Judgment P. Durga Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.307 of 2006 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on 01.09.2008. The appellant herein is A1 and he along with his mother A2 was prosecuted for the offences under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the deceased Dheeravath @ Esa Baji was married with A1 about a year back. At the time of marriage, no dowry was offered and given to the accused. After the marriage, the deceased joined her husband and living there at Sathuluru. The accused addicted to all types of vices and started harassing the deceased. A2, who is the mother of A1, was supporting A1 in all means in harassing the deceased. A1 harassed the deceased and finally brought her back to Nidubrolu and left her there with her mother PW.1 saying to get Rs.10,000/-as dowry from her parents and demanded to get the said amount within ten days. As there is no possibility of her going to her husband with the cash, she was staying with her mother. On 09.01.2006 at about 3.00 p.m. A1 came to Nidubrolu and found the deceased at her mother’s house, picked up a quarrel for not getting money and due to anger and intention to kill tied the deceased with the rope available there, poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire with a match stick resulting the deceased sustaining burn injuries. During said process, the deceased caught hold of A1 but he pushed the deceased and went away. On seeing the deceased in the flames, PWs.3 to 6 rushed there and witnessed the occurrence. PW.4 brought the blanket and placed it on the deceased and put off the flames. PWs.3 and 6 shifted the deceased to Government hospital, Ponnur. PW.11 received the intimation from the Government hospital about the admission of the deceased in the hospital and proceeded to the hospital and recorded her statement. On the intimation sent by PW.11, PW.12 visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The accused No.1 was caught hold by the deceased, also received injuries to his both hands and got admitted himself in the Government hospital, Ponnur and later he was sent to expert treatment to GGH, Guntur. On the intimation sent by PW.11, PW.12 visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The accused No.1 was caught hold by the deceased, also received injuries to his both hands and got admitted himself in the Government hospital, Ponnur and later he was sent to expert treatment to GGH, Guntur. PW.11, on the statement recorded by him, registered the case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC and issued the FIR. PW.13 took up the investigation and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and another and seized half burnt jacket, langa pieces and burnt rope and half burnt two litres bottle under cover of panchanama and examined the witnesses. He also visited the hospital and recorded statement of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 14.01.2006 at 6.00 a.m. On receipt of death intimation, the Section of law was altered to Section 304-B of IPC. PW.13 has sent the requisition to the Tahsildar, PW.9, for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and PW.9 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.8 and others and sent the dead for post mortem examination. PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries and its complications. Thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW.14 and he arrested the accused on 27.01.2006 at 6.45 p.m. and sent him to judicial custody. The doctor, PW.15, who treated A1, issued the wound certificate that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. On 18.02.2006 at 7.00 a.m. A2 was arrested and she was sent to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, PW.14 filed the charge sheet against the accused. The Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A of IPC against A1 and A2 and Section 302 of IPC against A1 and both the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined PWs.1 to 15, got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 4. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused in defence. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined PWs.1 to 15, got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 4. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused in defence. Taking into consideration of said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found A1 guilty for the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. A2 was found not guilty for the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and she was acquitted. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A1 therein has filed the present appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC against A1 beyond reasonable doubt? POINT: The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that there are no direct eye witnesses to the incident and the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses PWs.2 to 7 is contrary to each other. He further pleaded that the dying declarations recorded by PWs.11, 12 and 13 are brought into existence only after tutoring by PW.1 and her relatives and there are contradictions in the dying declarations recorded by PWs.11, 12 and 13, as such the dying declarations cannot be basis for convicting the accused without any further corroboration and pleaded that the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against A1 is liable to be set aside. The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that PW.1, the mother of the deceased, has categorically stated about the demand made by the accused for dowry and sending her daughter to her house and when she was staying in her house, the accused came and set fire to her and the said fact was established by the prosecution from the evidence of PWs.3 to 7 as they have seen the accused coming out of the house with burn injuries. She further pleaded that apart from the said oral evidence, PWs.11, 12 and 13 have recorded the statements of the deceased and they are the dying declarations of the deceased and the said dying declarations are consistent with each other and which clearly establish that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her, as such the trial Court has rightly convicted A1 for the charges framed against him. According to the prosecution, the deceased was married with A1 about a year back and at the time of marriage, no dowry was given to the accused. Subsequently, A1 was addicted to bad vices and demanded the deceased to get dowry from her parents and started harassing her and finally he dropped her at the house of PW.1, her mother asking her to get Rs.10,000/-within ten days and as the deceased could not get the said amount, she was staying with her mother at Nidubrolu and on 09.01.2006 at about 3.00 p.m. A1 came to the house of PW.1 and quarreled with the deceased and tied her hands with the rope, poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire with a match stick and the deceased came out of the house with burn injuries and the same was witnessed by PWs.3 to 7 and they shifted her to the hospital and on the requisition received from the hospital, PW.12 has recorded dying declaration of the deceased and thereafter the head constable PW.11 has recorded her statement and issued the FIR and PW.13 has taken up the investigation and recorded her statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. and subsequently the deceased succumbed to injuries on 14.01.2006 and PW.