JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This Criminal Jail Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Bundi in Sessions Case No 73/2003 whereby the present appellant has been acquitted for the offence under Section 342 IPC and convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC as under: Section 302 IPC: Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000/-, in default of payment of fine further undergo one month simple imprisonment 2. The short facts of the case as per prosecution are that PW-12 Raghuveer Singh received an information on 6.2.2003 from hospital Indragarh. He rushed to the hospital, at the time, Smt. Usha was not in a condition to speak. She was shifted to M.B.S Hospital, Kota where PW-12 Raghuveer Singh presented an application Ex.P/17 to Medical Officer. Smt. Usha was found in a fit condition to give statement where upon PW-12 has recorded statement of Smt. Usha Ex.P-13 in which it has been stated that from last five to ten days her brother was sick so she came to his father's home. Her mother Badam Bai PW-1 has received salary. Jagdish her brother came there at about 10 AM and made altercation with her mother that he is entitled to his father's pension as well as property he should also be given some share otherwise threatened for dire consequences and at that time he went away. At time about 5-6 in the evening Jagdish came again there on seeing him, her mother and brother locked themselves in a room scared of appellant. Jagdish brought oil container from another room. He poured Oil on her and lit the fire by match-box at that time Kallu and other persons of the locality came there and extinguish the fire by pouring the water. On this statement Ex.13 an FIR No. 18/2003 has been registered at Police Station Indergarh District Bundi. On 9.2.2003, Smt. Usha died due to burns. Offence under Section 302 IPC has been added. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for the offences under Sec. 302 and 342 IPC. Case has been committed to the court of sessions which was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 5 Bundi. 3. The accused-appellant was charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 342 IPC. He denied the charges. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for the offences under Sec. 302 and 342 IPC. Case has been committed to the court of sessions which was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 5 Bundi. 3. The accused-appellant was charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 342 IPC. He denied the charges. 4. Prosecution has examined PW-1 Smt. Badam Devi, PW-2 Kallu, PW-3, Rakesh, PW-4 Smt. Barfi PW-5 Sushila PW-6 Tarachand PW-7 Kalu PW-8 Balram PW-9 Radhey PW-10 Amarsingh PW-11 Prahalad Rao PW-12 Raghuveer Singh PW-13 Dr. Rajesh Sharma PW-14 Lalchand Kulmi and PW-15 Dr. Govind Gupta to support its case and also relied on documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/21. 5. The statement of appellant has been taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C, no oral evidence has been given in defence but he relied upon Ex.D-1. After conclusion of trial, present appellant has been convicted sentenced as above. Hence this appeal: 6. The contention of learned Amicus-Curiae is that the present appellant has been implicated falsely as the family was not having good relations with the appellant and they wanted to get rid of the present appellant hence, false story has been concocted against him. PW-8 Balram S/o Tarachand, has stated that the deceased died suicidal death and family took benefit of the incident to implicate the present appellant. 7. As per the prosecution story, the deceased was not in a fit condition to depose at Indragarh hence parchabayan recorded at Kota is fabricated one, deceased sufferred 90% injuries and she remained unconscious till her death and her statement recorded by Raghuveer Singh and the magistrate cannot be relied upon. Deceased has not resisted to escape which shows that it was the suicidal action of the deceased. Dr. C.P.Sharma who has opined deceased to be in fit condition to speak has not produced. Leading question has been asked by the magistrate hence dying declaration is not reliable one. Dying declaration has been recorded on 7.2.2003, 12 a.m, but as per the endorsement on Ex.-15 it was send to concern court on 7.6.2003, at 10 a.m. hence the present appellant be acquitted. 8. Per contra, contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that PW-4 Barfi has categorically narrated the story. Dying declaration has been recorded on 7.2.2003, 12 a.m, but as per the endorsement on Ex.-15 it was send to concern court on 7.6.2003, at 10 a.m. hence the present appellant be acquitted. 8. Per contra, contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that PW-4 Barfi has categorically narrated the story. PW-1 Smt. Badam Bai PW-3 Rakesh who are mother and brother of the deceased has also stated that the appellant was agitating with his mother and when they came out of the room they saw that Usha was burning and Jagdish was there. They had not supported the story of accidental death or it was suicidal act of the deceased Usha. Judicial Magistrate has recorded the dying declaration and stated that the deceased was in a fit condition at the time of recording of evidence and he has enquired about the condition of the deceased with Dr.C.P.Verma and further more PW-8 Balram son of deceased has also stated that at the spot her mother was saying that Jagdish has poured Kerosine Oil on her, the court below has rightly held that the present appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased who poured kerosene oil on her and resultantly she died, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. 10. PW-1 Badam Bai has stated that on the day of incident, Jagdish came there in a drunken state he abused her and stated that he should be given service otherwise he will kill her. Again in the evening when he came there, Badambai and his son Rakesh locked themselves in a room but Usha was remained outside. Further her contention is that when she came out of the room she saw that Usha is burnt and Jagdish was standing there. PW3 Rakesh has also narrated the same story. It is true that both these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution but still they have supported the prosecution story as regard the quarrel by the appellant Jagdish with his mother and brother and the fact that at the time of incident they saw Usha burning and Jagdish alone was there with her in the house. 