely placed. Considering the fact that there was no incised wound on left hand thumb, aforesaid injury in spite of it was possible to obtain left hand thumb impression on the dying declaration and obtaining of right hand thumb impression on the FIR was due to perception of person obtaining the impression, however, it appears that due to aforesaid injuries on the dorsal of the right hand, on the FIR, right hand thumb impression of deceased had been obtained and on dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate cum Naib Tahsildar, as there was possibility to obtain left hand thumb impression it had been obtained, and we do not find this to be a doubtful circumstance so as to discard dying declaration to be doubtful and subsequently prepared one. 14. Coming to the submission that there was Chhod Chhutti between Kambai and accused, question of Chhod Chhutti was not of much relevance, even if it was there, we find oral and written dying declarations of Kambai to be quite reliable, there was no reason for Kambai to implicate the accused falsely in the case and to spare the actual assailant if actual assailant was someone else. The strained relationship could have been the motive to commit the offence. 15. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302, Indian Penal Code are found to be proper. We find no merit in the appeal, appeal is devoid of merit, it is hereby dismissed.