Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—As per prosecution case, Ramkhiladi @ Khilli Singh, the present appellant was married with Smt. Veervati Devi in the year, 1995. 2. It has surfaced in the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/13) recorded by Chandrabhan (PW-7), Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, in the presence of Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8) that the appellant, after sprinkling kerosene oil on his wife Smt. Veervati Devi, had set her on fire, after igniting a match-stick. 3. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar, vide its impugned judgment dated 28.11.2007, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sectiion 302 of Indian Penal Code, and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 4. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the appellant has instituted the present appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying interalia that his conviction and sentence, be set aside, and he be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 5. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned Sr. Counsel, in the present appeal preferred by the accused-appellant in order to challenge his conviction and sentence, has raised following two arguments for consideration of this Court:- “A. THAT No Post Mortem Report of deceased, Smt. Veervati Devi has been proved on record, and in absence of the cause of death, statement of Smt. Veervati Devi recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even though in the presence of the Duty Doctor cannot be termed as dying declaration. B. THAT once the dying declaration is kept out of consideration, there is no evidence with the prosecution to arrive at a finding that the death of Smt. Veervati Devi was homicidal and same was not suicide or accidental death.” 6. To deal with the above arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant and the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan in support of the impugned judgment, it will be necessary for us to succinctly recapitulate the prosecution evidence. 7. Gyan Singh (PW-1) on 11.08.2007 at 07:00 P.M. presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) before Chandrabhan (PW-7), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, Alwar. 8. 7. Gyan Singh (PW-1) on 11.08.2007 at 07:00 P.M. presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) before Chandrabhan (PW-7), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Rajgarh, Alwar. 8. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/1), Gyan Singh (PW-1), cousin brother of deceased, Smt. Veervati Devi, stated that two daughters of his uncle (Tauji), namely Veervati Devi and Sonvati Devi in the year, 1995 were married with two brothers, namely Banwari and Ramkhiladi @ Khilli Singh. Khilli Singh was always demanding cash from Smt. Veervati Devi. Khilli Singh under the influence of liquor used to beat his wife. Harya, the father-in-law and another relative of accused, namely Babu Lal used to harass Smt.Veervati Devi. On 09.08.2007 in the evening at 07:00 P.M. Khilli Singh had poured kerosene oil on Smt. Veervati Devi and set her on fire. She received severe burn injuries and was got admitted in the Government Hospital, Alwar. Her condition was precarious. Smt. Shanti Devi, the mother of Smt. Veervati was looking after her in the hospital as his brother, namely Vishram is sick. Therefore, he being his uncle's son, has been told the above facts by Smt. Veervati Devi. 9. In the Court, Gyan Singh (PW-1) appeared as PW-1 and turned hostile to the prosecution, and was confronted with his previous statement and report (Exhibit-P/1) by the learned Public Prosecutor. This witness, in his deposition, stated that Smt. Veervati Devi has died due to burn injuries. In the year, 1995 or in the year, 1996, she was married with Khilli Singh @ Ramkhiladi. There was no dispute between them. The witness further stated that he lodged written-report (Exhibit-P/1) under a wrong impression. The exact words of this witness are as under :- ^^eSaus ohjofr ds ejus dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&1 csodwQhius esa dj nh FkhA** 10. Lastly, this witness (PW-1) stated that when Smt. Veervati Devi was cooking the meals, stove had burst, therefore, she died. The accused was not demanding any cash from her and was not harassing her. The accused had not sprinkled kerosene oil and has not committed her murder. 11. In cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, this witness (PW-1) admitted that Sonvati Devi, the sister of Smt. Veervati Devi was also married with Banwari, the brother of accused. 12. The accused was not demanding any cash from her and was not harassing her. The accused had not sprinkled kerosene oil and has not committed her murder. 11. In cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, this witness (PW-1) admitted that Sonvati Devi, the sister of Smt. Veervati Devi was also married with Banwari, the brother of accused. 12. Ajay, the son of the deceased, aged about eight-years, appeared as PW-2 and stated that his mother was cooking the meals and due to bursting of the stove, she died as a result of burn injuries and this witness was confronted with his previous statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 13. Smt. Shanti Devi (PW-3), the mother of deceased has also not supported the prosecution case. She was declared hostile and confronted with her previous statement. She has also stated that the deceased has died due to bursting of the stove and it was an accidental death. 14. Vishram (PW-4), the brother of deceased, has also not supported the prosecution case, and he was also declared hostile to the prosecution. 15. Smt. Sonvati Devi (PW-5), the sister of deceased, who was married with brother of the accused has also deposed regarding accidental fire. She was also declared hostile to the prosecution and was confronted with her previous statement by the learned Public Prosecutor. 16. Similarly, Suresh Chand (PW-6), another resident of Village, has not supported the prosecution case. He also deposed that it was a case of accidental death and was declared hostile to the prosecution case. 17. Chandrabhan (PW-7), In-charge, Police Station, Rajgarh, stated that he had received written-report (Exhibit-P/1) on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2), bearing No.255/2007 was lodged at Police Station, Rajgarh. This witness had gone to the hospital where in the presence of Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8), he had recorded statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said statement has been proved on record as Exhibit-P/13. 18. Dr. Battu Singh (PW/8) has stated that Smt. Veervati Devi was admitted in the Female Ward No.2, at Bed No.32 and in his presence, Investigating Officer had recorded her statement (Exhibit-P/13), which this witness had attested. According to Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8) statement of Smt. Veervati Devi was recorded in his presence and he has also given a note below the dying declaration regarding fitness of the deceased to make the statement. According to Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8) statement of Smt. Veervati Devi was recorded in his presence and he has also given a note below the dying declaration regarding fitness of the deceased to make the statement. 