JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved of the judgment dated 1.9.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 12/2005, the accused Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned trial Court had convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which to further undergo six months S.I. 2. The prosecution case was initiated on a Purchabayan (Ex.P/11) of Smt. Ratni Devi, while she was undergoing medical treatment, recorded by Rameshwar Dayal, A.S.I., (PW/21) on 4.10.2004 at 6.30 AM, at Government Yagya Narain Hospital, Kishangarh, Ajmer. It was stated by Smt. Ratni Devi that she is in conscious state of mind. Further, that she has 5 sons out of which, Bhanwar is the eldest one, Jeet Mal is younger to him, Babulal @ Pappu is younger to him and the youngest is Ramesh and all of them live separately. It was also stated that Ramesh lived with her. On 3rd October, 2004 in the night at about 10-11 PM, it was stated by Smt. Ratni Devi, that Babulal had come to her in a drunken position and started abusing. Further, he stated as to why she abused him the whole day. Thereafter, Babulal poured kerosene on Ratni Devi and put her on fire. She had then raised hue and cry as a result of which her son Ramesh came down and tried to extinguish the fire. The blouse worn by Smt. Ratni Devi was burnt and she sustained injuries on her neck as well as on different parts of the body. Smt. Ratni Devi further stated in her Purchabayan that Babulal often used to abuse her. The wife of Ramesh also came down from the First Floor and then Ramesh took her to the hospital where she was admitted. It was also stated by Smt. Ratni Devi that her husband was also at home, at that time. 3. The said Purchabayan bears the signature of Kishore Kumar Tanwani the Medical Officer, dated 4.10.2004 at 6.30 AM, with the endorsement that "statement taken before him." The said Purchabayan also bears the thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi with the date as 4.10.2004. 3. The said Purchabayan bears the signature of Kishore Kumar Tanwani the Medical Officer, dated 4.10.2004 at 6.30 AM, with the endorsement that "statement taken before him." The said Purchabayan also bears the thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi with the date as 4.10.2004. There under Rameshwar Dayal, SI, Police Station, Kishangarh had put a note mentioning inter alia that there were burn injuries on the neck, chest and stomach of the person of Smt. Ratni Devi. Further it mentions that the aforesaid Purchabayan had been read over to Smt. Ratni Devi and after having understood the same, she had put her thumb impression. It is also mentioned that the Purchabayan was recorded in presence of Dr. K.K. Tanwani. Under the said endorsement (Karvahi Police), the Police Officer had put his signature mentioning the date as 4.10.2004 at 6.30 AM. The thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi was also put along with it. Subsequently, another Karvahi Police was drawn by the SHO on 4.10.2004 at 7.15 AM mentioning that Purchabayan of Smt. Ratni Devi had been recorded by Rameshwar, SI and according to it, the offence under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC is made out. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Rameshwar Dayal, SI. It was on the said endorsement by SHO that the First Information Report came to be registered as FIR No. 236/2004 (Ex.22). 4. On registration of the report, usual investigation commenced and the accused was taken into custody. The statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded and the police collected the evidence relating to the incident. On account of serious condition of Smt. Ratni Devi, she was referred to the JLN Hospital, Ajmer. However, Smt. Ratni Devi had thereafter died on 5.10.2004 at JLN Hospital, Ajmer and the police converted the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The post mortem report of deceased was also got conducted. On conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused Appellant before the concerning Court. The matter was then committed to the Court of sessions and thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer Camp at Kishangarh and registered as Sessions Case No. 12/2005. The trial commenced after framing of charge on 10.2.2005 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The trial commenced after framing of charge on 10.2.2005 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution had in support of its case, produced 23 witnesses and 26 documents which were duly exhibited. Subsequently, the statement of the accused Appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that the prosecution witnesses and their evidence is false. Further, it was stated that he has not committed the alleged crime. As regards the witness Susheela, it was stated that she is his `brother' who had later on became eunuch (Kinnar). It was also stated that he had taken the deceased to the hospital and then he went back to his home at about 8-9 PM. In the morning of the next day, he was informed that her mother has committed suicide by putting fire to herself.In defence, the accused Appellant had produced three witnesses namely, Mahendra Jain, Smt. Anjoo and Bhanwar Lal. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Appellant for the offences as aforementioned. 