JUDGMENT 1. - The accused appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.c. challenging the judgment dated 05.04.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bundi, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-11) of Kumari Maya recorded on 22.03.1997 at Government Hospital, Lakheri by Kailash Chand Sharma, SHO (PW-17). It was on the basis of the said Parcha Bayan that a First Information Report (65/1997) was registered by Hafeez Mohammed, ASI (PW-14) at Police Station, Lakheri, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 307, 452 and 509 IPC.In the said Parcha Bayan, it was stated by Kumari Maya that on 22.03.1997, at about 10 O'Clock, she was alone at her residence. Her father had gone to the shop and mother had taken the goats out for grazing. At that time, the accused Rafeeq Mohammed came and after having caught hold of her, wanted to have sexual intercourse forcefully. When she resisted the accused, he pored kerosene lying in a cane nearby and lit fire by taking out a matchbox from his pocket. Thereafter, when she raised hue and cry, the neighbourers assembled, which included mother of Dada Altaf, Razia and her brother Mangi Lal, etc. The brother of the deceased had then pored water on her clothes. As a result of the fire, face, hands, legs, etc of the deceased got burnt. Further, it is stated in the Parcha Bayan that earlier when Kumari Maya was cleaning the place by a broom, some pieces of garbage had gone on the Chabutara of Asanad. It was on that count that dispute arose. Later on, her brother carried her to the hospital. 3. After registration of the report on the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, investigation commenced and the police prepared the Naksha Mauka (Ex.P-8), seized the kerosene cane (Ex.P-9), collected the injury report (Ex.P-3), the dying declaration of the deceased Kumari Maya was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Lakheri (Ex.P-15), etc. Subsequently, Kumari Maya was referred to M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, where she expired on 07.04.1997. Consequently, postmortem report was got conducted and report (Ex.P-7) was obtained. The corpus was handed over to Ramnarayan, the father of the deceased. Subsequently, Kumari Maya was referred to M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, where she expired on 07.04.1997. Consequently, postmortem report was got conducted and report (Ex.P-7) was obtained. The corpus was handed over to Ramnarayan, the father of the deceased. The accused person was then arrested (Ex.P-13).On conclusion of the investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant for the offences under Section 452, 306 and 509 IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lakheri. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions which was transferred to the learned trial court. The trial commenced before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bundi by framing of charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 306 IPC. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, had produced 17 witnesses and had got 15 documents exhibited which were collected during the course of investigation. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court concluded the trial by passing the judgment impugned, on 05.04.2002. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, he has submitted that as per the evidence on record, including the Parcha Bayan and dying declaration, the deceased had not been burnt to death but she had committed suicide. It has also been submitted that the dying declaration was neither recorded in accordance with law nor it inspires confidence. In fact, according to the counsel for the appellant, the deceased was not in a proper mental state so as to give any statement and the same appears to have been tutored. Therefore, the dying declaration is not to be accepted, as being contrary to law. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the prosecution case has not been supported by its own witnesses. He has further submitted that a perusal of the postmortem report goes to show that Kumari Maya was pregnant and in order to save her face that she had committed suicide by poring kerosene. It is only on account of enmity that name of the accused appellant has been robbed in. He has further submitted that a perusal of the postmortem report goes to show that Kumari Maya was pregnant and in order to save her face that she had committed suicide by poring kerosene. It is only on account of enmity that name of the accused appellant has been robbed in. Therefore, it has been submitted that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused appellant. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court and submitted that the accusation against the accused appellant for the offence of murder is clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence on record. He has also submitted that the deceased Kumari Maya was in a fit mental state to give Parcha Bayan as well as the dying declaration and the averments made therein are corroborated by the evidence on record produced by the prosecution. Therefore, he has submitted that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned court below, against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, deserves to be maintained. 6. On careful perusal of the material on record, it is revealed that the incident in the present case had taken place, at about 10.00 am. on 22.03.1997. Thereafter, the injured Kumari Maya was taken to hospital. On having received the information, police went to the hospital and recorded the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-11). The Medico Legal Report was prepared (Ex.P-3) and burn injuries on face, limb, chest, abdomen, etc. on the body of Kumari Maya were found. She had sustained 80% burns. However, the patient was conscious. The SHO had then sent a requisition to the learned Magistrate concerned (Ex.P-14) for recording of the statement of the injured Kumari Maya. The learned Magistrate had recorded the statement after seeking opinion of the doctor regarding the condition of injured to give statements. The learned doctor had endorsed that the injured was in a condition to give statement, at point A to B and had signed at point C to D in Exhibit-P-14. The dying declaration was then recorded by the learned Magistrate (Ex.P-15). 7. The learned doctor had endorsed that the injured was in a condition to give statement, at point A to B and had signed at point C to D in Exhibit-P-14. The dying declaration was then recorded by the learned Magistrate (Ex.P-15). 