JUDGMENT P.DEVADASS, J. 1. The appellant is accused in Sessions Case No.188 of 2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhi Mandram, Cuddalore. For convenience sake, in this judgment, the appellant shall be referred as accused. 2. The accused stood charged for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. On 5.10.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to life and fined him Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) P.W.1 Ramamoorthy is residing in Kozhipakkam New Colony in Panruti Taluk, in Cuddalore District. His daughter is Lakshmi (deceased). Their neighbour is Jeganathan. His son is Udayakumar (accused). Since P.W.1's cattle damaged the mud pots of Jaganathan, on 1.4.2010, at about 5 p.m., quarrel arose between both sides. Accused abused P.W.1 and his family in filthy language. (ii) On 2.4.2010, at about 6 a.m., in front of her house, due to burn injuries, Lakshmi screamed. She told PW.1 that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. She also told this to her relative P.W.2-Chengilakshmi. She was taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. (iii) At about 7.10 a.m, in the said Hospital, P.W.4 Dr.Kanaga Lakshmi, seenLakshmi with 85% burn injury. She was conscious. She told P.W.4 that on that day, at about 6 a.m, due to quarrel, her neighbour had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. P.W.4 recorded it in Ex.P4 Accident Register Copy. iv) On the same day, at about 11 a.m., at the Panruti Police Station, P.W.7 Askar Ali, Sub-Inspector received intimation from the said Hospital. He visited the hospital. At about 12 noon, he recorded Ex.P9 Statement from Lakshmi. She told him also that due to prior quarrel, the accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. (v) On the same day, at about 12.20 p.m., P.W.3-Sudha, Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore received intimation from the said hospital to record the dying declaration of Lakshmi. At about 12.25 a.m., P.W.3 visited the hospital. P.W.8-Dr.Saravanan, the duty doctor, certified that the patient was conscious and in fit condition to give dying declaration(See Ex.P1). P.W.3 recorded her dying declaration (Ex.P3). Lakshmi told P.W.3 also that due to the previous quarrel, accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. At about 12.25 a.m., P.W.3 visited the hospital. P.W.8-Dr.Saravanan, the duty doctor, certified that the patient was conscious and in fit condition to give dying declaration(See Ex.P1). P.W.3 recorded her dying declaration (Ex.P3). Lakshmi told P.W.3 also that due to the previous quarrel, accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. P.W.8 also certified (Ex.P2) that throughout the recording of dying declaration, she was conscious (see Ex.P2). vi) P.W.7 returned to his station. At about 2 p.m., he registered this case in crime No.369 of 2010 under Section 294 (b) and 307 IPC. Sent the original F.I.R. (Ex.P10) to the Court and copies of the same to P.W.9-Selvam, Inspector and to superior officers. vii) P.W.9 took up his investigation. At the scene place, in the presence of P.W.6 Malayan and Sivanandham, P.W.9 prepared Ex.P8-Observation Mahazar. Drew Ex.P11-Rough Sketch. Recovered burnt-pettycoat (M.O.1) and Kerosene Cane (M.O.2) under Ex.P7 Mahazar. In the meanwhile, Lakshmi was transferred to JIPMERHospital, Pondicherry. At this hospital, P.W.9 examined her and recorded her statement. He also examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. viii) On 6.4.2010, in the said hospital, Lakshmi passed away. On receipt of death intimation, P.W.9 altered the section of law to Section 302 IPC. Sent Ex.P.12 Alteration Memo to the Court. At the said hospital, in the presence of panchayathars, he held inquest over her dead body (Ex.P.13). He gave requisition to the hospital to conduct post-mortem. ix) On 6.4.2010, at about 3.20 p.m., at the said hospital, P.W.5 Dr. Ambrose conducted post mortem on the dead body of Lakshmi and opined that she died of septicemia following the burn injuries (Ex.P6-post mortem certificate). x) On the same day, at about 8 p.m., near the Ambedkar Statute, in Anna Village, P.W.9 arrested the accused. Produced him to the Court for custody. He further examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements. Obtained the opinion of the post-mortem doctor. Concluding his investigation, P.W.9 filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P1 to P13 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. 5. When the accused was examined on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, he replied that he has been implicated in this case. He did not examine any witness nor produce any document. 6. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P1 to P13 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. 5. When the accused was examined on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, he replied that he has been implicated in this case. He did not examine any witness nor produce any document. 6. The trial court accepting the oral dying declaration of Lakshmi to Pws.1 and 2, her written dying declaration to P.Ws.4 and 7, her judicial dying declaration to PW.3 and other materials produced by the prosecution found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated already. 7. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the prosecution has not establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Elaborating his submissions, he had submitted as under:- (i) Already there was prior quarrel between both the families. (ii) The deceased had suicidal tendency. Earlier, she had attempted suicide. This has been spoken to by her father/P.W.1. That is how in her first dying declaration to P.W.4, she had stated that she had attempted suicide and that is also reflected in Ex.P4 Accident Register copy. (iii) In the circumstances, due to prior quarrel, in her dying declaration, she had implicated the entire family of the accused. (iv) For the first time, she had implicated the accused in her Ex.P9 complaint. (v) In her Ex.P3 dying declaration, she had stated that then P.W.1 was also present. But, P.W.1 had stated otherwise. (vi) Then her hands were burnt. In Ex.P3 dying declaration her thump impression was obtained. However, in Ex.P9 complaint, there is signature. It is of somebody. (vii) In the hospital, her mother was near her. She had prompted her daughter to give false dying declaration. (viii) Exs.P3 and P9 dying declarations are not voluntary and genuine. At any event, since there was prior quarrel between both the families, under grave and sudden provocation the occurrence had taken place. Thus, this case would fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. 8. On the other hand, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued as under:- (i) This case is based on multiple dying declarations, namely, oral, written and judicial. (ii) In ATBIR VS. GOVT.(NCT OF DELHI) [ 2010(9) SCC 1 ], the Honourable Supreme Court laid down various principles governing acceptance of dying declarations. Those principles are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. (ii) In ATBIR VS. GOVT.(NCT OF DELHI) [ 2010(9) SCC 1 ], the Honourable Supreme Court laid down various principles governing acceptance of dying declarations. Those principles are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. (iii) The deceased in her multiple dying declarations had clearly stated that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. (iv) P.Ws.1 and 2 also testified as to the oral dying declaration made to them. There was no material inconsistency between the plural dying declarations. (v) In the facts and circumstances, the dying declarations are genuine, voluntary and are not due to any tutoring or prompting. (vi) In the facts and circumstances, based on the dying declarations, safely a conviction can be recorded. (vii) The accused poured kerosene on her and set fire on her and thus he had intended to cause her death. It is murder under Section 302 IPC. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides. We have perused the evidence on record and the findings of the trial Court and also the decision cited. 10. Lakshmi (deceased) is the daughter of P.W.1. Ramamurthy. They are residing in Kozhipakkam New Colony, in Panruti Taluk, in Cuddalore District. Their neighbour is Jagannathan. His son is the accused. There was no love last between both the families. 11. Under these circumstances, on 02.04.2010, at about 6 a.m., in front of her house, Lakshmi was found crying out of burn injuries. She was rushed to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. P.W.4 Dr. Kanakalakshmi seen her with 85% burn injury. She was given treatment. Later, Lakshmi was transferred to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. There, on 06.04.2010, at about 3.20 p.m. she passed away. P.W.5 Dr.Ambrose, who performed autopsy on her dead body opined that she died of septicemia followed by the burn injuries (See Ex.P6-post-mortem certificate). 12. According to prosecution, on 02.04.2010, due to previous quarrel, the accused had poured kerosene on Lakshmi and set fire on her and thus she died out of the burn injuries. 13. In this case, prosecution relies on certain oral, written and judicial dying declarations. 14. Dying declarations are statements of persons who cannot be called as witnesses. It is hearsay evidence permissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. 15. In SHARDA vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN { 2010 (2) SCC 85 }, it is stated as under: "23. 13. In this case, prosecution relies on certain oral, written and judicial dying declarations. 14. Dying declarations are statements of persons who cannot be called as witnesses. It is hearsay evidence permissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. 15. In SHARDA vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN { 2010 (2) SCC 85 }, it is stated as under: "23. The principle on which dying declarations are admitted in evidence is indicated in legal maxim: "Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire-a man will not meet his maker with a lie in hismouth." It is indicative of the fact that a man who is on a deathbed would not tell a lie to falsely implicate in innocent person. This is the reason in law to accept the veracity of her statement. It is for this reason, the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, if the dying declaration is to be completely excluded in a given case, it may even amount to miscarriage of justice as the victim alone being the eyewitness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the court without a scrap of evidence. Though as dying declaration is entitled and is still recognized by law to be given greater weightage but it has also to be kept in mind that the accused had no chance of cross-examination. Such a right of cross-examination is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath. This is the reason, generally, the court insists that the dying declaration should be such which inspires full confidence of the court of its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that such statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the aforesaid requirement and also to the fact that declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration." 16. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the aforesaid requirement and also to the fact that declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration." 16. In MOHAN LAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA [2007 (3) SCC (Cri) 94], on the aspect of dying declaration, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in PANIBEN V. STATE OF GUJARAT, [ (1992) 2 SCC 474 ]: (SCC pp. 480-81,paras 18-19) (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (See MUNNU RAJA V. STATE OF M.P. [ (1976) 3 SCC 104 ]. (ii) If the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (See STATE OF U.P. V. RAM SAGAR YADAV, [ (1985) 1 SCC 552 ] and RAMAWATI DEVI V. STATE OF BIHAR [ (1983) 1 SCC 211 ] (iii) The 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 an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (See K.RAMACHANDRA REDDY V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, [ (1976) 3 SCC 618 ]. (iv) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (See RASHEED BEG V. STATE OF M.P., [ (1974) 4 SCC 264 ] (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration, the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected.(See KAKESINGH V. STATEOF M.P., [1981 SCC (Cri) 645] (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (SeeRAMMANORATH V. STATEOF U.P., [(1991) 2 SCC 654] (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.(SeeSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. KRISHNAMURTI LAXMIPATI, [1981 SCC (Cri) 364] (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. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (See SURAJDEOOJHA V. STATE OF BIHAR, [1979 SCC (Cri) 519] (ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (See NANHAURAM V. STATEOF M.P. [1998 SCC (Cri) 343] (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (See STATE OF U.P. V. MADAN MOHAN [ (1989) 3 SCC 390 ]. (xi) Where there is more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declarations could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. (See MOHANLALGANGARAM GEHANI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, [ (1982) 1 SCC 700 ] 17. In ATBIR VS. GOVT.(NCT OF DELHI) ( 2010(9) SCC 1 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the said principles governing dying declaration. 18. On 02.04.2010, at about 7.10 a.m., from Kozhipakkam New Colony, in 108 Ambulance, Lakshmi was rushed to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. She was seen by P.W.4 Dr.Kanakalakshmi. Then, Lakshmi was having 85% burn injury. She was conscious. She had told P.W.4 that on that day, at about 6 a.m., due to the quarrel, a known neighbour had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. P.W.4 had recorded this in Ex.P4 Accident Register copy. This is first written dying declaration in this case. 19. On the same day, at about 12 noon, P.W.7 Askar Ali, S.I. of Police, Panruti arrived at the said hospital, seen Lakshmi and she gave him statement, that was recorded by him and that is Ex-P9. It is the complaint in this case. In this, she had narrated the quarrel took place between both sides on 01.04.2010, over the issue relating to their cattle having damaged the mudpot in the house of the accused. 20. In Ex.P9, Lakshmi had stated as under:- Tamil 21. It is pertinent to note that based on this Ex.P9, Ex.P10 F.I.R. has been registered by P.W.7. In this, she had narrated the quarrel took place between both sides on 01.04.2010, over the issue relating to their cattle having damaged the mudpot in the house of the accused. 20. In Ex.P9, Lakshmi had stated as under:- Tamil 21. It is pertinent to note that based on this Ex.P9, Ex.P10 F.I.R. has been registered by P.W.7. Thus, the known person Lakshmi stated to P.W.4(See Ex.P4) is none other than her neighbour the accused. 22. In her evidence, P.W.3, Sudha, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore stated that on 02.04.2010, at about 12.20 p.m., she received intimation from the hospital to record the dying declaration of Lakshmi. At about 12.25 p.m., P.W.3 was in the said hospital and Lakshmi gave her dying declaration. It is Ex.P3. 23. P.W.3 had recorded her dying declaration in question and answer form. It runs as under:- “ 24. On 02.04.2010, at about 7.10 a.m., at the said hospital, when P.W.4 seen Lakshmi, she was conscious. On the same day, at the said hospital, at about 12 noon, P.W.7 seen Lakshmi and recorded her Ex.P9 statement. Between 7.10 a.m. and 12 noon Lakshmi did not loss her consciousness.At about 12.20 p.m., P.W.3 seen her. Both before recording the dying declaration and completing it, through out, P.W.8 Dr.Saravanan, the duty doctor was present. P.W.8 certified her consciousness and fit mental condition to give dying declaration. (See Ex.P1). Further, through out the recording of the dying declaration, she having been conscious has also been certified by P.W.8.(See Ex.P2). In her evidence, P.W.3 had stated that after having fully satisfied with her mental condition, she had recorded her dying declaration.(See Ex.P3). Thus, on 02.04.2010 between 7.10 a.m., and 12.20 p.m., when her written dying declarations(Exs.P4 and P9) and Judicial dying declaration(Ex.P3) were recorded, Lakshmi was conscious and was in fit mental condition. 