JUDGMENT S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 9th February, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 305 of 1996. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell is, as under:- The deceased Samina, sister of (P.W.1) Rafiqkhan and daughter of Ameenabee (P.W.2) R/o Village Ghatnandra, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad was married to Ashpaq Khan of village Ambhai, Tahsil Sillod in the year 1994. The husband of victim Samina Ashfaqkhan was residing with his parents, whereas his four other brothers namely Anwarkhan, Iqbal Khan and Ishaq Khan were residing in same locality but separately. Brother Ishaqkhan had shifted to Bombay, whereas brothers Anwarkhan and Iqbalkhan were residing in the same Wada of their father-Mubarak Khan. It is alleged by the persecution that there used to be some dispute between the brothers and their families on account of property belonging to Mubaraqkhan. They were alleging that property of Mubaraqkhan being usurped by Ashfaqkhan and his wife Samina. Even though there was some dispute between Ashfaq and his brother Anwar, who was husband of accused Nazira, still he was on visiting terms with Samina and her husband. Accused i.e. wife of Anwarkhan, was believing that her husband Anwarkhan was taking interest in the woman-hood of deceased Samina. On account of that two days prior to the incident there was a fierce quarrel between accused and deceased. It is alleged that on 20.5.1996 at about 10 a.m. Accused came to the house of Samina and warned her that she should not have any conversation with her husband Anwarkhan and she should not allow him to enter in her house. Because of this Samina told Anwarkhan that he should not visit her house, but Anwarkhan told her that as the house belong to his parents, nobody can prevent him while visiting her house. On this Samina did not say anything, but realized that accused was making wild allegations and suspecting her relationship with Anwarkhan. 3. Because of this Samina told Anwarkhan that he should not visit her house, but Anwarkhan told her that as the house belong to his parents, nobody can prevent him while visiting her house. On this Samina did not say anything, but realized that accused was making wild allegations and suspecting her relationship with Anwarkhan. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, whenever deceased had any occasion, to meet her mother Ameenabee, she used to narrate this to her, but Ameenabee avoided to take the dispute seriously. On the contrary, Ameenabee suggested Samina that one should not take such allegation very seriously and neglect them. 4. On 22.5.1996 at 6 a.m. Samina went to the Kotha (cattle-shed) to collect cattle dung. It is alleged that while Samina (deceased) was collecting cattle dung, the accused came there with a plastic can in her hand, on the pretext that she has come to attend the nature's call. When Samina was facing her back, all of sudden accused poured the liquid which was in the can i.e. kerosene, on the person of Samina and set her on fire by lighting a match-stick. When Samina started burning, accused fled away from the Kotha after closing the door of Kotha from outside. After hearing the cries and screams of Samina and seeing fumes coming from Kotha, her husband Ashfaq and other relatives came there. She rolled on the ground to extinguish the fire. Her husband Ashfaq, his brother Anwarkhan (husband of accused), other brother Iqbal and mother-in-law Ameenabee brought her immediately to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad. She was admitted in Ghati Hospital. 5. It is further case of the prosecution that, when P.W.1 Rafiq and P.W.2 Ameenabee were informed about the admission of Samina in Ghati Hospital with burn injury. They met Samina in the hospital. Samina was in conscious state and she narrated them incident and disclosed that kerosene was poured by accused on her person and set her on fire. P.W.4 A.S.I. Maheboob Pathan, who was attached to P.S. Ajintha, in whose jurisdiction the incident has occurred, after receipt of information about MLC case from Aurangabad as to admission of Samina in the Ghati Hospital, came to Aurangabad as per instructions of his superior. After getting confirmed about the conscious state of mind of deceased Samina and her fitness to make statement from attending medical Officer Dr. After getting confirmed about the conscious state of mind of deceased Samina and her fitness to make statement from attending medical Officer Dr. Darshan (PW-8), he proceeded to record the complaint of Samina vide Exh. 40, wherein Samina narrated the facts relating to incident and how she sustained burn injuries as well as name of the culprit. A.S.I. Maheboobkhan also gave requisition to Special Executive Magistrate by name Ishwar Sharma, who recorded the statement of deceased vide Exh. 41. Subsequently the deceased succumbed to burn injuries and declared as dead at 6.45 p.m. 6. A.S.I. Maheboobkhan (P.W.4) forwarded the statement to P.S. Ajintha, on the basis of which offence came to be registered against accused. Further investigation was carried out by PSI Patil. Body of Samina was referred for post mortem. It was confirmed that her death was due to shock on account of burn injuries. After registration of offence the accused was arrested. 