5. It was contended on behalf of the accused Appellant that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in passing the impugned judgment for the reason that the prosecution in the instant case has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While inviting attention of the Court to various documents on record as for instance Nakshamauka (Ex.P/2), statement of deceased Ratni Devi under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.24), the statement of Susheela (PW/20), the medical jurist etc., it has been contended that there is no incriminating evidence against the Appellant. The articles seized by the Investigating Agency does not show that it was a case of burning by kerosene. The material articles like the cot, the blouse etc. had not been seized so as to corroborate the case of the prosecution. It has also been submitted that perusal of the three statements of the deceased, namely Purchabayan (Ex.P/11) under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P/24), and the statements of deceased recorded by the Magistrate (Ex. P/15) goes to show that the time in respect of the incident has been changed. It has also been submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased is an outcome of tutoring by Susheela (PW/20), who was very much present at the hospital. P/15) goes to show that the time in respect of the incident has been changed. It has also been submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased is an outcome of tutoring by Susheela (PW/20), who was very much present at the hospital. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside as the case of the prosecution has not been proved on the basis of any legal evidence. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the cases of State of Punjab v. Praveen Kumar, 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 340 : 2004 Suppl (1) AD (SC) 294 , Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka, 2008 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 308 : 2007 (3) Crimes 291 (SC) , Chinnamma v. State of Kerala, 2004 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 531 : 2004 Cri.L.J. 1447 , State of Gujarat v. Khuman Singh Karshan Singh and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1641 , Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 374 and State through CBI v. Mahendra Singh Daiya, 2011 II AD (SC) 161 . 6. On the other side, the learned Public Prosecutor has fully supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has thoroughly considered the evidence on record and it is with cogent reasons that he has come to the conclusion about the truthfulness of the dying declaration of deceased and also the other evidence on record produced by the prosecution. It has also been submitted that the deceased was in a perfect state of mind at the time of recording of the Purchabayan by the police at 6.30 AM on 4.10.2004. This fact has been endorsed by the medical jurist who was present at that time. Moreover, the dying declaration (Ex.15) was recorded by the learned Magistrate with full satisfaction about the condition of the deceased, after obtaining the opinion from the medical jurist with regard to fitness of Smt. Ratni Devi to give the statement. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no reason whatsoever not to rely upon the dying declaration given by the deceased wherein she has specifically alleged against the accused Appellant for having burnt her, which resulted in her death. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no reason whatsoever not to rely upon the dying declaration given by the deceased wherein she has specifically alleged against the accused Appellant for having burnt her, which resulted in her death. It has been thus submitted that the learned trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and the same is in accordance to law which does not warrant any interference by this Court. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P., AIR 2011 SC 604 , and Abrar v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 354 . 7. After the incident in the night intervening 3-4th October, 2004, the injured Ratni Devi was taken to Yagya Narain Hospital, Kishangarh and was got admitted. The information about injuries of burns sustained by Smt. Ratni Devi at her residence reached the Police Station at about 4.45 AM on 4th October, 2004. Thereafter, Rameshwardayal, S.I., along with Durga Prasad and Manak Lal had reached Yagya Narain Hospital. After having come to the injured Ratni Devi at the Hospital, Rameshwar Dayal (PW/21) inquired about her condition from Dr. K.K. Talwani. The statements of injured Ratni Devi was then recorded in the presence of Dr. K.K. Talwani. The injured had stated in detail about the incident and specifically alleged that Babulal who was in a drunken state, poured Kerosene and set her on fire. After recording of the statement (Ex.P/11), an endorsement was made by Dr. K.K. Talwani (PW/19) that the statement was taken before him. The thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi was put and her son Kishan Lal had also signed.The endorsement (Karvahi Police) recorded by Rameshwar Dayal, underneath the statement, gives about the injuries sustained by Ratni Devi on various parts of her body and that after recording of statement, the