JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 to 3 (arrayed as accused 2 to 4) for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. The first information was registered against accused 1 to 4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused 1 to 4 for aforestated offences. When the case was pending committal accused No. 1 died. Therefore, the case was committed against accused 2 to 4 and they faced trial for aforestated offences and were acquitted of the said offences. 2. We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri A.H. Bhagavan, learned Counsel for accused. 3. In brief the case of the prosecution and inter se relationship of some of the witnesses may be stated thus: Hema (since deceased) was the daughter of P.W. 6, Yashodhamma. She was a native of Kagepura village. She was given in marriage to Kempaiah (younger brother of first accused). Accused 1 to 4 are from Nalamakanahalli village. At the time of marriage, the husband of Hema was working in Postal Department. It appears, he had committed serious misconduct. Therefore, he was dismissed from the services. Thereafter, the husband of Hema came and settled in Nalamakanahalli village. In family partition, certain properties were allotted to accused No. 1, certain properties were allotted to Kempaiah (husband of deceased Hema) and certain properties were retained by parents’ of Kempaiah for their maintenance. The deceased Hema and her husband were living in a portion, accused No. 1 and his family members were residing in another portion and the parents’ of Kempaiah were residing in yet another portion of the same house. It appears Kempaiah, husband of Hema died three years prior to 22.10.2001. Thereafter differences arose between parties. Accused 2 to 4 are the direct cousins of accused No. 1. They are also the residents of Nalamakanahalli village. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.10.2001 at about 6.00 p.m., deceased Hema was in her house, accused 1 to 4 with the common intention tress passed into the house of Hema, splashed kerosene and set her on fire and fled away from that place. The mother-in-law and neighbours came to her rescue and extinguished fire and shifted her to Government Hospital at Malavalli, wherein she was treated by P.W. 9, Dr. Maradesh. The mother-in-law and neighbours came to her rescue and extinguished fire and shifted her to Government Hospital at Malavalli, wherein she was treated by P.W. 9, Dr. Maradesh. On the basis of Medico Legal Report sent by P.W. 9, P.W. 15, B.K. Basavarajaiah ASI of Malavalli Police Station came to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of Hema as per Ex.P-8. Thereafter, she was shifted and admitted in K.R. Hospital at Mysore. On the following day, at about 7.00 a.m. she died due to burn injuries and the cause of death is shown as hypovolmic shock. Thereafter, the second report was lodged and an offence under Section 302 IPC was included. The Investigating Officer held inquest on the dead body. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The Investigating Officer visited the place of incident and prepared spot inspection report, recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the incriminating articles to F.S.L. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused 1 to 4 for the aforestated offences. The charge sheet was filed against accused 1. to 4. Accused No. 1 died on 14.11.2001. Therefore, accused 2 to 4 were committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. During trial, P.Ws. 1 to 19 were examined, documents as per Exs.P-1 to 22 and material objects as per M.Os. 1 to 5 were marked. The contradictory portions of some of the statements of some of prosecution witnesses were marked as Exs. D-1 to D-5. 6. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties, acquitted accused 2 to 4 for the aforestated offences. 7. The first point for consideration before us is as to whether the prosecution has proved that the death of Hema was homicidal in nature. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that on 22.10.2001 at 6.00 p.m., deceased suffered burn injuries in her house at Nelamakanahalli village. The spot inspection report reveals that the clothes worn were completely burnt. The wooden rafters of the house had marks of sooth. The electric wire which was hanging from the roof was also partially burnt. The supporting wooden pillers of the house were also partially burnt. These facts which were noticed by the Investigating Officer during spot inspection have been deposed by the Investigating Officer. The wooden rafters of the house had marks of sooth. The electric wire which was hanging from the roof was also partially burnt. The supporting wooden pillers of the house were also partially burnt. These facts which were noticed by the Investigating Officer during spot inspection have been deposed by the Investigating Officer. These facts would clearly establish that after deceased caught fire, she had moved from place to place and the intensity of the flames was high, the flames had come in contact with the electric wire and the wooden rafters of the room which were partially burnt. The defence had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that deceased Hema was mentally depressed after the death of her husband and she had also the burden of discharging the debts incurred by her husband. 8. We see from the records that the husband of Hema died three years prior to the date of incident. The evidence on record does not disclose that deceased Hema was under the pressure of creditors. On the other hand, the evidence on record discloses that deceased Hema was cultivating lands which had fallen to the share of her husband. From the contents of Ex.P-17, we find that deceased Hema had lodged a complaint against her mother-in-law and first accused on 30.7.2001. It is alleged that first accused and his wife (mother-in-law of deceased) were obstructing Hema from cultivating the lands which had fallen to the share of her husband. Therefore, the theory of defence that deceased was in a state of depression after the death of her husband and she had committed suicide cannot be accepted. 