7. During the course of investigation, PSI Patil effected two spot panchanamas. One that of the house where Samina was residing, which is at Exh.34 and that of the place where actual incident had taken place i.e. the cattle shed, which is at Exh. 35. It was found that there was no signs of burning in the house and even the stove which was found in the house of Samina was unused. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed against accused. The accused came to be prosecuted for offence u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code and after trial, she was convicted and sentenced as stated in foregoing para. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the dying declaration of deceased Samina victim was a result of tutoring her by relatives. She suffered 100% burns and therefore, it was impossible for her to make any statement. It is further submitted that the victim did not know Marathi language and, therefore, recording of her dying declaration in Marathi itself is doubtful. The persons who accompanied Samina to the hospital were not examined by the prosecution. The neighbours who came on the spot of occurrence were also not examined by the prosecution. There is no endorsement by the doctor on dying declaration that Samina was conscious, well oriented and was able to give statement. The persons who accompanied Samina to the hospital were not examined by the prosecution. The neighbours who came on the spot of occurrence were also not examined by the prosecution. There is no endorsement by the doctor on dying declaration that Samina was conscious, well oriented and was able to give statement. The material witnesses i.e. PW-1 & PW-2 who were examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and therefore it is unsafe to place reliance on their testimonies. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the reported judgments of this Court in cases of Ishwar Ganpat Machhi vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 132, Nirmala Maruti Gunjal & other vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 18 and contended that if there are variations in the dying declaration and deceased suffered 100% burns and if there is tutoring to the declarant, in that case, such evidence led by the prosecution deserves to be discarded and accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt. The learned Counsel for the appellant, has further contended that if the dying declaration is recorded in the language other than that of the deceased and there non mentioning of fact in bottom of dying declaration that they were read over and explained in language that deceased understood, possibility of deceased being influenced by somebody in making dying declarations cannot be ruled out. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Kashi Vishwanath vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 CRI. L.J. 3655. He further invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in case of Manik Vanaji Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 CRI. L.J. 972 to canvass the submission that dying declaration cannot be believed in a case wherein the victim was found to be not able to give such dying declaration due to unfitness. He further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 521 wherein in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that as the victim therein had sustained 97% burns and in such a condition, it was not expected to give dying declaration by said victim. 10. On the other hand, learned APP supported the judgment of trial Court. C.R. (Cri) 521 wherein in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that as the victim therein had sustained 97% burns and in such a condition, it was not expected to give dying declaration by said victim. 10. On the other hand, learned APP supported the judgment of trial Court. He has submitted that besides two oral dying declarations, there is one written dying declaration at Exh.40 and other evidence on record, providing corroboration to all the dying declarations, which would lead to the only hypothesis that the appellant has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. He has submitted that there is no perversity and illegality in reasons and findings recorded by trial Court. Therefore, the Judgment and order passed by trial Court calls for no interference. 11. We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP appearing for the State. With their able assistance, we have thoroughly perused the entire material placed on record. We are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order deserves no interference by this Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction for the reasons set out hereinafter. 12. Since the appeal has been filed against conviction, we would like to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record so as to reach to the correct conclusion. 13. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Rafiqkhan S/o Habibkhan Pathan – brother of deceased Samina. In his evidence, he stated that on 22nd May, 1996, after coming to know that Samina had sustained burn injuries, he along his parents went to the hospital at Aurangabad. He visited Samina in the hospital. Samina was conscious. When they inquired Samina as to how she sustained burn injuries, at that time, she informed P.W.1 that when she was working in the cattle-shed (Kotha) in the same wada, in the morning hours of 22.5.1996, that time accused Nazira came there. She was possessing a plastic can. She came there under the pretext of going for nature's call but, she suddenly poured kerosene which was in the can on her person and set her on fire. This witness has also given other details. She was possessing a plastic can. She came there under the pretext of going for nature's call but, she suddenly poured kerosene which was in the can on her person and set her on fire. This witness has also given other details. He stated that whenever Samina was visiting to Ghatnandra, she used to narrate that accused was suspecting that Samina had affair with her husband Anwar Khan and on that count, there used to quarrel between them. In his cross-examination, evidence of P.W.1 Rafiqkhan stood with his version. Nothing has been brought in his cross examination to find support to case of defence or to discard his testimony. He denied the suggestion that Samina poured kerosene on her person and immolated herself. He further stated that the cattle-shed where the incident had taken place is about 50 feet away from the residential place. 14. Prosecution has examined P.W.2 Aminabee w/o Habibkhan Pathan, the mother of the victim who has stated in her evidence that when she went to hospital with her son Rafiqkhan (PW-1) Samina told them that, whatever she was stating about Nazira's allegations against her, were not taken seriously by them and then Samina narrated that in the morning at 6 a.m., when she was collecting dung of bullocks from the Kotha, that time Nazira came there under the pretext of going for attending nature's call. At that time she was holding a plastic can with her. Samina narrated that accused had brought kerosene in the plastic can and all of a sudden, she poured kerosene on her person and set a match stick and lit her. Samina stated that she started burning but accused fled away by closing door from outside. The husband of Samina when found that fumes were coming from Kotha, he opened the door and found Samina in burnt state. This witness has stated other details relating to incident. In her cross-examination, suggestion was given to her that there was no conversation between her and Samina prior to her death. Said suggestion was denied by this witness. 15. At Exh. 35, there is a panchanama prepared by the prosecution about the condition of the house of the deceased and also at Exh. 36 there is panchanama of spot of incident. P.W.3 Kalumiya s/o Ibrahimmiya Deshmukh and one Jafarshaha Khakishaha were the panch witnesses to both the panchanama. Said suggestion was denied by this witness. 15. At Exh. 35, there is a panchanama prepared by the prosecution about the condition of the house of the deceased and also at Exh. 36 there is panchanama of spot of incident. P.W.3 Kalumiya s/o Ibrahimmiya Deshmukh and one Jafarshaha Khakishaha were the panch witnesses to both the panchanama. Prosecution has examined P.W.3 Kalumiya so as to prove said panchanamas. According to him, upon visiting the house of Mubarakkhan, husband of the deceased, he saw there were household articles like a stove, a oven and fuel wood and other articles and there were no signs of burning. 16. So far as panchanama of spot of the incident is concerned, the P.W.3 Panch witness stated that they went to Kotha. They noticed some signs of burning, there were some pieces of woman's garments, there was a can, smelling of kerosene, burn pieces of fodder etc. lying on spot. All the articles were seized and panchanama was prepared. It appears that the Investigating Officer collected the burn pieces of clothes, one plastic tin smelling of kerosene, having a handle (Kadi), mud with kerosene and simple mud from the spot and sealed it before preparing panchanama. It has also come on the record that spot of incident was about 50 feet away from the house, though within the boundary of house. Upon careful perusal of evidence of P.W.3, 4 and 5 and the panchanamas at Exh. 35 and 36, it appears that the prosecution has proved the panchanamas. 17. Prosecution has examined P.W.7 Dr. Anil Digambarrao Jinturkar who, at the relevant time, was working as Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine Department in Government Medical College, Aurangabad and conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Samina. In his evidence, he stated that all the burn injuries on the body of Samina were ante mortem and they were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The death of Samina was caused due to burns. 