JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal has been preferred by Chhotu S/o Pema Mehrat against the judgement dated 13.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar in Sessions Case No.07/2007, whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. The facts of the case are that on 22.10.2006 a parcha bayan of Smt. Pintu @ Surma W/o Koopa Mehrat came to be recorded at Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar in which she has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Koopa S/o Lakha Mehrat three years ago and she had no child. It was further alleged that about one month before, her mother carried her to her parental place at Village Sugra Pakhariyawas and since then she was there. On 22.10.2006 at about 11.00 O'clock her elder sister Farida and her husband Chhotu S/o Prem Mehrat R/o Naharkheda started quarreling. Chhotu was beating her sister (Farida). She came to rescue and sent Farida outside. Chhotu asked her why his wife Farida was sent out. He brought a container of kerosene from a room and poured the same upon her and when she was going to tie goats, Chhotu threw a match stick on her and her clothes caught fire. Her sister Farida threw water upon her. Some persons came at the place of incident. It was alleged that some parts of her body were burnt and Chhotu with an intention to kill her, has poured the kerosene oil upon her and lit the fire. She was taken to hospital by Murad S/o Bhoma Mehrat and Smt. Badami W/o Uda Mehrat on motorcycle. On the basis of above parcha bayan, Police Station Beawar Sadar registered the FIR bearing No.391/2006 against the accused-appellant for the offence u/s.307 IPC. Thereafter, on 24.12.2006, one Bana S/o Gulab Mehrat R/o Pakhariyawas submitted a written report before the Police Station Beawar Sadar alleging therein that his daughter Smt. Pintu @ Surma W/o Koopa Mehrat aged about 20 years was put to fire by his son in law Chhotu S/o Pema Mehrat by pouring kerosene oil on her with an intention to kill her. She was got admitted in A.K. Hospital on 22.10.2006. She was got admitted in A.K. Hospital on 22.10.2006. On 28.11.2006, she was discharged from the hospital and in the night of 24.12.2006 at about 2.00 AM, she died. On the basis of above report, the Investigating Officer added Section 302 IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC. On the basis of material and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC. He denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution got examined as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Defence did not examine any witness and exhibited two documents. The statement of accused-appellant came to be recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded that deceased herself committed suicide. In his defence, he did not produce any evidence. The learned trial court after recording evidence and hearing both the parties but without properly considering the fact and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as the law applicable, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide impugned judgment dated 13.8.2008 in the manner as indicated above. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that Farida (PW1) is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident. In her cross examination, she has admitted this fact that she was standing on the Pakhariyawas Circle which is 1-1½ km away from the place of incident and when her sister was being carried by one Murad on motorcycle, she saw them at Pakhariyawas Circle but she did not tell her anything. Therefore, it clearly shows that Farida (PW1) is not the eyewitness of the alleged incident, even though the learned trial court has held her to be the eyewitness of the incident and on the basis of her statement has held the appellant to be guilty. Even Badami (PW3) & Mohan (PW7) are not the eyewitnesses of the incident. They have alleged what they have heard from others. Therefore, their evidence is also not believable. Pratap (PW4) has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that Smt. Sugra (PW3), who is the mother of the deceased has stated in her examination in chief that she was not at home. The deceased has been carried by Murad and her devrani. Therefore, their evidence is also not believable. Pratap (PW4) has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that Smt. Sugra (PW3), who is the mother of the deceased has stated in her examination in chief that she was not at home. The deceased has been carried by Murad and her devrani. She was informed by Farida (PW1) that appellant has burnt the deceased. This fact is contrary to the statement of Farida (PW1), who stated that she came to know about the incident only after 10 days of the incident. Therefore, there is no question of telling about the incident on the date of incident. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that deceased was not in a condition to talk and only after 8-10 days of the alleged incident, she came in the condition to talk. She has further stated that when her daughter came to her sense, then only investigation was made from her. She has further admitted that she wanted the appellant to leave Farida. Therefore, it is evidently clear that accused-appellant has falsely been implicated only with the intention to get Farida divorced by him so that the amount of `Jhagda' may not be given. It is argued that Murad (PW6) has stated that no one saw him at Pakhariyawas Circle when he was carrying the deceased on motorcycle. He has further stated that on the date of alleged incident, no investigation was made by the police from the deceased before him. He has further stated that no statement of him was recorded by the police. Jagdish (PW8) has stated that he saw the deceased Pintu @ Surma in the Varendah of the house and her mother and aunt were there. This contention of the witness is contrary to the statements of mother of the deceased, who has stated that she came at home only after carrying Pintu @ Surma to hospital. Therefore, this witness has stated lie. It is contended that Dr. S.R. Gehlot (PW16) has stated in his cross examination that there is no mention in the injury report (Ex.P12) of deceased Pintu @ Surma regarding smell of kerosene from the body of deceased. He has further stated that he was informed by the injured that she has burnt, but she did not tell her, as to who had burnt her. S.R. Gehlot (PW16) has stated in his cross examination that there is no mention in the injury report (Ex.P12) of deceased Pintu @ Surma regarding smell of kerosene from the body of deceased. He has further stated that he was informed by the injured that she has burnt, but she did not tell her, as to who had burnt her. Koopa (PW20) who was the husband of the deceased has stated that he asked from deceased Pintu @ Surma why she burnt herself, but she did not reply and kept mum. He has further stated that when he asked from mother of deceased, she also did not tell anything. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Banna (PW17), father of deceased Pintu has stated that Chhotu used to stay with them in their house and that no quarrel used to take place between him and his wife Farida. In fact, he asked deceased Pintu in hospital why she did so (burnt herself)? This clearly shows that it was a case of suicidal death and not of homicidal death and that deceased put herself to fire. It is contended that the plastic cane containing the kerosene oil was recovered from the house vide Ex.P2 and not from the accused-appellant. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of Koopa (PW20), husband of the deceased, who has stated that he repeatedly asked her in hospital how she got burnt. Initially, she was not fully conscious and thereafter she did listen to his question, but did not reply. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant therefore submits that cumulative reading of these statements clearly show that a case of suicide has been fastened on the appellant as a murder only because the complainant wanted to get rid of him and wanted to get the appellant separated from his wife Farida. Moroever, Shravan Dan (PW25) has stated that he did not investigate the matter in the light of suicide. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that parcha bayan (Ex.P5) was not of the deceased, nor the thumb impression was of her since as per the evidence of the prosecution the deceased was burnt 70-75% and as per the statements of prosecution witness, therefore, she was not in condition to give any statement. Moreover, her hands, fingers & thumb were burnt therefore she could not put the thumb impression. Moreover, her hands, fingers & thumb were burnt therefore she could not put the thumb impression. Kalu (PW19) has admitted this fact that at the time of death, the fingers and thumb of the deceased were burnt extensively. Dr. Sushila Jain (PW22), the member of the Medical Board who conducted the postmortem has admitted this fact that if the skin of thumb is burnt upto the depth, then the impression of thumb will not come. He has admitted this fact also that the deceased was burnt upto 80% and her hands, thumb and palms were burnt completely. Dr. K.K. Chauhan (PW24), the another member of the Medical Board has also stated that the neck, lips, tongue and elementary canal of the deceased were contested and the burns were extensive. Shravan Dan (PW25), the Investigating Officer has stated that the thumb, fingers and palms of the deceased were burnt. Therefore, how could she put her thumb impression is difficult to believe. There is a serious contradiction in the testimony of Dashrath Singh (PW9), ASI Police Station Beawar Sadar, who claims to have written the parcha bayan of the deceased and Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) and Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15). While Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15) has stated that he was satisfied on seeing the injury report of the deceased that she was in a fit set of mind to give statement. He keep asking the questions to her and that deceased keeping reply, which he dictated to Dashrath Singh (PW9), ASI, whereas Dashrath Singh (PW9) in his statement has stated that questions were put to her and reply to each such 9 question was noted by him. Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) has however stated that deceased gave statement on her own and that no questions were put to her. Narendra Pratap Singh (PW21) has stated that the parcha bayan was taken by Dashrath Singh (PW9) and not by Rajesh Kumar Chouhan, SDM (PW15). Besides, no specific evidence has been given that despite having 75% burns, she was fit to give statement. Sajjan Singh (PW10) has stated that deceased Pintu @ Surma had stated that Farida was sent out of house by Pintu @ Surma. He has further stated that he did not take the certificate from the Doctor as to whether the deceased was in a position to give statement. Sajjan Singh (PW10) has stated that deceased Pintu @ Surma had stated that Farida was sent out of house by Pintu @ Surma. He has further stated that he did not take the certificate from the Doctor as to whether the deceased was in a position to give statement. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the facts like these when neither motive, nor intention has been proved, there was no reason why the accused would put deceased to burns. It is argued that from the testimony of witnesses, it is evident that deceased was not happy with her married life, therefore, she committed suicide. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that from the evidence of the prosecution, it would be revealed that no one is the eyewitnesses of the incident. All the witnesses are planted witnesses, who have stated the story which they heard. The learned trial court has failed to consider those portions of their statements which are favourable to the accused-appellant. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the learned trial court has framed defective charges due to which the accused-appellant could not take proper defence and as such the defence of the accused-appellant has been prejudiced. The learned trial court did not put all the material to the accused-appellant at the time of recording his statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which material, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court did not provide proper opportunity of hearing and placing material and evidence before passing the order of sentence as required under Section 235 Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment and fine is bad in law. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that alleged incident of burning took place on 22.10.2006. At that time, the police initially registered case u/s.307 and 326 of IPC, but the deceased remained hospitalised for more than one month and was discharged on 28.11.2006. It is almost a month thereafter that she died on 24.12.2006. The death of deceased, therefore, cannot be said to be direct result of the burns sustained by her. In fact, had the proper treatment been given to her, she would have survived. Dr. It is almost a month thereafter that she died on 24.12.2006. The death of deceased, therefore, cannot be said to be direct result of the burns sustained by her. In fact, had the proper treatment been given to her, she would have survived. Dr. P.C. Gangwal (PW13) in his cross examination has admitted that if the deceased would have been taken to other hospital or she would have been provided better treatment, she could be saved as admittedly, deceased died after 1 month 10 days of the alleged incident. Learned counsel submits that there are discrepancies in the statement of witnesses, therefore, accused-appellant can at best be convicted u/s.304 Part-II IPC for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant in this connection has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 SCC 324 and judgment of this Court in Govind Narayan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 479. Shri V.S. Godara, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. The parcha bayan of deceased has been fully corroborated by the statement of Dashrath Singh (PW9), Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) & Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15). The injury report of deceased (Ex.P12), which was prepared immediately after recording dying declaration on 22.10.2006 contained a note that the patient was conscious and agreed to give statement and, therefore, if that was taken as sufficient certificate of fitness by Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15), Executive Magistrate/Sub-divisional Magistrate and that too in the presence of Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14), the recording of statement (Ex.P5) cannot be faulted. Even if the deceased has died more than one month after the incident, the death was direct result of the burn injuries, which is evident from the postmortem report (Ex.P18) that the cause of death was septicemia due to extensive burn proved by Dr. Sushila Jain (PW22), Dr. C.L. Bhati (PW23) and Dr. K.K. Chauhan (PW24), who were members of the Board. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant primarily relying on the parcha bayan of the deceased, which has been treated as dying declaration. K.K. Chauhan (PW24), who were members of the Board. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant primarily relying on the parcha bayan of the deceased, which has been treated as dying declaration. Contention that deceased was not in a position to give his parcha bayan since she has sustained burn injuries to the extent of 75% and that could not put the thumb impression, cannot be accepted. Ex.P12, the injury report of deceased, which was prepared on the same day before recording her parcha bayan contains a note to the extent that “patient is conscious, able to give statement”. This note was put by none other than Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14), who has appeared in witness box and stated that she was fit to give statement and that her statement was, in fact, recorded in his presence. She herself gave her statement and that it was not that questions were not put to her. Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15), SDM, Bharatpur has stated that he before recording statement called Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) and also take note of the aforesaid endorsement on the injury report and only on satisfying himself, he recorded the statement of deceased. Although it is true that in the examination-in-chief Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15) has stated that he asked questions and noted her replies, which is dictated to ASI Dashrath Singh (PW9), but in the cross examination, he has clarified this fact that he did not record the dying declaration in question-answer form, but only put a question in the demanding way as to how this incident took place and thereafter whatever was submitted by the deceased was recorded by him. Dashrath Singh (PW9) corroborated the statement of Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) and Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15) that he recorded the statement as per the dictation given by SDM Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15) in the presence of duty Doctor Dilip Choudhary (PW14), which is Ex.P5. He has stated that this Ex.P5 contained the thumb impression of the deceased Pintu @ Surma at place `X' and signature of SDM at place `C' to `D' and signature of Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) at place `E' to `F'. Dashrath Singh (PW9) has been subjected to extensive cross examination, but has remained unshaken. Dr. He has stated that this Ex.P5 contained the thumb impression of the deceased Pintu @ Surma at place `X' and signature of SDM at place `C' to `D' and signature of Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) at place `E' to `F'. Dashrath Singh (PW9) has been subjected to extensive cross examination, but has remained unshaken. Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) has proved his own signature at parcha bayan (Ex.P5) from place `E' to `F'. Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15) has also stated that his signatures on Ex.P5 contained from place `C' to `D' and signature of Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) was contained at place `E' to `F' and that the thumb impression of deceased was affixed at place `X'. He has denied the suggestion that parcha bayan (Ex.P5) was recorded by Dashrath Singh (PW9) on his own and was not dictated by Rajesh Kumar Chouhan (PW15). Coming now to parcha bayan (Ex.P5) of the deceased Pintu, we find that therein she has alleged that she had come to her father's place at Pakhariyavas along with his mother Sugra from his in-laws place. Around 11.00 on 22.10.2006, his brother-in-law (jeeja) Chhotu has started quarreling with his sister Farida. Chhotu was beating her. She tried to intervene and tried to save her by sending her outside the house. Chhotu was drunk and then picked up a quarrel with her (Pintu) as to why she helped his wife (Farida) to escape. Chhotu got infuriated and picked up a cane containing kerosene oil and poured the kerosene oil on her body while she was going to tie the goats and threw a burning match on her and her clothes immediately caught fire. Her sister Farida came to her rescue and poured water from a mud pot on her body. Several people assembled there. Her thighs from both front and back side and both hands were burnt. Her left feet was burnt from behind upto the thighs. She was taken to hospital by Murad S/o Bhoma and Badami. Smt. Farida (PW1), the elder sister of deceased and wife of accused-appellant has also supported this version of deceased that she was saved by deceased when her husband Chhotu was beating her in drunken condition and when she (deceased) went to tie the goats, accused-appellant poured kerosene oil on her body and lit the fire by match stick. She poured water on her body. Several villagers assembled there. She poured water on her body. Several villagers assembled there. Murad was also one among them. Chhotu tried to flee from there. Villagers caught hold of him. Her sister was burnt from behind and her clothes were also burnt. Her feet only from below were saved. Murad and Badami took her to hospital. Although it is true that in cross examination this witness (Farida) has stated that when she was driven out of her house by deceased, who wanted to save her from the beatings of the appellant. She went to the crossing at `Y' place in site plan (Ex.D1). It is about one and half kms. away from her house. Contention that deceased was not happy with her husband and that also cannot be accepted because she did not have any issue and her husband was not happy with her. The statement of this witness in cross examination that the deceased started speaking little bit after 10-15 days cannot be considered to discard the parcha bayan (dying declaration) because on the day when she was taken to hospital, she was conscious and