9. The learned trial judge, by taking into consideration the contents of spot inspection report and the evidence of P.W. 9, Dr. P.S. Maradesh has held that, there was a water tank in front of the house of deceased and if someone had set her on fire, she would have extinguished herself by jumping into the water tank. P.W. 9 Dr. P.S. Maradesh has subscribed to this view. 10. In our considered opinion, the approach of the learned trial Judge is erroneous. The evidence on record does not indicate that there was water in the water tank which was situate in front of the house of deceased. P.W. 9 Dr. P.S. Maradesh has subscribed to this view. 10. In our considered opinion, the approach of the learned trial Judge is erroneous. The evidence on record does not indicate that there was water in the water tank which was situate in front of the house of deceased. Even otherwise, we find that after the incident, deceased Hema had come out of the house and she had cried for the help. The post-mortem examination report and the evidence of P.W. 19 would reveal that deceased had suffered 85% and some of the burn injuries was superficial and some were 3rd degree burns. P.W. 19 had opined that death was due to hypovolmic shock. Therefore, we hold that the death of Hema was homicidal in nature. 11. In order to prove that accused had set the deceased on fire, the prosecution has relied on the following: (i) Motive (ii) dying declaration. 12. From the evidence of the mother of deceased P.W. 6 namely, Yashodamma, we find accused No. l had not given the lands which had fallen to the share of the husband of deceased. Accused 2 to 4 were also troubling Hema from cultivating lands which had fallen to the share of her husband. P.W. .1 has admitted that out of the lands which had fallen to the share of Kempaiah (husband of deceased Hema), he had sold 2 acres of land to discharge the debts incurred by him. P.W. 6 has also admitted that the lands which had fallen to the share of husband of Hema were transferred to the name of Hema. 13. The prosecution has come out with another motive. The deceased Hema had let out the land to one Ramegowda. The said Ramegowda in connivance of accused was not paying lease amount to deceased. The prosecution has put forth yet another motive that accused 2 to 4 were obstructing Hema from cultivating the land which had fallen to the share of her husband. From the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find that there are divergent versions in proof of motive. 14. We find from the contents of Ex.P-17 a complaint was lodged by Hema on 30.7.2001 wherein, Hema had alleged that her mother-in-law and first accused were obstructing her from cultivating lands allotted to share of her husband. Therefore, we can infer that there were some disputes between first accused and Hema. 14. We find from the contents of Ex.P-17 a complaint was lodged by Hema on 30.7.2001 wherein, Hema had alleged that her mother-in-law and first accused were obstructing her from cultivating lands allotted to share of her husband. Therefore, we can infer that there were some disputes between first accused and Hema. The prosecution has not proved that accused 2 to 4, who are cousin brothers of accused No. 1 had anything to do with the lands which were partitioned amongst accused No. 1. deceased Kempaiah and their parents. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the dying declaration said to have been made by deceased in the Government Hospital at Malavalli. The said dying declaration is marked as Ex.P-8. As per the evidence of P.W. 15, B.K. Basavarajaiah, Ex.P-8 was recorded in the presence of P.W. 9 Dr. P.S. Maradesh. 15. The law is fairly well settled that in order to base a conviction entirely on the dying declaration, the Court has to be satisfied that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt. A dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration, if the same is true and correct version of a dying man and has not come into existence under doubtful circumstances. The evidence on record discloses that the distance between the place of incident and the Government Hospital at Malavalli is about 6 kms. From the contents of dying declaration, we find that the incident took place at about 6.15 p.m., on 22.10.2001. The Medico Legal Report sent by P.W. 9, Dr. P.S. Maradesh would reveal that it reached the Rural Sub Inspector, Malavalli at about 6.45 p.m. on 22.10.2001. 16. P.W. 15, B.K. Basavarajaiah has deposed that on 22.10.2001 at about 6.00 or 8.30 p.m., Hema who had suffered burn injuries was brought to Government Hospital at Malavalli. He made entries in the accident register and he sent intimation to police. P.W. 15, the then ASI of Malavalli P.S., came and recorded the statement of Hema in the presence of P.W. 9. 17. The evidence of P.W. 9-Dr.P.S.Maradesh does not disclose that he had examined the general and mental condition of Hema to satisfy himself that Hema was physically and mentally fit to give statement. P.W. 15, the then ASI of Malavalli P.S., came and recorded the statement of Hema in the presence of P.W. 9. 17. The evidence of P.W. 9-Dr.P.S.Maradesh does not disclose that he had examined the general and mental condition of Hema to satisfy himself that Hema was physically and mentally fit to give statement. So also P.W. 15 in whose presence the statement is said to have been recorded has not deposed that Hema was mentally and physically fit to give statement as per Ex.P8. The endorsement made on the statement said to be given by the deceased reads thus: “Statement given by Hema patient herself in front of me the above statement is correct.” 