18. Prosecution has examined P.W.8 Dr. Darshan Ramkrishna Revanwar, the Medical Officer on duty in the Ward in which Samina was admitted. On 22.5.1996 while he was on duty as per requisition Exh. 39, he examined Samina and found she was conscious and fit to make statement. Accordingly, he made endorsement. So also after completion of recording of statement, he examined her and found conscious through out recording of statement. On 22.5.1996 while he was on duty as per requisition Exh. 39, he examined Samina and found she was conscious and fit to make statement. Accordingly, he made endorsement. So also after completion of recording of statement, he examined her and found conscious through out recording of statement. His evidence remained unshattered. 19. P.W.4 Mr. Maheboobkhan Pathan, A.S.I., attached to Police Station, Ajintha recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Samina. Upon perusal of the letter addressed by P.W.4 Mr. Pathan to Dr. Darshan (P.W.8) the Medical Officer, Ghat Hospital, Aurangabad, which is at Exh.39 dated 22nd May, 1996, it is evident there is an endorsement on the said letter by P.W.8 that, “Patient is conscious, oriented & fit for giving the statement.” The said letter was given by the A.S.I. Mr. Pathan – P.W.4 to the Medical Officer for examining the patient so as to record her dying declaration. The said endorsement is dated 22.5.1996 at 4.30 p.m. The Medical Officer has signed the same. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no endorsement by the Medical Officer on the dying declaration. Upon perusal of the dying declaration at Exh.40, it appears that the said dying declaration was recorded after medical examination of the deceased Samina. She stated that in the dying declaration made before P.W.4 that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband are residing together. She had three brothers-in-law namely, Isaq, Anwar and Iqbal. Nazira is wife of Anwar Khan, residing separately. Her brother-in-law Anwarkhan did not go to Mumbai since last 7 to 8 months. He frequently used to come to her house. On 20th May, 1996, Nazira w/o Anwarkhan came to her at about 10 a.m., and told her that she should not talk with Anwarkhan and she should not allow Anwarkhan to come to their house. Accordingly, she told Anwarkhan not to come to their house. However, Anwarkhan replied that the said house belongs to his parents and, therefore, he will continue to come. She specifically stated that Nazira wife of brother of Samina's husband, was suspecting that deceased had illicit relations with her husband. She was saying, “You drove my husband to infidelity.” She has further stated that on 22nd May, 1996, at about 6 a.m., the victim went to cattle-shed to collect cattle dung. She specifically stated that Nazira wife of brother of Samina's husband, was suspecting that deceased had illicit relations with her husband. She was saying, “You drove my husband to infidelity.” She has further stated that on 22nd May, 1996, at about 6 a.m., the victim went to cattle-shed to collect cattle dung. At that time, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were sleeping inside her house. When the victim was collecting dung in cattle-shed, Nazira came there under the pretext of answering nature's call. She was holding a plastic can in her hand. Said plastic can was containing kerosene. She poured kerosene from backside on the person of the victim and by igniting match-stick, set her on fire. The victim shouted. The accused ran away. The clothes of the victim were burnt. Thereafter family members came. She rolled herself on the floor for extinguishing fire. Thereafter, her mother-in-law, husband, neighbour Sayyed Bhaiyya, sister-in-law Imrana and other persons came at the spot and extinguished fire. She stated to them that Nazira poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Then victim was taken to the hospital by her husband and other family members. It is specifically mentioned in the said dying declaration that the dying declaration was read over to the victim and same is as per her narration. 20. In our view, the dying declaration at Exh.40 meets the requirement of law inasmuch as, there is endorsement of the doctor and said dying declaration has been signed by the A.S.I. Pathan – P.W.4 who recorded the same. There is thumb impression of left hand of deceased on the dying declaration. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not conversant with Marathi language was not suggested during cross-examination of the P.W.4 Mr. Pathan, who recorded the dying declaration and, therefore, the said contention deserves no consideration. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the said aspect and we do not find any reason to upset the view taken by the trial Court in this regard. 21. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the victim was brought to the hospital, there is a mention in medical history that, 'she committed suicide.' The trial Court has discussed the said aspect in detail and observed that victim herself had not given the medical history and no much importance can be given to the said history. 21. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the victim was brought to the hospital, there is a mention in medical history that, 'she committed suicide.' The trial Court has discussed the said aspect in detail and observed that victim herself had not given the medical history and no much importance can be given to the said history. Moreover, the defence has not called those papers and examined any witness. Therefore, the solitary admission brought in cross-examination of P.W.4, who has no personal knowledge as to what was recorded as history by C.M.O. And who gave that history, no much weightage can be given to such admission brought through cross-examination of P.W.4. 