JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat on 10. 2. 2003 and 11. 2. 2003 respectively thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 498a and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. ON the basis of a complaint lodged by P. W. 1, father of the deceased swarnalatika Pramanik, a case was registered with Margram Police Station alleging commission of offence under Section 498a/302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in short, is that the daughter of the informant swarnalatika was married with accused appellant, Gour Prosad Pramanik, on 20. 4. 1987 and after such marriage her daughter was subjected to cruelty and physical and mental torture by her husband, Gour Prosad Pramanik and mother-in-law. When such torture exceeded its limit, victim Swarnalatika lodged a written complaint at Margram Police Station against her husband and mother-in-law. After investigation the case was charge-sheeted. Victim Swarnalatika was thereafter taken to her matrimonial home as the matter was amicably settled, but such torture continued after she was brought to her matrimonial home and ultimately on 26.06.1991 at about 11.30 Hrs. the accused appellant poured kerosene oil on the body of the victim, Swarnalatika and set her on fire. Swarnalatika sustained severe burn injuries and expired at Rampurhat S. D. Hospital. Before her death she gave statements to a large number of villagers and also to the Doctor at Rampurhat hospital about the cause of her death and her statement was recorded by the doctor (P.W.12). On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 498a / 302 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Judge framed charges under Section 498a IPC, under Section 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act and Section 302 of IPC, alternatively, under Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code. 3. TO prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Two d. Ws. were examined by the defence. P. W. 1, Rabindra Nath Pramanik, is the father of the victim and is the informant. P. W. 1 corroborated his earlier statements made in the FIR and deposed that on 26. 06. 3. TO prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Two d. Ws. were examined by the defence. P. W. 1, Rabindra Nath Pramanik, is the father of the victim and is the informant. P. W. 1 corroborated his earlier statements made in the FIR and deposed that on 26. 06. 1991 he was informed by one Santi Pramanik that his daughter, Swarnalatika @ Jharna had sustained burn injuries. Having received such information P. W. 1 along with some of his co-villagers went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found her daughter lying on the varandah with burn injuries on her person. This witness further deposed that on being asked she disclosed that accused appellant had poured kerosene oil on her body and set fire. Thereafter this witness along with others removed her daughter to Rampurhat S. D. Hospital, but ultimately she expired in the hospital. P. W. 2, Chittaranjan Hore stated in his evidence that deceased Jharna and the accused were known to him and that immediately after marriage she was subjected to torture and ill-treatment on demand of dowry. He also stated that earlier a case was registered by victim Jharna with Margram Police Station alleging such torture and ill-treatment by her husband and mother-in-law. This witness also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars. P. W. 3, Naba Kumar Simlandi stated in his evidence that he got information about the incident and rushed to the place of occurrence at about 11.30 / 11.45 a. M. and found the victim with burn injuries almost all over the body. This witness along with others made arrangements for taking the victim to the hospital. P. W. 5, Gadadhar Pramanik has stated in his evidence that after receiving information from the father of Jharna, he accompanied him to the house of the accused appellant where he found the victim Jharna lying on the varandah with severe burn injuries and crying for help. He also stated that Jharna made statement that she was set on fire by her husband after pouring kerosene oil on her body. P. W. 6, Santi Charan Pramanik is a resident of the same village and he saw victim Jharna when she was being carried in a trolley van to hospital. P. W. 8, Smt. Shova Pramanik is the mother of the deceased Jharna. P. W. 6, Santi Charan Pramanik is a resident of the same village and he saw victim Jharna when she was being carried in a trolley van to hospital. P. W. 8, Smt. Shova Pramanik is the mother of the deceased Jharna. She also corroborated the evidence of her husband (P. W. 1) and further stated that after reaching the place of occurrence, she found that her daughter was lying on varandah and was crying for help. She was taken to hospital and after sometimes she expired. P. W. 9, Santosh Kumar Das was accompanied by P. W. 1 to the matrimonial home of deceased Jharna and he further stated that there was trouble and a case was started against the accused appellant earlier. He also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 8. This witness further stated that on the date of the incident at about 11.30 / 11.45 A. M. he found that the parents and relatives of Jharna were proceeding towards the matrimonial home of the victim Jharna hastily and on being asked by this witness they reported that Jharna sustained severe burn injuries. This witness also accompanied them to the matrimonial home of Jharna and found that victim was lying on the varandah with burn injuries. Jharna