19. In the present case, the prosecution agency, during trial, had examined, in all eight-witnesses and also proved on record thirteen documents, being Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/13 respectively. 20. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded innocence. 21. In answer to the last question, accused has stated that Veervati was cooking the food and due to bursting of the stove, she had died. In the answer given to the last question in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant has taken the following stand :- ^^ohjorh [kkuk cukrs le; LVkso QV tkus ds dkj.k ejh FkhA ftls eSaus 'kh?kz vyoj vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;k vkSj bZykt ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gks xbZA ohjorh Lo;a us Hkh vius ek¡ dks LVkso ds HkHkd tkus dh ckr crkbZ FkhA** 22. In defence, accused had not examined any witness. 23. Now we shall deal with the arguments raised by Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Advocate. 24. Senior counsel has referred to Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act to contend that since there is no Post Mortem Report on the record, we cannot ascertain the cause of death, and Section 32 of the Act, can only be invoked, if the same relates to the cause of death. 25. Senior counsel has read Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act to contend that only those statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, are admissible in evidence, if the same relate to cause of death. 26. We will reproduce here relevant portion of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act :- “32 Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. 26. We will reproduce here relevant portion of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act :- “32 Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. —Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose atten-dance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:— 1 when it relates to cause of death. —When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question .................................................................... .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................” 27. From bare reading of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned senior counsel has submitted that since the cause of death has not been proved, dying declaration cannot be used by us, as incriminating piece of evidence, against the accused-appellant. 28. Gyan Singh (PW-1), cousin brother of deceased, Ajay (PW-2), son of deceased, Smt. Shanti (PW-3), mother of deceased, Smt. Sonvati (PW-5), sister of deceased and Suresh Chand (PW-6), a neighbour of deceased, all these witnesses have stated that Smt. Veervati Devi was cooking the meals and due to bursting of stove, she died, due to burn injuries and it is a case of accidental death. 29. Furthermore, the accused in his answer to the last question in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also stated that Veervati while cooking the meals had died due to bursting of the stove. Thus, the burn injuries is cause of the death is not in dispute, rather same is consistent assertion of the witness and accused too. 30. Furthermore, the accused in his answer to the last question in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also stated that Veervati while cooking the meals had died due to bursting of the stove. Thus, the burn injuries is cause of the death is not in dispute, rather same is consistent assertion of the witness and accused too. 30. The statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Singh vs. Prem Singh and Another, reported in (2002) 10 S.C.C. 236, can be used to corroborate the prosecution case. 31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Singh (supra) has held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made a sole basis of conviction. However, the Court can rely upon the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in whole or in part to corroborate the prosecution case. It is possible and in the given facts the Court can also rely on the inculpatory part of statement made by the accused, if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. 32. It would be apposite here to reproduce the following portion of the above said judgment :- “27. The statement made in defence by accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part in found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution See Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar, AIR (1969) SC 422. “23. "In this case the exculpatory part of the statement in Ex. 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. “23. "In this case the exculpatory part of the statement in Ex. 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury which the appellant received was caused by the appellant's attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under S, 342 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13th October 1961 negatives both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led to his washing his clothes and having a bath in the river Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the blood-stains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. According to the post mortem report this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances like these there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Ex, 6 the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime." 33. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Singh (supra), it is apparent that from the statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in absence of the Post Mortem Report, it can be used to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses, namely Gyan Singh (PW-1), cousin brother of deceased, Ajay (PW-2), son of deceased, Smt. Shanti (PW-3), mother of deceased, Smt. Sonvati (PW-5), sister of deceased and Suresh Chand (PW-6), a neighbour of deceased, that Smt. Veervati Devi had died due to burn injuries. 34. 34. Thus, from the prosecution evidence and the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it stands conclusively proved that the burn injuries, sustained by Veervati, was cause of her death. 35. We shall also take note of Exhibit-D/1, Injury Report of deceased, Smt.Veervati prepared on 10.08.2007 at 08:00 P.M. 36. It will be apposite for us to reproduce Injury Report (Exhibit-D/1) prepared by the Medical Jurist. The Injury Report reads as under :- “1. Head & face - completely with singing of hairs, eye, lashes and eye limb or both pinna, lips swollen. 2. Chest - completely in all aspect with axillary regions. 3. Abdomen - completely in all aspects. 4. Both upper limbs completely in all aspects with both hands 5. Both lower limbs – completely except foot. 6. Pelvic area – completely.” 