22. P.W.5 Anil s/o Baburao Patil, Investigating Officer in his evidence before the Court stated that on 22nd May, 1996 he was attached to the Police Station, Ajintha. Information was received about the MLC case of Samina Begum. Therefore, PHC Pathan was deputed to record statement of the injured in the night. PHC Pathan produced a statement on which he registered offence at about 11.35 p.m. He took up investigation, effected panchanama of the spot and also inspected the house of Samina. He also stated that the stove which was in the house of victim was unused. There was no signs of kerosene and burns in the residential house of victim. He visited the cattle-shed which is place of the incident and he found burnt pieces of clothes, plastic can smelling kerosene. All the articles were collected by him in presence of panchas and accordingly, panchnamas were drawn. It has come on record that the distance between Ajintha Police Station and Ghati Hospital , Aurangabad is about 100 Kms. 23. The prosecution examined P.W.4 Maheboobkhan s/o Fitrat Khan Pathan at Exh.38. He recorded the dying declaration (Exh.40) of the victim on 22nd May, 1996 at about 4.30 p.m. In his deposition before the Court, he stated that he visited the patient in Ghati hospital. Patient was hospitalized in Ward No. 22/23. She was named Samina Begum. He gave a letter to the attending Medical Officer to confirm about her conscious state of mind. After examining Samina (deceased), the Medical Officer endorsed that patient was fit to give her statement. This witness has produced the said requisition letter with endorsement of Medical Officer thereon, which is at Exh.39. He then recorded statement of Samina Begum. He gave a letter to the attending Medical Officer to confirm about her conscious state of mind. After examining Samina (deceased), the Medical Officer endorsed that patient was fit to give her statement. This witness has produced the said requisition letter with endorsement of Medical Officer thereon, which is at Exh.39. He then recorded statement of Samina Begum. M.O. endorsed the statement, which bears his signature and thumb impression of Samina (deceased). The witness further deposed that Samina Begum was able to give statement and she gave all the details which were required to constitute an offence. After answering introductory questions, Samina informed that accused is wife of her husband's brother and on 20.5.1996 at 10 a.m., accused warned the victim that she should not allow him in her house. Victim had also warned husband of the accused not to visit her house and she was present that time, but husband of the accused told that as house where victim resides was belonging to his father and nobody can prevent him from visiting the house. Accused was believing that there is some affair between Samina and her husband and therefore, accused was blaming the victim. The victim further stated that on 22.5.1996 at 6 a.m., when in the morning she was collecting dung in the cattle-shed that time accused, on the pretext of going for attending nature's call, came there with a plastic can and when the victim was facing her back, the accused emptied the can containing kerosene and set her on fire and ran away. Victim however, rolled on the ground and got herself extinguished, she cried for help on account of which her house mates and neighbor gathered to whom she narrated incident and thereafter, she was brought to the hospital. P.W.4 Pathan deposed that the victim was giving voluntary statement and it was not tutored one. He recorded the whole version, obtained her thumb impression, subsequently, offence came to be registered on that basis. P.W.4 Pathan was cross-examined by the defence. However, his version in examination-in-chief remained unshattered. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to find favour to support the case of defence. 24. The Executive Magistrate also recorded dying declaration of the victim at Exh.41. However, due to his demise, he could not be examined as prosecution witness. P.W.4 Pathan was cross-examined by the defence. However, his version in examination-in-chief remained unshattered. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to find favour to support the case of defence. 24. The Executive Magistrate also recorded dying declaration of the victim at Exh.41. However, due to his demise, he could not be examined as prosecution witness. In the said dying declaration also, the facts disclosed by Nazira are concerned, those are consistent with the oral dying declarations of P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as written dying declaration recorded by P.W.4 Pathan. She has clearly stated in the said dying declaration that the accused poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. However, since the Special Executive Magistrate could not be examined, we are not placing reliance on the said dying declaration. 