same was read over to the injured which she understood and put her thumb impression. The statement of Ratni Devi was recorded at about 6.30 AM, and thereafter Rameshwardayal submitted the same before the SHO of Police Station, Kishangarh who had also drawn the Kavahi Police and ordered for registration of the case (236/2004). Thereafter, handed over the investigation to Rameshwardayal SI at about 7.15 AM of 4th October, 2004. The statement of Ratni Devi was recorded at about 6.30 AM, and thereafter Rameshwardayal submitted the same before the SHO of Police Station, Kishangarh who had also drawn the Kavahi Police and ordered for registration of the case (236/2004). Thereafter, handed over the investigation to Rameshwardayal SI at about 7.15 AM of 4th October, 2004. The fact with regard to the proceedings undertaken and recording of the statement of Ratni Devi was deposed in detail by Rameshwardayal (PW/21) before the learned trial Court. Similarly, as per Dr. K.K. Talwani (PW/19), the statement of Smt. Ratni Devi (Ex.P/11), was recorded before him and he had made the endorsement on it with his signature, date and time. 8. On having been taken to Yagya Narain Hospital, the injured Smt. Ratni Devi was admitted by Dr. K.K. Talwar, the Medical Officer at 6.30 AM on 4.10.2004. Thereafter, the injuries on the person of Smt. Ratni Devi were examined by the Doctor which were sustained by burning. The medico-legal report (Ex.P/23) was prepared wherein it was mentioned that Smt. Ratni Devi had sustained 63% burns, the same were fresh and dangerous to life. Dr. K.K. Talwani, PW/19 had proved the injury report when he appeared in the witness box during the course of trial. Rameshwardayal, the Investigating Officer, PW/21 had also deposed about preparation of the injury report by Dr. Talwani. 9. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Smt. Ratni Devi under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P/24). The recording of the said statement was also proved by the Investigating Officer during the course of trial. He has also stated that the mental condition of Smt. Ratni Devi was perfect at the time of giving the statement.On having seen extensive burns on the person of Smt. Ratni Devi, the Investigating Agency had requested the concerning Magistrate for recording of her statements under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure The said statement was recorded in the afternoon on 4.10.2004. The said statement was recorded in the form of questions- answers by Shri Ravi Sharma, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kishangarh (PW/9). Before recording the statement, the learned Magistrate inquired about the condition of the injured from Dr. Gopal Mathur (PW/23). An endorsement that the injured was in a fit condition to give statement was recorded by Doctor, on the letter of request itself (Ex.P/14) sent to him by the police. Before recording the statement, the learned Magistrate inquired about the condition of the injured from Dr. Gopal Mathur (PW/23). An endorsement that the injured was in a fit condition to give statement was recorded by Doctor, on the letter of request itself (Ex.P/14) sent to him by the police. The learned Magistrate started recording the statements of Ratni Devi at 12.15 noon, and the same was over on 12.35 PM. The medical doctor Dr. Gopal Mathur was present at the time when the statements of deceased Ratni Devi was recorded (Ex.P/15).It has been deposed by the learned Magistrate, during the course of trial, that Smt. Ratni Devi was in a fit condition to give statement and she had properly replied to the question put to her. There was nothing unnatural in the behaviour of the injured at the time of recording of the statement by the learned Magistrate. Dr. Gopal Mathur (PW/23), had also categorically deposed during trial with regard to the statement of Ratni Devi, as having been recorded on 4.10.2004 at 12.15 AM by Shri Ravi Sharma, ACJM, Kishangarh. He had also stated that Smt. Ratni Devi was in a fit condition to give statement and the endorsement in this regard was given by him on Ex.P/14. The medical jurist Dr. Gopal Mathur was on duty on 4.10.2004 from 9.00 AM to 2.00 PM. Smt. Ratni Devi was admitted in his ward and he was the treating doctor. 10. In view of the above, it is clear that soon after the incident, Smt. Ratni Devi was taken to the hospital, information was received by the police and immediately her Purchabayan was recorded, on which report was registered. Soon thereafter, the investigation commenced. The medico-legal report of the injured Ratni Devi was then prepared by Dr. K.K. Talwani (PW/19) and it was in his presence that the Purcha Bayan of the deceased was recorded. The police had, without any loss of time, also recorded the statements of Smt. Ratni Devi under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she had reiterated about the incident as given in the Purchabayan. Later on, the Investigating Agency had requested the concerning Magistrate and the statement of the injured Smt. Ratni Devi was then recorded by ACJM, Kishangarh. The learned Magistrate had first inquired about the condition of the patient and it was in presence of the medical jurist that he had recorded the statement. Later on, the Investigating Agency had requested the concerning Magistrate and the statement