37. We may highlight here that the deceased had suffered 98% burns due to dry flame. 38. Once we hold that the cause of death is burn injuries, then statement (Exhibit-P/13) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the presence of Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8) is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same can be termed and used as dying declaration. 39. We will also reproduce here the true translation of the statement of deceased (Exhibit-P/13) recorded by Chandrabhan (PW-7). “Exhibit-P/13. Statement of Smt. Veervati, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. : Dated 12.08.2007. Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Veervati wife of Ramkhiladi @ Khilli Ram, by caste Jatav, aged twenty-six years, resident of Kharkhari, Chawand Singh, Police Station, Rajgarh, at present admitted in the Ward No.2, Bed No.32, Government Hospital, Alwar, in relation to investigation in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.255/2007 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. Dated 11.07.2007, Police Station, Rajgarh, Alwar. Dated : 12.08.2007 Time : 11:00 A.M. Camp : G.H. Alwar Stated that I was married fourteen/fifteen years ago with Khilli Ram S/o Haryaram Bairwa, resident of Kharkhari Chawand Singh. My elder sister, Sonvati was also married with Banwari S/o Harya Ram. I am mother of three children. Out of which, elder child is eight-years old, younger thereto is six-years old and youngest is three-years old. Soon after the marriage, my husband - Khilli Ram @ Ramkhiladi, father-in-law - Harya Ram, mother-in-law - Bhagwati, Devar - Lalluram and Jeth - Banwari used to harass me on domestic issues. I am mother of three children. Out of which, elder child is eight-years old, younger thereto is six-years old and youngest is three-years old. Soon after the marriage, my husband - Khilli Ram @ Ramkhiladi, father-in-law - Harya Ram, mother-in-law - Bhagwati, Devar - Lalluram and Jeth - Banwari used to harass me on domestic issues. Before eight years from today, my husband attempted to kill me by pouring kerosene oil. I ran away. Now I am residing with my husband separately. On 09.08.2007 at about 06:00 P.M. my children were in the house. My husband, Ramkhilari @ Khilliram poured kerosene oil from the can upon me and had set me on fire after igniting a match-stick. I and my children raised shrieks. My elder sister, Sonvati and Devrani Kavita saved me. My husband send me to do Beldari work and whatever money is earned by me, he forcibly takes it away. When I refuse to part money, he beats me. His father and brother also treat me in the similar manner. I do labour work. My husband snatches whatever money is earned by me and consumes liquor. After I was burnt, residents of Village and vicinity had gathered. My father-in-law, Harya and my sister, Sonvati, resident of Kharkhari brought me to Alwar Hospital, where I was admitted. I am under treatment. My in-laws have given a threat that in case, I give statement against them, they will inject poison. Statement attested and statement given in my presence. Dr. Battu Singh R.O.&.A.C. Medical Officer, S.H.O. P.S. . General Hospital, Alwar Rajgarh Dt.12.08.2007 G.H. Alwar.” 40. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paniben vs. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 , for appreciating dying declaration has summed up the law as under:- “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 a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court on its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court on its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, 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 assailants. 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: (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (Munna Raja vs. 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. (State of U.P. vs. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552 ), Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211 ). (iii) This 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 opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy vs. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618 ). (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg vs. 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. (Kake Singh vs. State of M.P., 1981 Supp SCC 25). (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath vs. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 654 ). (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (Kake Singh vs. State of M.P., 1981 Supp SCC 25). (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath vs. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 654 ). (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (State of Maharashtra vs. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 Supp SCC 455). (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (Surajdeo Oza vs. State of Bihar, 1980 Supp SCC 769). (ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanahau Ram vs. State of M.P., 1988 Supp SCC 152). (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan, (1989) 3 SCC 390 ).” 41. The mandate of law laid down in the case of Paniben(supra) requires that when recording of dying declaration is not doubtful same can be acted upon without corrobation. 42. Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8), in the Court, has stated that Exhibit-P/13 statement of Veervati Devi deceased was recorded in his presence. Smt. Veervati Devi was fit to give her statement. Lastly, this witness stated that Smt. Veervati Devi was lying admitted in the hospital since 10th of August, 2007. 43. To us, Dr. Battu Singh (PW-8), being Doctor is an independent person. When all relatives of the deceased have turned hostile, he has very fairly vouchsafed the factum of recording of dying declaration. 44. It has been held in Paniben (supra) that in case the dying declaration aspires confidence, same without any corroboration can be acted upon. 45. In the present case, burn injuries suffered by the deceased corroborates her version. 46. When all relatives of the deceased have turned hostile, he has very fairly vouchsafed the factum of recording of dying declaration. 44. It has been held in Paniben (supra) that in case the dying declaration aspires confidence, same without any corroboration can be acted upon. 45. In the present case, burn injuries suffered by the deceased corroborates her version. 46. Thus, to us, even if the relatives of the deceased have turned hostile and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court, as in present case, it is prudent to act upon dying declaration, thus, we have no hesitation to affirm the conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the trial Court. 47. Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same, being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed, while affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant, recorded by the trial Court.