25. As discussed in foregoing para, in addition to the written dying declaration at Exh.40 recorded by P.W.4, there are two oral dying declarations made by the victim to P.W.1 Rafiqkhan and P.W.2 Aminabee. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the dying declaration at Exh.40 and the evidence of P.W.4 Pathan, PHC and other prosecution witnesses, in our considered view, the oral dying declarations as well as the written dying declaration are consistent with each others. All the dying declarations find due corroboration through the spot panchanamas (Exh.35 & 36). The surrounding circumstances coupled with dying declaration at Exh.40 and two oral dying declarations, unequivocally indicate that the accused and accused alone committed an offence as alleged. The dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution to base the conviction are found to be fully trustworthy and inspire full confidence. The appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. We found no perversity in the reasons and findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge. The reasons and findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge are totally in consonance with evidence on record. 26. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal & other vs. State of Haryana, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 847 (S.C.) has summed up the principles governing the dying declaration. Para 10 of the said judgment reads, thus:- “10. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Para 10 of the said judgment reads, thus:- “10. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a 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 assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, 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. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Smt. Paniben vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817 :- "(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. See – Munnu Raja & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 2 SCR 764 . (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 Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Sagar Yadav and other, AIR 1985 SC 416 and Ramavati Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 164 . (iii) The Court has to scrutinize 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 and another vs. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994 . (iv) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. See – Rasheed Beg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 (4) SCC 264 . See – K. Ramachandra Reddy and another vs. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994 . (iv) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. See – Rasheed Beg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 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 – Kaka Singh vs. State of M.P. AIR 1982 SC 1021 . (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction – See Ram Manorath and other vs. State of U.P. 1981 (2) SCC 654 . (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. See – State of Maharashtra vs. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617 . (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. See Surajdeo Oza and other vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1505 . (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 eye-witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. See – Nanahau Ram and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 912 . (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. vs. Madan Mohan and other, AIR 1989 SC 1519 . (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 Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 ." 27. (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 Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 ." 27. In the light of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned expositions and in the facts of the present case, as the dying declaration at Exh.40 gets corroboration from two oral dying declarations by the victim to P.W.1 Rafiqkhan and P.W.2 Aminabee and also other evidence adduced by prosecution, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved that the dying declarations made by deceased were voluntary and inspired full confidence and same can form basis to convict the appellant. The Medical Officer did give endorsement that the victim was conscious, oriented and in a fit mental condition to give dying declaration. In the present case, upon appreciation of allegations in the dying declaration, it appears that those allegations are not in a routine manner against the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law or any other family members. There was no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the accused when the accused was residing separately. 28. Therefore, upon close analysis and re-appreciation of evidence in its entirety, we hold that the view taken by the trial Court is in consonance with the evidence brought on record and the judgment of trial Court calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal sans merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Application No. 4624 of 2014 does not survive and stands rejected.