11. It is true that both these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution but still they have supported the prosecution story as regard the quarrel by the appellant Jagdish with his mother and brother and the fact that at the time of incident they saw Usha burning and Jagdish alone was there with her in the house. 11. PW-4 Barfi who is sister in law of deceased has stated that Jagdish poured Kerosene oil on the deceased, her husband and mother-in-law locked themselves in the room and gate was opened by PW-8 Balram. She has denied the fact that fire was accidental. PW-8 Balram son of the deceased has stated that death was suicidal and it was lit by his deceased mother but in cross examination he has stated that his mother was saying that Jagdish has poured kerosene on her and he has also testified the fact that appellant his uncle was in habit of quarreling with his mother on the issue of pension and property. 12. The evidence referred above clearly suggests that on the fateful day, Usha was at Indragragh, appellant came there, he quarreled with his mother in the morning and again he came there in the evening at about 6 am at that time his mother Badam Bai and Rakesh locked themselves in a room. Usha alone was remained outside the room. Jagdish poured kerosine at her and lit fire. This fact has been futher corroborated by PW-12 Raghuveer Singh who has recorded the statement of deceased Usha at Hospital. Deceased has narrated the same story that Jagdish has poured kerosene on her. PW-11 Prahlad Rai Sharma who was Judicial Magistrate, has stated that on application of Investigating Officer, he recorded the statement of Usha, after having get verified about her mental and physical condition and it was reported by the doctor that she is in a fit condition to give statement and in her dying declaration Ex.P/16 she has stated that she came to Indragarh to see her ill brother Rakesh, Jagdish came there, he used filthy language towards her mother and brother and when she intervened he poured kerosene and lit the fire. PW/13 Dr. Rajsh Sharma has examined Smt. Usha when she was admitted at Indragarh Hospital and it was found that deceased was having 90% burns. PW/15 Dr. PW/13 Dr. Rajsh Sharma has examined Smt. Usha when she was admitted at Indragarh Hospital and it was found that deceased was having 90% burns. PW/15 Dr. Govind Gupta has conducted the autopsy and found that the cause of death is ante mortem extensive burns. 13. The court below has rightly relied upon the dying declaration recorded by PW/11 Prahlad Rai Sharma, Judicial Magistrate and PW/12 Raghuveer Singh. The facts narrated in two dying declarations have been further fortified by the statements of PW/1 Badam Bai, PW/3 Rakesh, PW/4 Barfi.PW/8 Balram has also supported the oral dying declaration given by her mother at the time of incident. 14. The contention of the appellant is that as per the statement of PW-12 Raghuveer Singh the deceased was not in a condition to give statement at Indergarh and as per Ex.P/18 on 6.2.2003 at 6 am, it was opined by Doctor that she was unconscious and she is unable to give statement and when she was not fit at Indergarh to give statement she could not be found to be fit at Kota Hospital. PW/12 Raghuveer Singh has stated that at Kota, again he inquired about condition of the injured Usha and the Doctor has opined on 6.2.2003 at 9.30 PM that she is fit for statement and thereafter her statement Ex.P/13 has been recorded. Apart from this, PW/11 Prahlad Rai, Judicial Magistrate has also recorded her statement on 7.2.2003 at 12.05 AM after having verified his physical and mental condition. Doctor has opined that at 12.00 AM that she is fit to give statement hence the testimony of PW/12 Raghuveer Singh is rightly relied upon by the court below. The prosecution has rightly pointed out that injured received better treatment on higher centre and responded to the drugs and found fit to give statement. This fact is corroborated by PW/1 Badam Bai who stated that Usha was talking for all two days when she was alive and PW/3 Rakesh has also stated that till she was alive, she was talking. Dying declaration recorded by the two officers have also been corroborated by PW/8 Balram that her mother was saying just after the occurrence that appellant has poured Kerosene on her, objection of the appellant that Smt. Usha was not in a fit condition to depose is not acceptable. 15. Dying declaration recorded by the two officers have also been corroborated by PW/8 Balram that her mother was saying just after the occurrence that appellant has poured Kerosene on her, objection of the appellant that Smt. Usha was not in a fit condition to depose is not acceptable. 15. Other contention of the appellant is that Doctor C.P. Verma who has certified the condition of Usha that she was fit to give statement has not been produced by the prosecution. It is true that Doctor has not been produced who has certified the condition of the deceased but certificate with regard to condition has been obtained by PW/11 Prahlad Rai Judicial Officer. There is no reason to accept that the judicial Magistrate is making incorrect statement. He is a neutral person he has deposed categorically that he enquired and took certificate about condition of the deceased and reliance has also been placed on Sunder Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal 2010(1) SCC 611 as regard the non-examination of the Doctor, who gave the certificate of fitness. It was held therein that for basing conviction on dying declaration, same must pass all tests of voluntariness, fit condition of mind of maker of dying declaration, witness not being influenced by any other factors and truthfulness of dying declaration. Though importance of evidence of Doctor as regards fitness of maker to make it cannot be understated, yet there could be cases,where though there is no certification by Doctor, still dying declaration can be accepted. On facts of that case, it was held that instant case belonged to such category and thus non-endorsement of Doctor on dying declaration was inconsequential. 