JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Appellant- Naresh Kumar Vaidya stands convicted under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I. for 3 years with fine sentences of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. The judgment and findings have been recorded in the Sessions Trial No. 23/2007 by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari on 2nd of April, 2008. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-- 1.1 Deceased- Preeti Bala was wife of the appellant. They were married in the year 2003. It was a love marriage. They had a son namely- Aditya (two years). The appellant used to treat the deceased with cruelty, therefore, the deceased and her son-Aditya were residing along with the parents of the deceased, namely-, Ramchand Rao (PW-14) and Kanak Bai Jadhav (PW-1-5). The deceased was earning her livelihood by working in Furniture Shop of Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12). Mayaram Mahar (PW-13) was also working in the same Furniture Shop. 1.2 On 26th of March, 2007, as usual, the deceased was present in the Furniture Shop. At about, 12.45 noon, she was all alone in the shop. The allegations are that the appellant came there with a bottle of acid, caught the deceased by hairs and poured acid on the deceased. The deceased had sustained 70% acid burn injuries. On her cries, Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12) and Mayaram Mahar (PW-13) immediately came there. The deceased made oral dying declaration before them. Thereafter, she was taken to the Christian Hospital, Dhamtari. The Police party had also reached to the Hospital. The deceased herself lodged Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P-24) to the Police, in which, she made positive allegations against the appellant. She also made allegations about her ill-treatment by the appellant. 1.3 A request was made to the Executive Magistrate, namely, Mr. G.R. Mahipal (PW-2), for recording dying declaration of the deceased. He visited the Hospital at about 5.00 pm and recorded the dying declaration (Ex.-P-4). 1.4 On information given to the parents of the deceased i.e. Ramchand Rao (PW-14) and Kanak Bai Jadhav (PW-15), they had also reached to the Hospital. The deceased made oral dying declaration before them also. 1.5 The deceased died during the course of her treatment on 07th of April, 2007. Information was sent to the Police and Merg Intimation (Ex.-P-8) was recorded. The deceased made oral dying declaration before them also. 1.5 The deceased died during the course of her treatment on 07th of April, 2007. Information was sent to the Police and Merg Intimation (Ex.-P-8) was recorded. The Investigating Officer reached to the Hospital, gave notices (Ex.-P-5) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P-6) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. (Smt.) Asha Tripathi (PW-20). She found 70% ante-mortem burn injuries on the dead body of the Deceased. The burn injuries were deep and were on the face, eyes, neck, skull and other parts of the body. The right eye was completely burnt. Eye balls were shrank, portions of forearms were also burnt. However, palms and fingers were safe. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was hypovolemic shock on account of acid burns. The postmortem report is Ex.-P-21. 1.6 in further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and was sent for his medical examination. He was examined by Dr. Sanjay Wankhede (PW-8), who found that he had also sustained acid burn injuries on both the palms. The injuries were also on the upper portion of the arms. There were swelling over the arms. Blisters were also present. His MLC report is Ex.-P-9. 1.7 Mayaram Mahar (PW-13), a worker of the Furniture Shop, had also sustained acid burn injuries on his forearm. He was examined by Dr. A.R. Thakur (PW-19). His MLC report is Ex.-P-20. 1.8 The Clothes of the deceased and appellant were seized during the course of investigation and were sent for their examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur, from where, a report (Ex.-P-35) was received. According to the FSL report, sulphuric acid was found on the clothes sent for examination. 1.9 The case of the prosecution was based on oral and written dying declarations made by the deceased at different points of time. The learned Sessions Judge relied on these dying declarations and held that the appellant was treating the deceased with cruelty; he forcibly thrown acid on the deceased in the above manner, which ultimately resulted her death; therefore, he was liable for punishment under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. The appellant, thus was convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 2. Mrs. The appellant, thus was convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 2. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the dying declarations were suspicious, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Madhu Nisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. 5. The deceased was working in the Furniture Shop of Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12). Evidence of Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12) and Mayaram Mahar (PW-13) would show that on the fateful day, at about 12.00-1.00 noon, she was present in the shop. It comes in the evidence of Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12) that when he received information about the incident, he immediately rushed to the room, where the deceased used to sit. The deceased, after receiving acid burn injuries, had rushed out from the shop. Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12) and Mayaram Mahar (PW-13), both had met the deceased in front of the shop. At that time, the deceased made oral dying declaration before them, taking the name of appellant. These persons had immediately taken the deceased to the Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, where her treatment begun. Their evidence remained intact even after their cross-examinations by the defence. Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12) was owner of the Furniture Shop and Mayaram Mahar (PW-13) was a worker in the same shop, therefore, their presence in the workshop of the shop at about 12.00-1.00 noon, cannot be doubted. 6. Mayaram Mahar (PW-13) deposed in his evidence that when the deceased was running out from the shop, her Dupatta came in contact with his arm and he also received acid burn injuries. His evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of Dr. A.R. Thakur (PW-19), who had examined Mayaram Mahar (PW-13) and found that he had also sustained acid burn injuries. 7. We have carefully examined the evidence of these two witnesses i.e. Jagdish Chand Dewangan (PW-12) and Mayaram Mahar (PW-13). We find their evidence to be intact that the deceased, immediately after receiving the acid burn injuries, had made oral dying declaration before them, taking the name of appellant. This was the first dying declaration made by the deceased. 8. Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P-24) was recorded at the instance of the deceased, at about 14.30 hrs. on the same day. We find their evidence to be intact that the deceased, immediately after receiving the acid burn injuries, had made oral dying declaration before them, taking the name of appellant. This was the first dying declaration made by the deceased. 8. Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P-24) was recorded at the instance of the deceased, at about 14.30 hrs. on the same day. It was the first hand report lodged by deceased to the Police. It was a detailed report, in which, the deceased had mentioned about the entire incident taking the name of the appellant. Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P-24) has been duly proved by the concerned Officer. 9. In Munnu Raja and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2199 , the Supreme Court has held that where after making the statement before the Police, the victim succumbs to his injuries, the statement can be treated as a dying declaration and is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 10. In the instant case, the above Dehatinalishi (First Information Report) was also a dying declaration and was admissible in evidence, in which, the deceased had stated that the appellant had thrown acid upon her. This was the second dying declaration made by the deceased. 11. Ramchand Rao (PW-14) and Kanak Bai Jadhav (PW-15) are father and mother of the deceased. The deceased was residing with them, on account of ill-treatment given by the appellant. Some person belonging to Furniture Shop had informed them that the deceased had sustained acid burn injuries on account of above act of the appellant. On receiving such information, they rushed to the Hospital, where the deceased was admitted. They had talked with the deceased. The deceased told them that the appellant had thrown acid upon her in the above manner, while she was working in the said Furniture Shop. They were put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but nothing material could be elicited in their cross-examinations, on which, it may be said that they were falsely implicating the appellant. Their evidence on the oral dying declaration is fully intact. Their conduct appears to be natural. This was the third dying declaration made by the deceased before her parents. 12. The fourth dying declaration (Ex.-P-4) was recorded by Mr. G.R. Mahipal (PW-2), Executive Magistrate. The said dying declaration was recorded in Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, at about 5.00 pm on the same day. Their conduct appears to be natural. This was the third dying declaration made by the deceased before her parents. 12. The fourth dying declaration (Ex.-P-4) was recorded by Mr. G.R. Mahipal (PW-2), Executive Magistrate. The said dying declaration was recorded in Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, at about 5.00 pm on the same day. He recorded the dying declaration in question-answer form. The contents of dying declaration would show that the deceased had stated that her husband (appellant) always used to quarrel with her. He used to beat her, therefore, she was residing with her parents. She also stated that on the fateful day, the appellant came to the shop, caught her hairs and poured acid upon her, due to which, she sustained acid burn injuries. She very specifically stated that she had tried to run away, but the appellant had caught her by hairs. According to Mr. G.R. Mahipal (P.W. 2), before recording dying declaration, he had taken the views of concerned doctor, who certified that the deceased was competent to give her statement. We find from the dying declaration that such certificate was given by Dr. Namrata Chaterjee (PW-23), at about 5.00 pm, when the dying declaration was recorded. 13. Mr. G.R. Mahipal (PW-2) was requested the Police to record the dying declaration. He visited to the Hospital in usual manner, where he firstly consulted with the treating doctor and when the treating doctor certified that the deceased was in a fit mental condition, then only, he recorded the dying declaration. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was not in a fit mental condition to give dying declaration. We find no infirmity in the evidence of Mr. G.R. Mahipal (PW-2). His evidence is cogent and credible, which goes to satisfy that the deceased was in fit mental condition to give dying declaration and he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the above manner. 14. In Puran Chand v. State of Haryana (2010) 6 SCC 566 , it was has held that a mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. 14. In Puran Chand v. State of Haryana (2010) 6 SCC 566 , it was has held that a mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The Court has to examine a dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in success of investigation. When there are more than one dying declaration, the intrinsic contradictions in those dying declarations are extremely important. It cannot be that a dying declaration which supports the prosecution alone can be accepted while the other innocuous dying declarations have to be rejected. 15. Further, in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court culled out following 10 principles on the basis of earlier decisions:-- "Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the Court: 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; Where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration; 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; Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence; 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; Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected; Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded; When the eyewitnesses affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail; and 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." 16. We have examined all the dying declarations in the light of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court. All the dying declarations are similar and they corroborate the contents of each other. There are no contradictions in the above dying declarations regarding the material aspect that the appellant used to treat the deceased with cruelty and on the fateful day, the appellant had thrown acid on the deceased in the above manner. 17. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in resting the conviction of the appellant on the above dying declarations made by the deceased. The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. HEADLINE More than one Dying Declaration--Manner of appreciation--Discussed. Appeal dismissed.