25. In her dying declaration to P.W.4(Ex.P4), Lakshmi had referred to the previous day quarrel with their neighbours. The evidence of P.W.1 Ramamurthy is that on 01.04.2010 evening, in connection with his cattle having damaged his neighbour Jagannathan's mudpot, quarrel arose between both sides. This is the motive and the reason for the next day occurrence proper, namely, burning of Lakshmi. In Ex.P9 complaint, Lakshmi had elaborately stated that the said quarrel took place on 01.04.2010 at about 6 p.m. and in the quarrel, the accused also participated in it. This is the motive and the reason for the next day occurrence proper, namely, burning of Lakshmi. In Ex.P9 complaint, Lakshmi had elaborately stated that the said quarrel took place on 01.04.2010 at about 6 p.m. and in the quarrel, the accused also participated in it. Lakshmi had also stated this to P.W.3(See Ex.P3). 26. In Ex.P4 Accident Register copy, it is stated that Lakshmi had stated to P.W.4 that a known person, her neighbour had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. She had identified him as accused in her complaint Ex.P9. In Ex.P9 also she had clearly stated that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. This is what she had stated in her Ex.P3 judicial dying declaration to P.W.3. 27. Thus, we see there is no material discrepancy in the written dying declaration and judicial dying declaration of Lakshmi as to the previous day quarrel and on the next day occurrence, namely, the accused poured kerosene on her. 28. On 02.04.2010, at about 6 a.m., when P.W.1 was near her house, Lakshmi told him that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. This is her oral dying declaration to P.W.1. P.W.2 Chengilakshmi is residing in the next street. She is her mother's sister. P.W.2 had seen Lakshmi out side P.W.1's house crying out of burn injuries. When asked, Lakshmi told P.W.2 that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. This is also her oral dying declaration. P.W.4 Dr.Kanakalakshmi stated that then Lakshmi was conscious. 29. In his evidence, P.W.7 had stated that on 02.04.2010, at about 12 noon, when he visited the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, Lakshmi's mother was also present and her father was waiting out side. 30. Then Lakshmi was in her hour of crisis. When P.W.7 gone there, he had seen her mother. Either P.W.7 or P.W.3 or P.W.4 or P.W.8 did say that when Lakshmi gave statement either her mother or her relatives were present. Lakshmi had every opportunity to implicate all the family members of the accused. But, she did not do so. She had implicated only the accused. Therefore, there is nothing to show that Lakshmi had made the dying declarations due to prompting and tutoring by someone. 31. The cross-examination of P.W.1 shows that during January,2010, due to quarrel, Lakshmi had attempted suicide. But, she did not do so. She had implicated only the accused. Therefore, there is nothing to show that Lakshmi had made the dying declarations due to prompting and tutoring by someone. 31. The cross-examination of P.W.1 shows that during January,2010, due to quarrel, Lakshmi had attempted suicide. In Ex.P4 Accident Register copy, Lakshmi stated that due to quarrel her neighbour had poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. In Ex.P4, there is a word 'herself' and that was scored. P.W.4, who wrote Ex.P4 had stated that Lakshmi stated to her that a known neighbour had poured kerosene on her. There was no cross or not even a suggestion to P.W.4 that Lakshmi had attempted suicide and that is what written in Ex.P4 or any deletions were made purposely. The oral(P.Ws.1 and 2), written(Exs.P4 and P9) and the judicial(Ex.P3) dying declarations shows the positive act on the part of the accused. Merely on account of Lakshmi having attempted suicide in the beginning of 2010 in the face of so much positive evidence, it cannot be said that this time also she had attempted suicide. 32. In Ex.P9 complaint, P.W.7 had obtained her signature. But, in Ex.P3 dying declaration Tamil P.W.3 had obtained her right thump impression. In his evidence P.W.3 had explained why she had obtained her thump impression. 33. Thus, there is no material contradiction in Lakshmi's written dying declarations(Ex.P4 and Ex.P9) to P.Ws.4 and 7 and her judicial dying declaration (Ex.P3) to P.W.3 and her oral dying declarations to P.Ws.1 and 2. There is consistency in them as to the previous day quarrel on 1.4.2010 and the occurrence proper on 02.04.2010. 34. At the time, when these dying declarations were made, Lakshmi was in fit mental condition. There is nothing to establish that she was prompted or tutored to make false dying declarations. Thus, she had voluntarily made the dying declarations and they are genuine. Thus, these dying declarations are acceptable. Based on them, a conviction can be safely recorded. 35. Thus, we hold that on 02.04.2010, at about 6 am., the accused had poured kerosene on Lakshmi and set fire on her and because of the burn injuries she had died on 06.04.2010. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we concur with the findings of the trial Court. 36. 35. Thus, we hold that on 02.04.2010, at about 6 am., the accused had poured kerosene on Lakshmi and set fire on her and because of the burn injuries she had died on 06.04.2010. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we concur with the findings of the trial Court. 36. The quarrel between both sides took place on 01.04.2010 at about 6 p.m. On the next day, at about 6 a.m., while Lakshmi was standing in front of her house, the accused came and poured kerosene on her and set fire on her. There is no sudden provocation. He wished her death. In the circumstances, what he has done is nothing less of murder. So, this case would fall under Section 302 IPC. and not under Section 304 part I IPC. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 37. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahazhir Needhi Mandram, Cuddalore in S.C.No.188 of 2010 on 05.10.2010.