JUDGMENT : B.R. Gavai, J. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 18th September, 2014 in Sessions Trial No.155 of 2012 and convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under : 3. Deceased Chandrakala was a widow. She was having three sons. She used to reside at village Shahapur rehabilitation near the house of her sister Tulsabai. She used to undertake the job of preparing food along with the accused. Hence, the accused was on visiting terms to her house. 4. On 10th May, 2012, at around 3.00 p.m., when Tulsabai was at her house, she heard shouts from the house of Chandrakala. Tulsabai, therefore, rushed to the house of deceased and found that the accused was running from the house of Chandrakala. When she entered the house of Chandrakala, she found that she was burning and was shouting for help. Tulsabai thereupon poured water on the person of Chandrakala and extinguished the fire. People from the locality gathered there. Tulsabai called for an autorickshaw and shifted Chandrakala to Government Hospital, Warud. Since the condition of Chandrakala was critical, the doctor at Sub-District Hospital, Warud advised that Chandrakala be shifted to Irwin Hospital at Amravati. Accordingly, an ambulance was arranged for and she was shifted to Amravati. After Chandrakala was shifted to Irwin hospital, Amravati, Krushnagiri Govindgiri Goswami (PW1), Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Chandrakala. On the basis of said statement, Crime vide Crime No.80 of 2012 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. As such, the offence came to be converted to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the same came to be committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the same came to be committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Charge came to be framed below Exh.6. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 6. Mr. R.D. Dhande, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in passing the order of conviction. He submits that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and therefore, their testimonies are not reliable. He further submits that the dying declaration recorded is also not trustworthy. He, therefore, submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of conviction needs to be set aside. 7. As against this, Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State submits that the learned trial Judge, upon correct appreciation of evidence, has passed the order of conviction which warrants no interference. 8. The present case is based upon one written dying declaration and three oral dying declarations. The written dying declaration is recorded by Krushnagiri Govindgiri Goswami (PW1), who was, at the relevant time, working as an Executive Magistrate. He states that, on the day of incident, at around 6.00 p.m., he received a phone call from Police Chowki, Irwin hospital, Amravati that one Chandrakala Kumbre was admitted in the hospital due to burn injuries and her statement was to be recorded. Thereafter, he went to Irwin hospital Police Chowki. A memo was handed over to him to record dying declaration. The doctor introduced himself and requested to give opinion whether the deceased was capable to give statement. The memo was given by him to the doctor. The doctor examined Chandrakala and gave endorsement that the patient was fit to give statement and put his signature below the endorsement. He thereafter went near the bed of Chandrakala and asked her relatives to leave the room. He recorded the statement of Chandrakala. He states that he read over the statement to her and she admitted the same to be as per her version. After recording the statement, he again asked the doctor to examine her. The doctor examined her and gave endorsement that the patient was fit while recording statement and put her signature. He recorded the statement of Chandrakala. He states that he read over the statement to her and she admitted the same to be as per her version. After recording the statement, he again asked the doctor to examine her. The doctor examined her and gave endorsement that the patient was fit while recording statement and put her signature. Though this witness has been thoroughly cross-examined, his evidence that he had recorded the dying declaration and complied with all the necessary formalities has gone unchallenged. 9. In the said dying declaration, she has stated that the accused had come to her house. On she telling him to go out of the house, he started giving abuses. Thereafter, he poured kerosene in the house on her person and set her ablaze. It could thus be seen that, in the dying declaration, she clearly implicates the present appellant. 10. Prosecution has also examined Dr. Krishikesh Shridhar Nagalkar (PW3), who had given his endorsement regarding physical condition of the deceased to make her statement. 11. It could be seen that the evidence of Krushnagiri Goswami (PW1) is duly corroborated by Dr. Krishikesh Nagalkar (PW3). 12. As has been held by the Apex Court, a conviction solely on the basis of dying declaration would be permissible if the said dying declaration is found to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent and is one which inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. However, the requirement as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu and Others v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (11) SCC 269 that there has to be an endorsement that the dying declaration was read over to the maker thereof and she admits the same to be as per the version given by her is missing in the present dying declaration. Nodoubt that in the evidence, the Executive Magistrate states as under : "Thereafter, I read over contents of the statement to her. She admits the same." 13. However, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu (supra), since there is no mention with regard to dying declaration, we find that it will not be appropriate to rest the order of conviction only on the basis of said dying declaration. 