Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, bhopal in S. T. No. 98/99, decided on 22. 05. 2000. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 302 of ipc for committing murder of his wife Mohar Bai and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default imprisonment for three months, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, deceased Mohar Bai (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was the wife of the appellant and both of them lived in CWC quarter at Bhopal. On 4. 1. 99 about 7:00 P. M. , on an information received at p. S. Nishatpura, Bhopal that there was fire in CWC quarter on the Second Floor, ASI B. M. Dwivedi as well Sub-Inspector g. P. Dubey reached there and found that Mohar Bai was lying on the door of her house in burnt condition. She was then taken out of her house and FIR as narrated by her, in the form of Dehati Nalishi, was recorded. Mohar Bai was then rushed to the hospital for management and treatment. Her dying declaration was also recorded in the hospital. In her dying declaration, deceased made a statement that her husband/appellant Gopal had poured kerosene oil over her body and burnt her. Mohar Bai however, succumbed to her burn injuries at 10. 15 night. The intimation of her death was sent to the Police Station Nishatpura by the hospital authorities, whereupon merg intimation was recorded and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased Mohar Bai was sent for postmortem examination. During investigation, the half burnt clothes of the deceased and matchstick were seized from the spot and spot map was prepared. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. ( 5. ) LEARNED Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife Mohar Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her body and setting her ablaze, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 7. ( 6. ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 7. ) IT was no longer disputed that deceased Mohar Bai died of burn injuries. It is also reflected from the testimony of Dr. Ashok Sharma (P. W-7), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased mohar Bai, that deceased had 78% burns of 2nd to 3rd degree, over her body and the smell of kerosene was present on her scalp, hair and the clothes and cause of her death was respiratory failure as a result of antemortem burns. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the trial court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the dying declarations of the deceased and failed to consider that appellant was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 9. ) WE have gone through the entire evidence on record. ( 10. ) A. S. I. B. M. Dwivedi (P. W-12) deposed in his evidence that on 4. 1. 99, upon receiving an information of fire in CWC quarter, he reached there about 7 oclock in the evening and found that Mohar Bai was lying in burnt condition at the door of her house. She was alive and speaking and she lodged the FIR (Ex. P-13), which was recorded verbatim and her thumb impression was also obtained on it. The FIR (Ex. P-13) lodged by deceased herself, has to be treated as dying declaration after her death. As per contents of the FIR (Ex. P-13), her husband Gopal had poured kerosene oil over her and set her ablaze by match stick and walked away from the house. A perusal of Ex. P-13 indicates that the FIR in the form of Dehati Nalishi was promptly recorded on the place of occurrence at CWC quarter, Second Floor. ( 11. ) AS per the evidence of Sub Inspector suresh Kumar (P. W-9), he also recorded the statement of mohar Bai (Ex. P-11) on 4. 1. 99 at Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, which is also to be read as dying declaration of the deceased after her death. ( 12. ) THE dying declaration recorded by Nayab Tahsildar makhan Singh Nagar (P. W-13) is also on record. According to nayab Tahsildar Makhan Singh Nagar, on 4. 1. 99 at 9. P-11) on 4. 1. 99 at Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, which is also to be read as dying declaration of the deceased after her death. ( 12. ) THE dying declaration recorded by Nayab Tahsildar makhan Singh Nagar (P. W-13) is also on record. According to nayab Tahsildar Makhan Singh Nagar, on 4. 1. 99 at 9. 25 he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased as per ex. P-14 after obtaining certificate of the fitness of deponent from the duty doctor and recorded the statement of the deceased as narrated by her. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain (P. W-15)has corroborated this fact that before recording of her dying declaration by Nayab Tahsildar at Hamidia Hospital on 4. 1. 99 he had examined Mohar Bai and certified that she was fully conscious and fit to give her statement and then her dying declaration (Ex. P-14) was recorded by Nayab Tahsildar, in his presence, which also bears his signatures as well as the certification. As per dying declaration (Ex. P-14) of the deceased recorded by Nayab Tahsildar and Executing magistrate, her husband appellant Gopal had poured kerosene oil over her body and set her ablaze. ( 13. ) THERE are no reasons to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence, particularly the evidence of Nayab Tahsildar makhan Singh Nagar (P. W-13), who recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P-14), and Dr. Ajay Jain (P. W-15), who had examined the deceased before recording of her dying declaration and certified her to be fit to give statement. No enmity with either of these witnesses has been suggested so as to falsely implicate the appellant. ( 14. ) THERE is also no inconsistency or incoherence in the dying declaration (Ex. P-14), Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-13) and the statement of deceased (Ex. P-11) recorded by sub-Inspector Suresh Kumar (P. W-9 ). The substratum of all these dying declarations remained the same that the appellant Gopal had poured kerosene oil over the body of mohar Bai and set her ablaze. There is nothing on record to indicate that dying declaration made by the deceased was the result of any tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. There are also no reasons to doubt or suspect that the dying declaration made by the deceased, particularly (Ex. P-14) is not a true and voluntary statement made by the deceased. There is nothing on record to indicate that dying declaration made by the deceased was the result of any tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. There are also no reasons to doubt or suspect that the dying declaration made by the deceased, particularly (Ex. P-14) is not a true and voluntary statement made by the deceased. There is also nothing on record to indicate that her death was either suicidal or accidental. ( 15. ) ALTHOUGH some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, such as Mohan Bai (P. W-1), Gulab Bai (P. W-2), harinarayan (P. W-3), Sunder Singh (P. W-4) and ashok Kumar (P. W-5) did not depose against the appellant and were declared hostile by the prosecution, but that cannot be a reason to discard the dying declaration (Ex. P-14) of the deceased duly recorded by Nayab Tahsildar Makhan Singh nagar (P. W-13) and her other dying declarations. It is well settled as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Satish ambanna Bansode Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in air 2009 Supreme Court page 1626 that dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be true and voluntary. ( 16. ) IT was well established from the aforesaid dying declarations of the deceased that appellant poured kerosene oil over the deceased, set her ablaze and thereby intentionally caused her death. The trial court, therefore, rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for intentionally causing the death of his wife Mohar Bai. ( 17. ) THUS we find no merit in this appeal. We uphold the conviction of the appellant and life sentence with fine of rs. 500/- awarded to him under Section 302 of IPC. Appeal fails and is dismissed.