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries and its complications. With regard to the demand for dowry by the accused, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and according to her, the marriage of the deceased was performed with A1 about a year back and she led happy marital life for about one year at Sathuluru village. After one year, the accused sent her daughter to her house to bring Rs.10,000/-. As she could not meet the demand of the accused due to poverty, the deceased was staying with her. After one year, the accused sent her daughter to her house to bring Rs.10,000/-. As she could not meet the demand of the accused due to poverty, the deceased was staying with her. Five days thereafter, she went to coolie work leaving the deceased alone in her house. On the same day at 3.00 p.m., PW.6 informed her that A1 came to her house and set fire to the deceased and further informed that her daughter was admitted in the Government hospital, Ponnur for treatment. Immediately she rushed to the hospital and found her daughter alive with burn injuries. On her enquiry, her daughter stated that her husband came to her house and poured kerosene on her and set fire, as such she sustained burn injuries and the neighbourers admitted her in the hospital. In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that the deceased is not legally wedded wife of the accused. She admitted that she did not give any dowry to A1 as it was a choice marriage, but there is no suggestion to her that the accused has never demanded Rs.10,000/-as dowry. PW.2 is the brother of A2 and according to him, the marriage of A1 with the deceased was performed about a year back and no dowry was given at the time of marriage. A1 and deceased lived happily for about one year at Sathuluru. After one year some quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased, as such A1 and the deceased came to the house of PW.1 and stayed for two days and he does not know the reason for dispute between the accused and the deceased, but he came to know that A1 set fire to the deceased and she was admitted in the Government hospital and he went to the hospital and found the deceased alive and on his enquiry she could not say anything as she was unable to speak. In the cross-examination by the defence counsel, he has stated that A1 has not married the deceased and the deceased was not legally wedded wife of A1 and he further stated that in the hospital the deceased was tutored to give statement as per Ex.P-1 by PW.1 and other relatives. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the factum of the accused dropping the deceased to PW.1’s house and she is living in the house of PW.1 was established. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the factum of the accused dropping the deceased to PW.1’s house and she is living in the house of PW.1 was established. PW.1 has categorically stated that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/-as dowry and dropped the deceased at her house and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 in that regard and no suggestion was put to her that the accused has not made the said demand of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the said evidence of PW.1 with regard to demand made by A1 for Rs.10,000/-stood unrebutted. With regard to the occurrence of the incident, PW.1 was not present at the time of incident at her house and she came to know about the incident through PW.6 and went to the Government Hospital, Ponnur and enquired the deceased and she has disclosed that the accused poured kerosene and set fire and according to her the neighbourers and others shifted her to the hospital. PW.3 is the rickshaw puller and neighbourer and according to him the deceased died about two years back at about 4.00 p.m.. At that time he was in his rickshaw at Madhavi Bar, which is at a distance of two furlongs from his house, meanwhile, the deceased coming out of her house with flames on her body. Immediately, he rushed to her house along with some other people, put off the flames and shifted her in his rickshaw to the Government Hospital, Ponnur for treatment. On enquiry, the deceased told them that her husband A1 poured kerosene on her and lit fire with a match stick because she did not bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents in spite of his demand. He further stated that before pouring kerosene and setting fire, her husband tied her both legs and hands with a rope. In the cross-examination he admitted that he is having well and close acquaintance with the deceased and he saw the husband of the deceased only at the time of marriage, when deceased came out of the house with flames, there was a gathering about 30 people and the mother of the deceased is not present in the house. He denied the suggestion that the deceased did not state to him that her husband demanded to bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents. He denied the suggestion that the deceased did not state to him that her husband demanded to bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents. PW.4, who is another neighbourer and according to her she knows both the accused since their house is situated opposite to their house and the deceased is the wife of A1. On 09.01.2006 while she was at her house at about 5.00 p.m. she heard the cries of the deceased from the house of accused and on hearing the said cries, she went to the house of accused and found A1 was tying both the hands and legs of the deceased and immediately poured kerosene and set fire to her with a match stick and she raised cries and other people gathered and they put off the flames on the body and shifted the deceased to Government hospital, Ponnur. On enquiry the deceased told them