of the injured Smt. Ratni Devi was then recorded by ACJM, Kishangarh. The learned Magistrate had first inquired about the condition of the patient and it was in presence of the medical jurist that he had recorded the statement. An endorsement in this regard was also made by the medical jurist on the said statement (Ex.P/15).A close reading of all the three statements of Smt. Ratni Devi, the Purchabayan, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the one recorded by the learned Magistrate go to show that she had consistently levelled allegation against Babulal, Appellant in respect of causing burn injuries to her. The statements of Smt. Ratni Devi, her condition to give statements and the opinion given by the medical jurist in this regard, leaves no room of doubt with regard to their correctness and truthfulness. 11. The dying declaration of the deceased Ratni Devi does inspire confidence and we are fully satisfied with the same as being true and correct which was given by the deceased with her free will. It is settled proposition of law that once a Court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is a truthful version with regard to the circumstance leading to death of the victim, then there is no need for further corroboration. It is settled proposition of law that once a Court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is a truthful version with regard to the circumstance leading to death of the victim, then there is no need for further corroboration. As back in the year 1958, in the case of Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 12. 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 Orrisa, AIR 1980 SC 559 , State of UP v. Ramsagar Yadav, AIR 1985 SC 416 and Kishanlal Shethi v. Jaggannath, AIR 1990 SC 1357 . 13. 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 corroborative 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. 14. 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. 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, with regard to the incident and the aforesaid statements made by Smt. Ratni Devi, that the prosecution has failed to prove the same or that it casts a shadow of doubt, has no substance. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has tried to point out from the material on record that there is no evidence incriminating the Appellant, as for example from the site plan etc. But we are of the view that a close look to the documents on record prepared by the Investigating Agency would go to show that they are not of the nature so as to throw any doubt on the prosecution case. The facts with regard to the incident, burning by kerosene, taking the injured to the hospital, the examination by the medical jurist and recording of the statements by the police in the presence of the Doctor, cannot be doubted in the face of the clear deposition of the concerning persons made before the learned trial Court. Article with kerosene and burnt cloths had also been recovered. The injuries so sustained were corroborated by the medical evidence on record.As has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case-law mentioned above, the reliability of dying declaration would also depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The satisfaction with regard to the truthfulness of the dying declaration has to be arrived at by a Court after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the same is recorded and free from any shadow of doubt. In the instant case, consistent version has been given by Smt. Ratni Devi in the statements recorded at three different times and she was in a fit condition to make the same. This was also clearly proved by the medical jurists namely Dr. K.K. Talwani and Dr. Gopal Mathur. 15. In the instant case, consistent version has been given by Smt. Ratni Devi in the statements recorded at three different times and she was in a fit condition to make the same. This was also clearly proved by the medical jurists namely Dr. K.K. Talwani and Dr. Gopal Mathur. 15. So far as the case law relied upon by the counsel for the Appellant is concerned, it would suffice to say that it does not help the Appellant as it was being considered in a different fact-situation. In the case of State of Punjab v. Praveen Kumar , (supra), two dying declarations were inconsistent to each other which is not the situation in the present case. In the case of Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf (supra), the deceased herself had taken a contradictory and inconsistent stand in different dying declarations. Same was the position in the case of Chinnamma (supra) and it was further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the possibility of the deceased being influenced by her parents, could not be ruled out. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Khuman Singh (supra) while considering a State Appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the view taken by the courts below and held that there is no doubt that there is inconsistency between the two dying declarations which betray the possibility of her being amenable to tutoring. The possibility of false involvement could not be ruled out in such a situation. Therefore, it came to the conclusion that in the absence of any corroborative evidence, it was unsafe to rely mainly on the inconsistent dying declarations. 