when the infections increased, her condition deteriorated. Dr. Dilip Choudhary (PW14) has proved this fact that when the deceased was brought to hospital, she was conscious and was in a position to give statement and, in fact, her statement was recorded in his presence. Even if, therefore, Farida (PW2), who as literate person, has somewhat deviated from her version from examination in chief, that cannot be a reason to discard her testimony. We observe that if Farida is not accepted as a eye witness to the incident, then also there is ample corroboration for sustaining conviction of the accused-appellant on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased, which shall be discussed shortly hereinafter. Sugra (PW2) in her statement has stated that deceased used to mostly reside in her house. The appellant was husband of Farida. He also used to mostly stay with them. He was a drunk and was an addict to alcohol. He used to subject Farida to beating. Farida was staying in her house for last 5-6 months. This witness has given natural statement and stated that she was not at home when the incident took place. She heard hue and cry outside in `guwari' that the girl has been burnt. Murad and his wife Badami took Pintu to the hospital. He used to subject Farida to beating. Farida was staying in her house for last 5-6 months. This witness has given natural statement and stated that she was not at home when the incident took place. She heard hue and cry outside in `guwari' that the girl has been burnt. Murad and his wife Badami took Pintu to the hospital. Farida told her that accused-appellant Chhotu has poured kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and lit fire by match stick. She has denied the suggestion that deceased Pintu @ Surma and her husband Koopa used to quarrel with each other. Smt. Badami (PW3) has stated that when she came to the house of Banaji, she saw her daughter lying in burnt condition. Farida was also present there. Both were crying. There was strong kerosene oil smell. On her askance, deceased Pintu told that jeejaji (Chhotu) burnt her. She had seen Chhotu running from there. She along with Murad took her to hospital. In the way, deceased was crying that Chhotu had burnt her. This witness has categorically stated that deceased was in full senses even at his house and also on the way. Presence of Farida on the home is proved by dying declaration of Pintu @ Surma as also statement of Badami (PW3). Murad (PW6) has also stated that on hearing hue and cry, he reached the house of Banna. He saw Pintu @ Surma lying in burnt condition. He along with Badami took her to hospital on the motorcycle. On the way when he asked Pintu, she told that her jeeja (Chhotu) had burnt her. Even this witness has stated that initially the deceased was in a position to give statement. This witness has although somewhat deviated from his version given to police earlier but nevertheless in Court, he has supported the case of prosecution. Jagdish (PW8) has also stated that when the deceased was taken to hospital by Badami and Murad, she was crying that Chhotu had burnt her by pouring kerosene over her body. Dr. P.C. Gangwal who treated her in the hospital on 23.10.2006 has stated that deceased was admitted in hospital on 22.10.2006 in burnt condition. Her bed-head ticket was Ex.P11. As per record, she was having burns to the extent of 75% due to kerosene. She was referred to higher hospital on 28.11.2006. Dr. Dr. P.C. Gangwal who treated her in the hospital on 23.10.2006 has stated that deceased was admitted in hospital on 22.10.2006 in burnt condition. Her bed-head ticket was Ex.P11. As per record, she was having burns to the extent of 75% due to kerosene. She was referred to higher hospital on 28.11.2006. Dr. S.R. Gehlot has also proved that he had seen the deceased at 2.45 pm on 22.10.2006. She was admitted in burnt condition to the extent of 70-75%. She was in a fit condition to give statement. The injury report (Ex.P12) was prepared in his hands. Kishan (PW18) and Kalu (PW19) have proved the inquest/panchnama of the deceased Ex.P14. Dr. Sushila Jain (PW22), Dr. C.L. Bhati (PW23) and Dr. K.K. Chauhan (PW24) were three members of the Medical Board, who had proved the postmortem report of the deceased. Although, it may be true that there are some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses here and there but they cannot be lay out so disproportionately as to completely throw away the entire prosecution witness. Coming now to the alternative argument that appellant at the best can be convicted for offence u/s.304 Part II IPC. Mere fact that deceased died more than one month after the incident does not in any manner mitigate the gravity of the offence of the appellant. The argument that had deceased been taken to some higher hospital, her life could be saved, also cannot improve his case. In fact, father of deceased has stated that despite her poor economic condition, he spent more than Rs.1,00,000 for her treatment. For those like the deceased living in extremely poor conditions, to arrange for treatment in a costlier hospital, is only a distant dream. In any case, deceased has died due to burn injuries, which has been proved by the postmortem report (Ex.P18). All the three Doctors namely; Dr. Sushila Jain (PW22), Dr. C.L. Bhati (PW23) and Dr. K.K. Chauhan (PW24), who were members of the Board have proved the postmortem report, according to which the cause of death was septicemia due to extensive burn. This also, therefore, cannot be a reason to alter the conviction of the accused-appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The argument is therefore rejected. The cited judgment of Supreme Court in Kalu Ram, supra arise out entirely from a different fact situation. This also, therefore, cannot be a reason to alter the conviction of the accused-appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The argument is therefore rejected. The cited judgment of Supreme Court in Kalu Ram, supra arise out entirely from a different fact situation. The appellant therein was highly inebriated condition demanding ornaments from deceased wife and on her refusal he got infuriated. He then doused her with kerosene and wanted her to die and gave her a matchbox. On her failure to strike the matchstick, accused-appellant took the matchbox and ignited one matchstick setting her ablaze, but finding the flames flaring up he brought water in a frantic effort to save her from death. She was later removed to the hospital where her statement was recorded by the police. In those facts, it was held that appellant did not intend to cause injury, which she actually sustained and, therefore, conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC. In Govind Narayan & Ors., supra, the facts were like this that when wife was burning, appellant husband tried to save her and himself received burn injuries. Her father in law also tried to save her. It was held that prosecution failed to establish charges against other in-law of deceased and that there was every possibility that prior to recording dying declaration, deceased was tutored by her father and other family members, whereas the quarrel was between the husband and wife. In those facts, the conviction of the appellant-husband was converted from offence Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. In the present case, there is no iota of evidence that appellant ever tried to save the deceased or had any repugnance for his act. The Supreme Court in Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. vs. State of A.P., (1999) 7 SCC 695 has found it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused solely on dying declaration of the deceased, which was found to be suffering from serious infirmities such as the Doctor should give certification not only about consciousness but also about fit state of mind of deceased that existed before recording of the dying declaration which is essential. Although, Supreme Court has held that when conviction is solely based on the dying declaration, the Court has to consider the same with countenance. Although, Supreme Court has held that when conviction is solely based on the dying declaration, the Court has to consider the same with countenance. In Amol Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 637, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there were multiple dying declarations and inconsistencies and discrepancies in the last dying declaration made it doubtful and it was held to be not in conformity with the first version in the FIR and the earlier dying declaration. Circumstances in the present case are rather conversed where the discloser was made by the deceased in the parcha bayan to the police. 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 coherent 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 her dying declaration. In State of Punjab vs. Gian Kaur & Anr., 1998 (2) Crimes 25 (SC), the Doctor who performed the postmortem of the deceased had given a statement that he had 100% burns over the body and his thumbs were also burnt. The dying declaration, containing a thumb mark was thus not believed because thumb mark on dying declaration had clear ridges and curves. Reference may be usefully made to judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 10 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. 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. Here in the present case, there is, in fact, endorsement made by the Doctor and he has been examined as a police witness in the Court. The Supreme Court in Atbir vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1 , while revisiting its previous judgments 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 of conviction 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. (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 corroborated. 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. 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.” The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2973 held that absence of certification of doctor as to fitness of mind of declarant would not render dying declaration not acceptable. What is essentially required is that person who records it, must be satisfied that deceased was in fit state of mind. Certification by doctor is rule of caution. If the voluntary and truthful nature of declaration can be otherwise established, the same can be relied to record the dying declaration. The hyper technical view should not be therefore taken. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.