16. Here in the present case there is an endorsement of the Doctor in regard to condition of the injured and which was proved by PW11 Prahlad Rai Sharma and merely because that doctor has not been produced as prosecution witness the statement recorded by the Magistrate who is a neutral person cannot be discarded. Statement recorded by Judicial Officer has been further corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and statement recorded by PW12 Raghuveer Singh. Objection regarding non production of Dr. CP Verma is inconsequential in the facts of the present case. 17. The other contention of the appellant is that Magistrate has put leading question as regard to manner of the incident. Statement recorded by Judicial Officer has been further corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and statement recorded by PW12 Raghuveer Singh. Objection regarding non production of Dr. CP Verma is inconsequential in the facts of the present case. 17. The other contention of the appellant is that Magistrate has put leading question as regard to manner of the incident. It is true that after some introductory questions Magistrate has asked leading question about the incident that who burnt her, on which detailed facts have been narrated by the deceased. It is true that the magistrate should avoid asking leading question but here in the present case the deceased has narrated the facts with specific particulars and which has been corroborated by her previous statement. Ex. P-13 recorded by Pw-12 and eye witness is also corroborated the same manner of incident hence asking leading question by the magistrate is not damaging for the prosecution. 18. The other contention of the appellant is that Usha has committed suicide as she has done nothing to save her, PW-4 Barfi has stated that her sister in law has done nothing to save her which also corroborated the fact that it was her suicidal act. PW-8 Balram has stated that her mother ran towards the house of Kallu and other witnesses have also stated that Kallu and others saved her by pouring water which clearly proved the fact that Usha tried to save her. She ran away and other persons poured water on her and apart from it no reason has been suggested by the defence why she will commit suicide and contention of defence as regard suicidal death is not acceptable. 19. Other contention of the appellant is super technical and seems to be slip of pen. As per endoresement on Ex. P/15, statement recorded by the judicial magistrate has been sent to concerned court on 7.6.2003 at 10 am. It is true that statement have been recorded on 7.6.2003 at 12.05 am and an endor-sement has been made on it which bears the date of 7.6.2003 and time of 10 am which clearly speaks by itself that 7.6.2003 date has been wrongly written on the same it must be 8.6.2003 and this contention is not well founded. 20. It is true that statement have been recorded on 7.6.2003 at 12.05 am and an endor-sement has been made on it which bears the date of 7.6.2003 and time of 10 am which clearly speaks by itself that 7.6.2003 date has been wrongly written on the same it must be 8.6.2003 and this contention is not well founded. 20. There is no doubt that it is trite law that while considering the dying declaration in a case, the Court has to weigh all the attending circumstances and come to the independent finding whether the dying declaration is properly recorded and whether it is voluntary and truthful and if on careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is co-herent and consistent, there should be no legal impediment to make it a basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. In the present case, however, there is substantial corroborating evidence to support and even independently prove what has been stated by the deceased in his dying declaration. 21. The Supreme Court in Atbir vs. Government of NCT of Delhi- (2010) 9 SCC 1 , while revisiting its previous judgements in Munnu Raja vs. State of M.P.- (1976) 3 SCC 104 , Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar- (1999) 2 SCC 126 , Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab- (2006) 12 SCC 283 , State of Rajasthan vs. Wakteng- (2007) 14 SCC 550 , Bijoy Das vs.State of W.B.- (2008) 4 SCC 511 , Muthu Kutty vs. State- (2005) 9 SCC 113 , Panneerselvam vs. State of T.N.-(2008) 17 SCC 190, culled out the following principles to be kept in view while dealing with a case of dying declaration: "(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis ofconviction 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. (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 corro-borated. 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. (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." 22. In the light of above, the court below has rightly held that dying declaration recorded by the judicial Magistrate is reliable one and it has been recorded in a fit condition of mind of the deceased and this dying declaration has been further corroborated by the evidence of PW-12 Raghuveer Singh who has recorded Parcha Bayan Ex.P/13 and eye witness has also corro-borated the same story. Both the dying declarations recorded by the public servants are coherent and consistent. Furthermore oral dying declaration testified by PW8 Balram has also corroborated the prosecution story, dying declaration being voluntarily and truthful recorded properly could be made basis of conviction without any corroboration but here in the present case, there are three consistent dying declarations and ocular evidence also proves the incident. The court below has rightly relied on the prosecution evidence, which proves the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has rightly relied on the prosecution evidence, which proves the guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In consequence, the appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to concerned jail authority to be furnished to the appellant.