16. In the case of Smt. Kamla (supra), wherein four dying declarations were made by the deceased, it was revealed that there was glaring inconsistency vis-a-vis, naming the culprits, and one of the dying declarations indicated the incident as an accident. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant therein was set aside as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that it could not base the conviction of the Appellant on the sole basis of such a dying declaration. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant therein was set aside as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that it could not base the conviction of the Appellant on the sole basis of such a dying declaration. In the case of State through CBI v. Mahendra Singh Daiya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a State appeal against the order of acquittal wherein it had affirmed the infirmities and improbabilities recorded by the High Court and also came to the conclusion that there was no intention of committing the murder. Furthermore, the prosecution in that case had miserably failed to connect the Respondent with the alleged murder of his wife. 17. For the aforesaid reasons and the material on record, particularly the statements of deceased Ratni Devi, which have been fully proved by the concerning person as well as the medical jurist, we do not find any reason whatsoever to have any doubt in respect of the version given by the deceased. The dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, in presence of the medical jurist who has also made an endorsement to that, does inspire confidence and we are fully satisfied that it is true and correct which has been given by the deceased with her free will.Further, it may be mentioned that a dying declaration given by the person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, the person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. This view of ours is supported by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narain Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1616 . 18. In fact, the settled principle of law in case of multiple dying declaration is that minor discrepancy cannot be a ground for giving benefit to the accused. This view of ours is supported by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narain Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1616 . 18. In fact, the settled principle of law in case of multiple dying declaration is that minor discrepancy cannot be a ground for giving benefit to the accused. Recently, a larger bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abrar (supra) has laid down: It must be borne in mind that all three dying declarations, the first one which formed the basis of the FIR, the second recorded by the ASI as a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., and a third recorded by Tehsildar are unanimous as all the accused find mention therein.Further, it is submitted that there are some discrepancy in the dying declaration with regard to the presence or otherwise of a light or a torch. To our mind, however, these are so insignificant that they call for no discussion. It is also clear from the evidence that the injured had been in great pain and if there were minor discrepancies inter se the three dying declarations, they were to be accepted as something normal. Further that: We particularly, notice that the dying declaration had recorded by the Tehsildar after the Doctor had certified the victim as fit to make a statement. The doctor also appeared in the witness-box to support the statements of the Tehsildar. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no fault whatsoever could be find in the dying declaration.Similarly, in the case of Chirag Shivraj (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principle that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it can be shown that the person making statement was not influenced by any exterior factor and the statement made was duly recorded. In Para-12, it was held that: If dying declaration is trustworthy and if it can be shown that the person making the statement was not influenced by any exterior factor and made the statement which was duly recorded, it can be made basis for conviction. In Para-12, it was held that: If dying declaration is trustworthy and if it can be shown that the person making the statement was not influenced by any exterior factor and made the statement which was duly recorded, it can be made basis for conviction. In the instant case, immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and upon getting information with regard to the offence, the ASI had rushed to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and the deceased had made her statement before him and thereafter she had made her dying declaration before a judicial officer around 8 P.M. The said statement was scrupulously recorded by the Judicial Officer who had found the deceased to be conscious and fit to make statement. 19. Thus, 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 of conviction and sentence passed by it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court.Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused Appellant is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******