that the accused did so because she did not bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents’ house in spite of his demand. In the cross-examination she has stated that her house is at a distance of one furlong from the house of deceased. By the time she went to spot there were about 10 persons. She had a talk with the deceased. She was in the hospital till the Judicial First Class Magistrate came to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. She has not heard about the tutoring of the deceased by her mother to give statement before the Magistrate and she denied that the deceased never told her that A1 demanded to bring Rs.10,000/-as dowry and she denied that the deceased committed suicide for the reasons known to her and the accused is no way concerned with the death of the deceased. PW.5, who is another neighbourer, has also supported the version of PW.4 with regard to seeing the deceased coming out of the house in flames and put off the flames and on enquiry she has disclosed that her husband pouring kerosene and setting fire to her by tying her hands and legs with a rope for not bringing Rs.10,000/-as demanded by him. He further stated that he saw A1 took to his heels from the rear door of his house after the incident and he further stated that at 7.00 a.m. A1 came to the hospital and got himself admitted in the hospital for treatment of burn injuries sustained by him. In the cross-examination he denied suggestion that he is having illicit intimacy with the deceased. He also denied that PWs.1, 3 and other relatives of the deceased tutored her to give false statement before the police and the Judicial First Class Magistrate. He also denied that A1 has not married the deceased and she is not legally wedded wife of accused No.1. PW.6, another neighbourer has stated that about two years back while she was at her house she heard cries from the house of accused, then she came out of the house and saw that deceased coming out of her house with flames on her body with cries. The people gathered there put off the flames and shifted the deceased to hospital and the police recorded her statement in the hospital. In the cross-examination she admitted that she used to address the deceased as grand daughter for courtesy and she saw the deceased with flames on her body when she came out of the house of PW.1. PW.7, who is another neighbourer of the deceased, has stated that on the date of incident at 5.00 p.m. when she returned to her house after her work, the mother of the deceased and others informed her that the accused poured kerosene and set fire causing burn injuries and the deceased was shifted to the Government hospital, Ponnur. On the said information she went to the Government hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries. On her enquiry, the deceased told her that accused after tying her both hands and legs poured kerosene on her and set fire with match stick as she did not bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents’ house. In the cross-examination she admitted that her house is by the side of the house of PW.1 and she admitted that she used to go to the house of PW.1 now and then being a neighbourer. She further admitted that by the time she went to hospital, PW.1 alone was present by the side of the bed of deceased and other people who visited her were leaving the hospital. She further admitted that by the time she went to hospital, PW.1 alone was present by the side of the bed of deceased and other people who visited her were leaving the hospital. She was in the hospital till 6.00 p.m. During her stay, police officials did not come to the hospital. She further admitted that she has not stated the statement reported to her by the deceased to anybody. She denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide for the best reasons known to her. Therefore, PWs.3 to 6 have categorically stated about seeing the deceased coming out of the house with burn injuries and their putting off the flames and shifting the deceased to the Government hospital and further stated that the deceased on their enquiry disclosed that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her by tying her hands and legs with a rope as she could not bring Rs.10,000/-as demanded by A1. PW.7, who has gone to the hospital on receiving the information of deceased sustaining burn injuries and to him also the deceased disclosed about the accused setting fire and pouring kerosene by tying her hands and legs. According to PWs.3 to 7, they are the neighbourers, but in the evidence PW.3 has stated that he knows both the accused being his immediate neighbourers. PW.4 has stated that she knows both the accused since their house is situated opposite to her house and she further stated that she heard the cries of the deceased from the house of the accused and when she went to the house of the accused found A1 tying both the hands and legs of the deceased and immediately pouring kerosene and setting fire to her. PW.5 has also stated that he knows both the accused as they being his neighbourers and he also stated that he went to the house of the accused on hearing the cries and deceased coming out of the house. PW.6 also stated that her house is near to the house of the accused and she heard the cries of the deceased from the house of the accused, then she came out of the house and saw the deceased coming out of the house with flames on her body. Therefore, according to them, they are the neighbourers of the accused and they have seen the deceased coming out of the house of the accused. Therefore, according to them, they are the neighbourers of the accused and they have seen the deceased coming out of the house of the accused. PWs.3 to 6 are residents of Ponnur and the accused are residents of Sathuluru village of Nadendla mandal and they are not the residents of Ponnur and moreover as per the evidence of PW.1, the incident has taken place at her house at Ponnur and PW.4 in the cross-examination has admitted that her house is at a distance of one furlong from the house of the deceased and PW.3 has admitted in the cross-examination that she used to visit the house of the deceased whenever necessity arises being the neighbourer. Therefore, it appears that by mistake they mentioned as neighbourers of the accused and they have seen the deceased coming out of the house of the accused. Apart from the said evidence of PWs.3 to 7, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.11, 12 and 13, who have recorded the statements of the deceased. The first statement was recorded by PW.12, the Judicial First Class Magistrate of Ponnur and