18. P.W. 15-Basavarajaiah, ASI of Malavalli P.S., has deposed that he recorded the statement given by the deceased, however, from the contents of Ex. P8, we find that P.W. 15 had made an endorsement at 7.30 p.m., on 22.10.2001 in Malavalli Police Station. P.W. 15 has deposed that dying declaration was recorded by one of the Police Constables. The dying declaration does not bear the name of person by whom it was recorded. P.W. 15 has deposed that dying declaration was recorded in the question and answer form, which is contrary to the contents of Ex.P8 which is recorded in a summary form. 19. The wound certificate and postmortem examination report would reveal that deceased Hema had suffered 85% burns. Her upper limb was burnt. Ex.P8 bears the LTM of deceased Hema but none had attested the LTM. 20. In a decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 2973 (in the case of Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra), the Supreme Court has held: “Normally, the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witnesses state that the deceased was in a lit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it, be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a magistrate is absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a magistrate. if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the Court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and, therefore, the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise.” 21. In the instant case, though we can dispense with the certification made by the medical officer yet, the fact remains that person who recorded the statement and the Doctor in whose presence the statement was recorded should have been satisfied about the physical and mental fitness of the deceased to give statement as per Ex.P8. 22. We also see from the contents of Ex.P8 that there are certain over writings on the LTM said to have been affixed by deceased Hema. The statement as per Ex.P8 contains all the minute details including family dispute division of properties through panchayatdars. It also contains certain inaccurate facts that the deceased had two sons contrary to evidence on record that Mahesha (P.W. 10) was the only son. In the dying declaration, it is stated that the deceased had two sons. The statement as per Ex.P8 contains all the minute details including family dispute division of properties through panchayatdars. It also contains certain inaccurate facts that the deceased had two sons contrary to evidence on record that Mahesha (P.W. 10) was the only son. In the dying declaration, it is stated that the deceased had two sons. In the dying declaration, it is stated that the parents-in-law of accused and family members were living in the same house and cooking food separately but, the spot inspection report and sketch would reveal that they were living in three different portions of the house. 23. The contents of dying declaration that accused No. 1 to 4 suddenly entered her house and accused No. 2 and 3 held her hands and asked accused No. 4 to douse kerosene on Hema. Accused No. 4 doused kerosene on Hema and thereafter, accused No, 1 lit a matchstick and threw it on her does not inspire confidence. It is not in dispute, the condition of Hema was critical. The question whether Hema could have given details attributing distinct over acts to accused No. l to 4 in such a critical condition stares on face of record. Apart from this we have evidence that physical condition of accused No. l was feeble. 24. The evidence on record discloses that accused No. 1 was suffering from tuberculosis. He died on. 14.11.2000 within a period of three weeks from the date of incident. The evidence on record also discloses that accused No. l was physically weak and he was being physically lifted. 25. The learned Addl. S.P.P., would submit that the first information report was promptly despatched to the learned Magistrate at about 9.00 p.m., on 22.10.2001. The time at which the first information was received by the learned Magistrate would only ensure that it was received at the time mentioned therein, however, this circumstance will not be sufficient to hold that the statement was made by deceased Hema and contents of the statement are true. 26. We also see from the medical evidence that soon after the incident, the deceased was shifted to K.R. Hospital at 8.20 p.m. on 22.10.2001. The distance between Malavalli and K.R. Hospital is about. 40 Kms. In the medical records maintained by K.R. Hospital, it is shown that her condition was critical and she succumbed to burn injuries at 7.00 a.m. on 23.10.2001. 27. The distance between Malavalli and K.R. Hospital is about. 40 Kms. In the medical records maintained by K.R. Hospital, it is shown that her condition was critical and she succumbed to burn injuries at 7.00 a.m. on 23.10.2001. 27. The evidence of P.W. 6 reveals that on 23.10.2001, the parents-in-law of deceased Hema executed a Gift Deed in favour of P.W. 10-Mahesha, the son of deceased and P.W. 6 was appointed as guardian of P.W. 10. 28. As could be seen from the records, the postmortem examination on the dead body of Hema was conducted between 4.25 p.m., to 6,00 p.m. on 23.10.2001. Thus, it is clear that even before the dead body was buried. P.W. 6 and others from Kageri village had insisted the parents of accused No. 1 to transfer the properties which were given to them for their maintenance in favour of P.W. 10 (son of the deceased) and P.W. 6 was appointed as guardian of P.W. 10. The execution of this document in such a situation of grief would give an impression that certain persons at the behest of P.W. 6 had brought the dying declaration into existence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P8-dying declaration was made by deceased Hema. 29. P.W. 6-Yashodamma, mother of the deceased has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that she had seen the accused coming out of the house soon after the incident. P.W. 6 in her evidence has admitted that she is residing in Kagepura village and the distance between Kagepura where she was residing and Nelamakanahalli is about 1 Km. In the circumstances, it is probable that she must have reached the place of incident alter the incident. P.W. 6 has deposed that she had come to the place of incident along with her grand son P.W. 10-Mahesha. From the evidence of P.W. 10-Mahesha we find that they had reached the place of incident after the incident. Therefore, feeble attempt made by the prosecution through evidence of P.W. 6 that she had seen the accused coming out of the house after the incident has failed. 30. The evidence adduced by the prosecution may create a strong suspicion about accused No. 2 to 4, however, such suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 31. 30. The evidence adduced by the prosecution may create a strong suspicion about accused No. 2 to 4, however, such suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 31. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.