14. Tulsabai Subhashrao Tilgam (PW4) is sister of the deceased. However, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu (supra), since there is no mention with regard to dying declaration, we find that it will not be appropriate to rest the order of conviction only on the basis of said dying declaration. 14. Tulsabai Subhashrao Tilgam (PW4) is sister of the deceased. She states that, at around 3 p.m. on the day of incident, she heard shouts from the house of Chandrakala. When she was on the way to the house, she saw the appellant running from the house of Chandrakala. When she reached, she saw Chandrakala was in ablaze in her courtyard. She immediately poured water on her person. She further states that the deceased was shouting to save her and she was saying that the accused had set her ablaze. Thereafter, she called an auto and took her to Rural hospital. She further states that since the doctor in the Government hospital, Warud advised the deceased to be shifted to Amravati, an Ambulance was arranged for and in the said Ambulance, Tulsabai, Pinmtu Dhurve, Subhash Dhurve, Kusum Dhurve and Ramesh Kumble were there. She further states that, on the way, deceased told that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. Nothing damaging has been brought on record in the cross-examination of this witness. 15. Subhash Manikraoji Dhurve (PW5) who is also named to be the person in the ambulance by Tulsabai (PW4) also gives similar version. He also states that, in the Ambulance, Chandrakala told them that she was set ablaze by the present appellant. Raju Chhattesingh Kumre (PW6) states that he had received information regarding the incident from his brother on phone when he was at Amravati. He, therefore, immediately gave a call to his brother-in-law Subhash Dhurve and asked him to go to Warud Hospital. He states that Subhash immediately went to Warud hospital. He gave a phone call and informed him that his mother was burnt and admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, he started to proceed to Warud. However, on the way, he saw the Ambulance in which his maternal aunt was sitting and that she recognised and stopped the Ambulance. He also states that his mother informed him that the present appellant had set her ablaze. Thereafter, he started to proceed to Warud. However, on the way, he saw the Ambulance in which his maternal aunt was sitting and that she recognised and stopped the Ambulance. He also states that his mother informed him that the present appellant had set her ablaze. It could thus be seen that the written dying declaration which is below Exh.13 is duly corroborated by the oral dying declarations given to Tulsabai Tilgam (PW4), Subhash Dhurve (PW5) and Raju Kumre (PW6). 16. It is further to be noted that the evidence in respect of written and oral dying declarations is also corroborated by the evidence of Avinash Shankarrao Harne (PW9), who is an auto driver. He states that, on 10.5.2012, he was carrying passengers from Jarud to Warud. One person stopped him near Ginning. The said person was the accused. This witness identified him since he is from the same village. He was having burn injury to his hand and his shirt was found burnt from one side. He states that he wanted to go to hospital at Warud. Thereafter, he took him to Warud and dropped him. He left auto by leaving his shirt in the back side of his auto. He cleaned the auto with that shirt and threw the shirt near one liquor shop near Kedar Chowk. 17. Apart from this, it is to be noted that the accused has also been medically examined. He had received the following burn injuries : 1. Burn injury over the right hand. Age of Injury Healing time in absence of complication : 2 days. 2. Minor burn injury over the left hand. : 2 days. The Medical Certificate is below Exh.61. Nodoubt that explanation is sought to be given by the accused that he has received the burn injuries when he tried to save the deceased. He has further taken a defence that the deceased had informed him that she had quarreled with her son and as such, her mental status was not proper and therefore, she had called the appellant. He states that when he went near the house of deceased, he saw the deceased ablaze near the gate. Therefore, he poured water on her and tried to extinguish fire. However, neither the appellant has examined any defence witnesses to establish his version nor there is any foundation for this defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses. 18. He states that when he went near the house of deceased, he saw the deceased ablaze near the gate. Therefore, he poured water on her and tried to extinguish fire. However, neither the appellant has examined any defence witnesses to establish his version nor there is any foundation for this defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses. 18. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any interference is warranted with the findings as recorded by the learned trial Judge. The appeal is found to be without merits and as such, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.