according to him on 09.01.2006 at 5.50 p.m. he received written requisition from the Government hospital, Ponnur and he proceeded to the hospital and got identified the deceased patient by Dr. S.V. Siva Kumar and after satisfying himself about the condition of the patient and also obtaining certificate of the doctor about the condition of the patient, recorded the dying declaration Ex.P-11 from 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Even though a lengthy cross-examination was done by the defence counsel, there is nothing to disbelieve his recording the dying declaration of the deceased on the date and time mentioned in Ex.P-11. Subsequent to the recording of said dying declaration by PW.12, the Head-constable PW.11 has proceeded to the hospital on the requisition received from the Government hospital, Ponnur and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P-6. Basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 and issued the FIR under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC and PW.13 on receipt of the FIR took up the investigation and proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. under Ex.P-12. Basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 and issued the FIR under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC and PW.13 on receipt of the FIR took up the investigation and proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. under Ex.P-12. Ex.P-11 is the statement recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in question and answer form and she has disclosed that a quarrel took place at her parents’ house in between her and her husband and the purpose of quarrel is she did not bring the dowry amount. She further stated that the dowry amount is Rs.10,000/-and she further stated that when she expressed her inability to get the said dowry amount he will kill by pouring kerosene on her. She further stated that at 3’o clock he poured kerosene on her and lit match stick and thrown it upon her and ran away, she came out of the house with flames and the people gathered there covered her with clothes and later shifted her to the hospital and she further stated that her mother-in-law and her husband are responsible for the same. The said statement was recorded by PW.12 after satisfying himself that the patient is conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement and on obtaining fit certificate from Dr. S.V. Siva Kumar that the patient was in fit state of mind throughout recording of the statement and after completion of the said dying declaration. Therefore, the said dying declaration Ex.P-11 recorded by PW.12 was when the patient was in a fit state of mind. PW.11 has recorded the statement under Ex.P-6. In Ex.P-6, the deceased has stated that at the time of marriage no dowry was given. Her husband used to beat her to bring money from her parents’ house. About ten days back her husband brought her to Nidubrolu to her mother’s house and left her there by saying to come to his house with money and went away. In Ex.P-6, the deceased has stated that at the time of marriage no dowry was given. Her husband used to beat her to bring money from her parents’ house. About ten days back her husband brought her to Nidubrolu to her mother’s house and left her there by saying to come to his house with money and went away. On 09.01.2006 during evening at 3’o clock her husband came and beat her by tying her hands and legs saying that she is staying in her parents’ house without bringing money and he poured kerosene upon her and lit a match stick and thrown on her, due to flames she tried to catch hold of her husband but her husband pushed her and went away. Then on hearing her cries Khasamma, who is residing by the side of her house, came and covered a blanket upon her and thereafter Karimullah, a rickshaw puller, Nagurbi and some others shifted her to the hospital. In the said statement also, Dr. S.V. Siva Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Ponnur, has certified that the patient is conscious, coherent at the time of recording the said statement. The statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. by PW.13 is marked as Ex.P-12. In the said statement also the deceased has stated the same fact as mentioned in Ex.P-6. Ex.P-6 and P-12 are consistent with each other in all respects. In Ex.P-11 she has not disclosed about the accused tying her hands and legs before pouring kerosene and setting fire to her. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that in view of the contradictions between Exs.P-6 and P-11, the same cannot be relied upon without corroboration and he further pleaded that the said statements are brought into existence after tutoring by PW.1 and relatives, who are present before recording of the same with the patient and he relied upon the admissions made by PW.1 with regard to her talking to the deceased and also the persons, who visited the hospital, also talked to her deceased daughter. PW.1, being the mother, she might be with the deceased throughout and talking with her. Simply because she is talking with the deceased, it cannot be said that she tutored her to give a false statement without there being any material on record. PW.1, being the mother, she might be with the deceased throughout and talking with her. Simply because she is talking with the deceased, it cannot be said that she tutored her to give a false statement without there being any material on record. The other witnesses PWs.3 to 7 have also admitted that they have talked to the deceased and they have specifically stated that the deceased has disclosed to them about the accused pouring kerosene and setting fire to her by tying hands and legs with a rope for not bringing Rs.10,000/-as dowry. Merely because the said witnesses were talking with the deceased, it cannot be said that they have tutored her to give a false statement to the police and the Magistrate and they have specifically denied about the tutoring the deceased for giving false statement to the police and the Magistrate. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the deceased was tutored by PW.1 and others before giving her statement to the police and the Magistrate. The appellant’s counsel further pleaded that the said dying declarations cannot be relied upon without corroboration. In Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi ((2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1), the Apex Court has summarized the principles laid down earlier as under: (i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. (ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. (iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. (iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. (ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail. (x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. In the subsequent decision reported in Ongole Ravikanth v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 647), the Apex Court held as under: “The dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction. But at the same time due care and caution must be exercised in considering weight to be given to the dying declaration inasmuch as there could be any number of circumstances which may affect the truth. The courts have always to be on guard to see that the dying declaration was not the result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. It is the duty of the courts to find that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the dying declaration. In order to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, the courts have to look for the medical opinion”. Therefore, in view of the said decisions, the dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction but it should not be the result of prompting or tutoring and at the time of giving said dying declaration the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Therefore, in view of the said decisions, the dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction but it should not be the result of prompting or tutoring and at the time of giving said dying declaration the deceased was in a fit state of mind. PW.12, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, who recorded Ex.P-11, has categorically stated that he has satisfied himself by putting preliminary questioned with regard to the mental condition of the patient and he also obtained certificate from the doctor at the time of recording of the statement and also after completion of the recording of the statement about the fit state of mind of the deceased. In the statement Ex.P-6 recorded by PW.11, the doctor has certified about the consciousness and coherence of the patient at the time of recording of statement. Moreover, PW.11 has recorded the statement immediately after recording of the dying declaration by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, PW.12. When the patient was in a fit state of mind at the time of recording by PW.12, it can be presumed that she is in a fit state of mind at the time of recording the statement by PW.11, which is after ten minutes of recording the dying declaration by PW.12. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that in the third dying declaration Ex.P-12, there is no mention about fit state of mind of the deceased and no signature of the deceased was obtained on the said statement. Ex.P-12 is the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. during the course of investigation. Therefore, there is no need to obtain the signature of the deceased and the same was not recorded as a dying declaration. Therefore, PW.13 cannot be expected to obtain a certificate from the doctor with regard to the fit state of mind of the deceased. Moreover, in Munnawar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ((2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 451), the Apex Court held that “though first dying declaration was liable to be discarded, second dying declaration recorded by Magistrate duly endorsed by a doctor, identical to the first one, should not be discarded”. Moreover, in Munnawar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ((2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 451), the Apex Court held that “though first dying declaration was liable to be discarded, second dying declaration recorded by Magistrate duly endorsed by a doctor, identical to the first one, should not be discarded”. Therefore, even as per the above said decision, in the present case, the first dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate duly certified by the doctor that the patient was in a fit state of mind and therefore, the subsequent dying declarations, which are on the similar lines, cannot be discarded on the ground that the doctor has not certified about the mental condition of the patient when they are consistent with each other. Therefore, the said dying declarations of the deceased were recorded when she was in a fit state of mind and they are not the result of either prompting or tutoring by any of the persons. The next contention of the appellant’s counsel is that there are contradictions between Exs.P-6 and P-11 with regard to the accused tying the legs and hands of the deceased with a rope. As already observed above, the said fact was stated by the deceased in Exs.P-6 and P12 but not in Ex.P-11, the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. In State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar and others ((2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 626), the Apex Court held that “the minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the dying declarations are not fatal to the case of the prosecution”. In the present case, the above said contradiction pointed out by the appellant’s counsel is only a minor contradiction, basing on that the entire dying declaration cannot be thrown out. In the above said dying declaration, the deceased has categorically stated about the accused pouring kerosene and setting fire to her as she could not bring the dowry of Rs.10,000/-as demanded by the accused. Apart from the said dying declarations, the deceased has also given oral dying declarations to PWs.1, 3 to 7 on the same lines. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased as she could not bring Rs.10,000/-as demanded by him. Apart from the said dying declarations, the deceased has also given oral dying declarations to PWs.1, 3 to 7 on the same lines. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased as she could not bring Rs.10,000/-as demanded by him. From the evidence of PW.9, the Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and doctor PW.10, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, it is established that the deceased died due to burn injuries and its complications. Therefore, the death of the deceased is due to burn injuries caused by A1. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted A1 for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and the said findings recorded by the trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.307 of 2006 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on 01.09.2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC against the appellant/A1, is hereby confirmed.