reported before them that she was set on fire by her husband (accused appellant), who poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. This witness further stated that on the way to hospital Jharna was taken to Margram Police Station wherefrom she was removed to hospital where Jharna made a statement to the Medical officer. P. W. 10 is a formal witness, who held inquest over the deadbody. P. W. 11 is the Medical Officer and is the autopsy surgeon. It was his opinion that death was due to ante-mortem burn injuries leading to shock. P. W. 12 is Doctor Pradip Kumar Prodhan, who recorded the dying statement of victim Jharna. This witness has clearly stated in his evidence that the patient (Swarnalatika @ Jharna) made a statement to the effect that kerosene oil was poured on her body by her husband, who threw a lighted matchstick and set her on fire. This witness also proved the statement of victim, Swarnalatika recorded by him, which is also marked as Ext. 7. This witness has clearly stated in his evidence that the patient (Swarnalatika @ Jharna) made a statement to the effect that kerosene oil was poured on her body by her husband, who threw a lighted matchstick and set her on fire. This witness also proved the statement of victim, Swarnalatika recorded by him, which is also marked as Ext. 7. This witness further stated that no sedative was administered to the patient prior to recording her statement by him and she made the statement consciously. P. W. 13 is the 2nd Investigating Officer of the case and he stated that the case was earlier investigated by P. W. 15, S. I. Ajay Chakraborty but before completion of investigation, he was transferred to some other police station and as such the case was handed over to him. P. W. 14, Joy Gopal Sarkar, is a formal witness and is the Record Keeper attached to the Rampurhat S. D. Hospital. He produced the Injury cum Admission register of the hospital. P. W. 15, S. I. Ajay Chakraborty was the Investigating Officer of the case. Initially the case was investigated by him but thereafter he was transferred to some other police station and as such the case was handed over to P. W. 13 for completion of investigation. 4. THIS is a case in which there is no eyewitness to the incident of pouring kerosene or setting fire. The conviction is based mainly on dying declaration made by the deceased Swarnalatika to the witnesses as also to the Doctor (P. W. 12). It is in the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses that hearing a hue and cry they came to the house of the accused appellant and found the victim Swarnalatika in burnt condition. To some of the witnesses the victim stated that her husband poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. Nobody has claimed to have seen the incident of pouring kerosene oil and setting fire by the appellant, but the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that victim Swarnalatika disclosed before them that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. It is argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that the deceased jharna was not in a position to make the statement before the Doctor before her death. It is argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that the deceased jharna was not in a position to make the statement before the Doctor before her death. She sustained serious burn injuries and it was not possible for her to make any statement before the Doctor, but such argument does not appeal to us. Dr. Pradip Kumar Prodhan (P. W. 12), Medical Officer of Rampurhat S. D. Hospital, examined the deceased, Swarnalatika and recorded her statement. This witness stated in his evidence that the patient was found conscious at the time of her examination and she made a statement before him consciously. This witness clearly stated in his evidence that the patient made statement to him to the effect that kerosene oil was poured upon her by her husband forcibly and thereafter a lighted matchstick was thrown over her and thus, she caught fire. Ext. 7 is the recorded statement of the deceased, Swarnalatika @ Jharna. The Doctor is the fit and proper person to record the statement of the patient. There is nowhere in his evidence that the patient was not in a fit condition to make the statement before him. P. W. 12 was cross-examined at length but nothing infirm could be elicited from his evidence. The Doctor is an independent witness and there is no reason for him to depose falsely. After going through the evidence of P. W. 12 we do not find any reason to disbelieve him. 5. AS we have already stated above, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence i. e. incident of pouring kerosene and setting fire on the victim and the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the dying declaration (Ext. 7). Thus, the question that emerges for consideration is whether the statement of the deceased i.e. dying declaration is reliable and whether conviction of the appellant can be based on the dying declaration. 6. WE also find that there are witnesses before whom the victim made dying statement to the effect that her husband poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. Those witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing infirm was elicited to cast even a slightest doubt on their veracity. It should not be lost sight of that there was no reason as to why the said witnesses would falsely implicate the accused person. Those witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing infirm was elicited to cast even a slightest doubt on their veracity. It should not be lost sight of that there was no reason as to why the said witnesses would falsely implicate the accused person. There was no suggestion even for such false implication. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the dying declaration (Ext. 7) which was recorded by P. W. 12. From the evidence of P. W. 12 it becomes clear that the patient was very much conscious to make the statement before the Doctor. So there is no reason to disbelieve such dying declaration. The learned Advocate, with reference to the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses, submits that after hearing the hue and cry the said witnesses rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the victim lying on the varandah with burn injuries. From the evidence on record, it also appears that earlier a case was registered with Margram Police Station against the husband and mother-in-law of victim Swarnalatika alleging commission of torture and ill-treatment. The matter was thereafter amicably settled and the victim Swarnalatika was brought back to her matrimonial home, but the torture continued even after that and ultimately she was killed by her husband. 7. THE learned Advocate of the appellant relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court reported in 2007 (4) All India Criminal Law Reporter Page 374. In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base conviction on it without corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. 8. THE next judgment is reported in 1981 SCC (Cri.) 645 (Kake Singh @ surendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). In the said case dying declaration was recorded by a Head Constable showing suspicious features. Medical evidence suggested the possibility of the deceased becoming unconscious on sustaining the injuries. In such circumstances, the dying declaration was held by the Hon'ble apex Court as not reliable. State of Madhya Pradesh). In the said case dying declaration was recorded by a Head Constable showing suspicious features. Medical evidence suggested the possibility of the deceased becoming unconscious on sustaining the injuries. In such circumstances, the dying declaration was held by the Hon'ble apex Court as not reliable. In another judgment reported in (2008) 1 Calcutta criminal Law Reporter (SC) 269 (Nallapati Sivaiah Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur, A. P.) it was held that the dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction but such dying declaration must be voluntary and not by tutoring. In the said case there were two dying declarations and there was inconsistency between the statements in the dying declaration. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that such a dying declaration is not reliable. In absence of any corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court was of the view that conviction cannot be recorded on such dying declaration only. We have gone through the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. In our considered view, the said judgments do not have any manner of application in the present case. The facts and circumstances, in which the said judgments were delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, are quite different from the present case. In the present case, as we have already recorded, immediately after the incident the neighbouring people as also the relatives of the victim came to the place of occurrence and victim Swarnalatika stated before them that her husband poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. When she was brought to the hospital her statement was recorded by P. W. 12, the attending Doctor. P. W. 12 has clearly stated in his evidence that the victim was conscious when she made her statement. The Doctor is an independent witness and he does not have any enmity with the accused appellant. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Doctor (P. W. 12). 9. WE have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have also scrutinized the entire evidence on record. The Doctor is an independent witness and he does not have any enmity with the accused appellant. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Doctor (P. W. 12). 9. WE have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have also scrutinized the entire evidence on record. As we have already stated above, the dying declaration in the present case does not suffer from any infirmity, we are of the view that where the statement of a dying person passes the test of careful scrutiny applied by a Court the statement should be accepted to be most reliable piece of evidence, which needs no corroboration. It is also now well settled by a catena of decisions that dying declaration can form the basis of conviction if it is found to be reliable. In the present case we find that the maker of the statement was in a fit state of mind and had voluntarily made the statement without being influenced by others and on strict scrutiny we find the same reliable. The totality of evidence of the witnesses coupled with the dying declaration as also the medical evidence makes it clear and sufficient to hold the accused appellant guilty of the offence of murder. We are of the view that there is no merit in the present appeal. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed. 10. THE appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. The accused appellant, who is now in jail custody, will serve out the remaining period of his sentence. A copy of this judgement along with LCR may be sent down to the court below immediately.