7. On the Parcha Bayan of the injured, a regular FIR (65/1997) was recorded at Police Station Lakheri, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 307, 452 and 509 IPC. The investigation was then started and Naksha Mauka and Haalat Mauka were prepared. Further, police seized the kerosene container which was half filled and also recovered burnt clothes and ashes from the place of incident. The injured Kumari Maya succumbed to her injuries and died on 06.04.1997, at 6.00 pm. The postmortem report was prepared, at 8.30 am on 07.04.1997. In the meanwhile, police arrested the accused appellant on 04.04.1997.During the course of trial, the prosecution produced their witnesses which included Kailash Chand Sharma (PW-17) who had recorded the Parcha Bayan of the deceased (Ex.P-11). The statement of Dr. Mangi Lal (PW-4), the author of the injury report (Ex.P-3), had been recorded. Similarly, the statement of Dr. G.S. Vishnar (PW-10) was recorded by the learned trial court, who had conducted the postmortem and prepared the report (Ex.P-7). Further, the statement of the learned Magistrate P.D. Bairwa (PW-15) was recorded before the learned trial court who narrated about the recording of the dying declaration of the deceased Kumari Maya. 8. The primary evidence of the prosecution, in support of its case, is the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-11) and the dying declaration (Ex.P-15). Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the same on the ground that they were not in accordance to law and cannot be looked into in support of the prosecution story. So far as the Parcha Bayan of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution witness Kailash Chand Sharma (PW-17) has clearly deposed in respect of the same and we do not find any just reason for holding that the Parcha Bayan is not to be relied upon in support of the prosecution case or that the same is to be discarded. A perusal of the statement of Kailash Chand Sharma goes to show that he has given satisfactory narration of the facts leading to the recording of the Parcha Bayan of the deceased, after having reached the hospital. A perusal of the statement of Kailash Chand Sharma goes to show that he has given satisfactory narration of the facts leading to the recording of the Parcha Bayan of the deceased, after having reached the hospital. He has also corroborated the investigation conducted by him, as for instance, seizure of kerosene container, etc. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of the said witness so as to have any doubt in the prosecution case.Furthermore, a perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the Parcha Bayan of the deceased (Ex.P-11) is not at all doubtful. In fact, after recording of the same, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded at a later point of time, though the same was not placed on record or exhibited. Soon after recording of the Parcha Bayan, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lakheri had recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P-15) on the request made by the Investigation Agency. Even the Medical Jurist Dr. Mangi Lal (PW-4) has also stated that at the time of medical examination, the deceased was fully conscious. Therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that on account of the burn injuries, the deceased was not in a condition to give any statement (Parcha Bayan), cannot be accepted.When deceased survived for several days after burning incident, dying declaration cannot be rejected merely because of serious burn injuries on her person. It has been so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 138 . 9. Similarly, the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and there is no reason to have any doubt about it. The Investigation Officer as well as the learned Magistrate have clearly stated before the learned trial court with regard to the steps taken before recording of the dying declaration. Merely because the deceased was undergoing treatment in a hospital, at the relevant time, it cannot be said that she was not in a condition to give a statement. In fact, the learned Magistrate had inquired into the condition of the injured from the concerning doctor and only thereafter he had recorded her statement. Merely because the deceased was undergoing treatment in a hospital, at the relevant time, it cannot be said that she was not in a condition to give a statement. In fact, the learned Magistrate had inquired into the condition of the injured from the concerning doctor and only thereafter he had recorded her statement. The doctor concerned had also put an endorsement on (Ex.P-14) that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement.Besides, the dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Shri P.D. Bairwa (PW-15), on the requisition of the SHO, Lakheri (Ex.P-14), dated 22.03.1997. It was recorded by the learned Magistrate (Ex.P-15) in his own handwriting and signed. The thumb impression of the deceased was taken on the dying declaration, after the same having been read over to her. These circumstances further shows that the deceased was not only in a fit condition and state of mind to make statement but also that the dying declaration was true and made with free will. GG 10. As regards the mental state of the deceased at the time of recording of dying declaration, it may be noted that on the requisition sent by the SHO to the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording of the dying declaration, the doctor had put a note at place marked as A and B (Ex.P-14) that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement and he had duly signed, marked as C and D. The learned Magistrate (PW-15) had also referred to the endorsement and signature of the doctor, during the course of trial. He had categorically stated, before the trial court that it was only after the endorsement of the doctor that he had recorded the dying declaration and the same was read over to her and thumb impression was taken. In these circumstances, the contention that a separate fitness certificate of the deceased should have been obtained from the Medical Jurist before recording of the statement does not have any substance.The contention raised on behalf of the accused that the endorsement of the Medical Jurist was obtained on the requisition (Ex.P-14), at a subsequent point of time, also does not have any basis and no such suggestion was put, on behalf of the accused, at the time of cross-examining, either the Doctor (PW-15) or the SHO (PW-17). It appears from the order passed by the learned court below that such contention had been raised, for the first time, only at the stage of final argument. 11. It is also to be noted that Dr. Mangi Lal (PW-4) who had prepared the Medico Legal Report (Ex.P-3) has categorically stated that during the course of examination, the deceased was fully conscious and it was on account of burns on her body that she was referred to the hospital at Kota. A careful perusal of the statement of Dr. Mangi Lal reveals that no suggestion to the effect that the deceased was not in a condition to speak at the time of examination, had not even been put to him during the examination. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts which have emerged from the evidence on record are that soon after the injuries sustained, (a) the deceased was taken to the hospital, (b) her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Mangi Lal (PW-4) and she was fully conscious, (c) immediately thereafter requisition was sent to the learned Magistrate, (d) the dying declaration was recorded after an endorsement made by the Medical Jurist, (e) the relatives of the deceased were sent out of the room at the time of recording of the dying declaration, (f) the same was recorded in a question and answer form, (g) which was read over to her and her thumb impression was got recorded on the same. It goes to show that there is no reason at all to have any doubt in respect of the dying declaration. The said dying declaration does inspire confidence and we are fully satisfied that it is true and correct and given by the deceased with her free will.In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such declaration needs to be considered, in the case of Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 209 . This view was later followed, in the case of Varjala Paripurnachary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 2680 and in the case of Thiru Sudali @ Madaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 1434 . 12. The other evidence on record produced by the prosecution, as for instance, the statement of Dr. Mangi Lal (PW-4), Ram Narayan (PW-3), Reena (PW-6), etc. 12. The other evidence on record produced by the prosecution, as for instance, the statement of Dr. Mangi Lal (PW-4), Ram Narayan (PW-3), Reena (PW-6), etc. clearly establishes that the deceased was alone at the time of incident, she had cleaned up the Chabutara with a broom, some garbage had gone on the Chabutara of the accused, as a result of which some verbal altercation took place between the women folk and it resulted in a scuffle between them. Thereafter, when the dispute was over, the accused, who was sitting on the Chabutara, started abusing the deceased while she was cleaning the floor in her house. He then went inside and after pouring kerosene, lying in container nearby, lit fire to her. Prosecution witness Mangi Lal (PW-2) has also admitted in his statement that when he saw his sister burning he had poured water from the bucket by which the deceased was cleaning the floor. 13. In view of the aforesaid prosecution evidence including the Parcha Bayan as well as the dying declaration of the deceased, there is no reason to have any doubt on the same and we are satisfied that the same inspires confidence. In that situation, other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no significance, as for instance, that the postmortem report does not fully corroborate the prosecution story of burning, it is not a case of murder, the deceased had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself, as she was pregnant, the genesis of occurrence was something different than the one brought out by the prosecution, etc. etc. and are devoid of merits. There was no material on record from which such probabilities/inferences can be drawn. Moreover, such contentions appears to be an afterthought on the part of the accused because during the course of trial, no such thing was pointed out or raised by way of suggestion to any of the prosecution witnesses. It was only at the time of final hearing, before the learned trial court, that such like contentions had been taken up on behalf of the accused appellant. 14. It was only at the time of final hearing, before the learned trial court, that such like contentions had been taken up on behalf of the accused appellant. 14. In view of the above material on record, by way of prosecution evidence such as Parcha Bayan and the dying declaration of the deceased which were given with free will and in full conscious condition and state of mind, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is a settled preposition of law that if the dying declaration is satisfactory and convincing then no further corroboration from prosecution evidence is required and an accused can be convicted only on the basis of the same.It is a settled principle of law, since long, that once a Court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no need for further corroboration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , laid down in Para-16 as under: "On a review of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and of the decided cases in the different High Courts in India and in this court, we have come to the conclusion, in agreement with the opinion of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, aforesaid, (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated, (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made, (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence, (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence, (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night, whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control, that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it, and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties." The aforesaid principle has thereafter been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439 , Kusa v. State of Orissa, AIR 1980 SC 559 , State of UP v. Ramsagar Yadav, AIR 1985 SC 416 and Kishanlal Shethi v. Jaggannath, AIR 1990 SC 1357 . The principle governing dying declaration had been later on summed up by the Apex Court in the case of Paniben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817 , wherein it has held as under:- "(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration, (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corrobrative evidence. (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (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. (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 eye-witness has said that the deceased was in a fit a conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon." Dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. Therefore, a dying declaration found reliable can form the basis of conviction. This view of this Court is supported by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narain Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1616 : 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 672 Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the accused appellant. This view of this Court is supported by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narain Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1616 : 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 672 Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the accused appellant. The finding arrived at by the learned trial court and the judgment passed by it, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court. 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused appellant is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bundi in Sessions Case No.83/2001 is hereby affirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******