JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.93 of 2010 on the file of he learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 09.11.2011, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with his Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Nithya. She was the wife of one Selvamani. Mr. Selvamani's father is the elder brother of the accused. Between these two families, there was a dispute in respect of an ancestral property for quite some time. For the marriage of the sister of Nithya, the accused was not invited. This is stated to be the immediate provocation for the occurrence. (b) On 15.05.2009, according to the prosecution, around 2.00 p.m., when the deceased was lying at a cot in her house, the accused came there. As a matter of fact, she was so lying at the entrance of her house. The accused was holding an Aluminium Bowl containing boiled vegetable oil. Due to the above motive, she threw boiling oil on the face and all over the body of the deceased and ran away. He had thrown the vessel at the place of occurrence itself. (c) The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody. P.W.1 and P.W.2 heard the alarm raised by the deceased. When they rushed to the place of occurrence, they found the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter P.W.2 and others took the deceased to Kilpauk Medical college Hospital. P.W.4 Doctor Baskar examined her at 03.05 p.m. on 15.05.2009. The deceased was then conscious. She told the doctor that a known person had thrown boiled vegetable oil on her. The Doctor found extensive burn injuries on her face, chest, back of chest and both the hands. Ex.P.3 is the Accident Register. She was admitted as inpatient. P.W.4 gave intimation to the police station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, in turn, informed P.W.5 the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The said Magistrate visited the hospital on 15.05.2009 at 10.45 p.m. P.W.10 Doctor Jayakodi was attending on her. Ex.P.3 is the Accident Register. She was admitted as inpatient. P.W.4 gave intimation to the police station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, in turn, informed P.W.5 the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The said Magistrate visited the hospital on 15.05.2009 at 10.45 p.m. P.W.10 Doctor Jayakodi was attending on her. P.W.5 recorded a statement purported to be the dying declaration of the deceased. At the end of the said statement, P.W.10 Doctor appended a certificate to the effect that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind throughout the period of statement. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.6 rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P.6. On returning to the police station at 07.00 p.m., he registered a case in Cr.No.350 of 2009 under Section 307 of IPC. Ex.P.7 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 to court which were received by the learned Magistrate at 10.50 a.m. on 18.05.2009. (d) Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. Then, he arranged for a Photographer to take photographs at the place of occurrence. He recovered the cot, the Aluminium Vessel and the burnt pieces which had been fallen from the cot. He recovered all the material objects under a Mahazar. On 18.05.2009 at 8.00 a.m., P.W.6 arrested the accused and forwarded him to court for judicial remand. On 07.06.2009, the deceased died succumbing to the injuries. On getting information from the hospital, P.W.12 altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.16 is the Alternative Report. Then, on 08.06.2009, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for postmortem. (e) P.W.7 Doctor Kuppusamy conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries: ''Case of 31% scald with infection:- Scald injury with yellowish coloured slough seen over left side fact, front of left side chest and front of upper abdomen on the left side front and back of left upper limb with dorsum of left hand, front of left arm and left for arm and palm, and a patch of scald seen on front of left thigh. On dissection scalp, bones, membranes intact. Brain grossly appear normal. Hyoid bone normal intact, Trachea normal empty. On dissection scalp, bones, membranes intact. Brain grossly appear normal. Hyoid bone normal intact, Trachea normal empty. Heart blood clots seen in all chambers. Lungs both normal c/s congested. Stomach 200ml of coffee colour fluid present. Liver, spleen, kidneys normal c/s congested. Bladder empty. uterus normal in size c/s empty. Pelvis, spiral column intact.'' Ex.P.10 is the Postmortem Certificate. She gave opinion that the deceased died due to Septicaemia due to scald. (f) P.W.12 examined the Doctor, collected the medical report and on completing the investigation, laid charge sheet on 19.06.2009. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed a lone charge as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 17 documents and 3 material objects were also marked. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that on hearing the alarm, when they rushed towards the place of occurrence, they found the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence, throwing the Aluminium vessel. They found the deceased with injuries caused due to boiled oil. P.W.2 took the deceased to the hospital. P.W.1 has spoken about the complaint made by him to the police also. P.W.3 has also stated that he found the accused running away near the temple. P.W.3 has stated about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch. P.W.4, Doctor has spoken about the earliest statement made by the deceased to him and the injuries found on the deceased. He has spoken about Ex.P.3 Accident Register. P.W.5 the then XIX Metropolitan Magistrate has spoken about the statement of the deceased purportedly recorded by her as a Dying Declaration. P.W.6 has spoken about the registration of the case and the initial investigation done by him. P.W.7 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.8 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the material objects which would reveal that there were vegetable oil in the material objects (Ex.P.12). P.W.9 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence. P.W.10 Doctor Jayakodi has spoken that when the learned Magistrate P.W.5 arrived at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, she found the deceased conscious and in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration. P.W.9 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence. P.W.10 Doctor Jayakodi has spoken that when the learned Magistrate P.W.5 arrived at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, she found the deceased conscious and in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration. She has stated about the certificate appended to the dying declaration. Ex.P.5 is the dying declaration. P.W.11 Head Constable has stated that he took the dead body to the doctor for postmortem. P.W.12 has spoken about the investigation done and his final report. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. His defence was a total denial. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on his side. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. In this case, the prosecution mainly relies on three dying declarations, namely, the statement made by the deceased to P.W.4, the statement made by the deceased to P.W.6 and the statement made by the deceased to P.W.5. The prosecution further relies on the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 who have stated that on 15.05.2009 at 02.00 p.m., they found the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence, throwing the aluminium vessel. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the statement made by the deceased to P.W.4 Doctor would not incriminate the accused. What she had stated to him is that boiled vegetable oil was thrown on her by a known person. There is no reference about the appellant. Thus, this dying declaration made to P.W.4 does not incriminate the accused in any manner. We agree with the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 9. The next dying declaration is the statement recorded by P.W.6 Mr. Gopichandran, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him, this statement Ex.P.6 was recorded between 04.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 15.05.2009. We agree with the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 9. The next dying declaration is the statement recorded by P.W.6 Mr. Gopichandran, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him, this statement Ex.P.6 was recorded between 04.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 15.05.2009. According to him, on returning to the police station, he registered a case at 7.00 p.m. on the same day. But curiously, the said document has reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 10.15 a.m. on 18.05.2009 i.e. with the delay of 4 days. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this creates enormous doubt. We fully agree with the said submission. In the absence of any explanation as to why these documents were not forwarded to the court immediately and in the absence of any explanation for this enormous delay, we have to doubt as to whether Ex.P.6 would have been made by the deceased at the time as it is projected by the prosecution or not. 10. Now, turning to the dying declaration recorded by P.W.5, we need to say much. Since there can be no solemnity attached to any dying declaration recorded by any authority or any individual other than a Judicial Magistrate, law has been well settled that a judicial dying declaration recorded by a judicial authority should carry weightage. There is every guarantee in such a dying declaration recorded by a judicial authority that what was stated by the deceased was truly recorded and such dying declaration can be the sole foundation for conviction even in the absence of any corroboration, provided, the said dying declaration was made when the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration and also there are no other circumstances doubting the correctness of the statement of the deceased. Time and again, it has been made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that a Judicial Magistrate before recording any dying declaration should satisfy his judicial conscience about the mental fitness of the declarant with or without a certificate from the doctor. The opinion of the Doctor that the declarant is conscious or in a fit state of mind is only one of the imputes to the learned Magistrate to arrive at a satisfaction of his judicial conscience about the mental fitness of the deceased. The opinion of the Doctor that the declarant is conscious or in a fit state of mind is only one of the imputes to the learned Magistrate to arrive at a satisfaction of his judicial conscience about the mental fitness of the deceased. Even in the absence of a certificate from the Doctor, from the queries made to the deceased and from the other circumstances, the Magistrate may, in a given case, arrive at a satisfaction that the declarant is mentally fit to make a dying declaration. Therefore, what is material is not the certificate of the doctor, but the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. In this regard, we may refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710 . In the instant case, the learned Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration had not taken adequate care to satisfy her judicial conscience about the mental fitness of the deceased at all. For better understanding and for better appreciation, let us extract the entire dying declaration in Ex.P.5 which reads as follows: (Verbatim reproduction in vernacular language without omitting any word) xxx 15.05.2009 at 11 p.m. Patient was conscious and in a fit state of mind throughout the period of statement. Sd/- Dr. V. Khodi'' 11. A reading of the entire document (Ex.P.5) would go to show that the learned Magistrate did not even make it clear to the declarant that she was the Magistrate. She did not ask any question to her to ascertain her mental fitness. Before recording the dying declaration, she did not obtain the opinion of the doctor even. However, the opinion of the Doctor has been appended to the dying declaration. The Magistrate has not recorded anywhere in the dying declaration her satisfaction that the declarant was in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration. 12. Now turning to the oral evidence of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate P.W.5, she has stated that when she went to the hospital, she explained to the declarant that she was the then Metropolitan Magistrate which the declarant understood. She has further stated that immediately, she started recording the dying declaration in the presence of the doctor. The learned Magistrate has not stated even during her oral evidence that she was satisfied about the mental fitness of the deceased. She has further stated that immediately, she started recording the dying declaration in the presence of the doctor. The learned Magistrate has not stated even during her oral evidence that she was satisfied about the mental fitness of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the mental fitness of the declarant to make a declaration is absolutely necessary. In this case, the learned Magistrate has not at all neither recorded nor has she spoken about the same in her evidence. The learned Magistrate had grossly omitted to follow the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Laxman's case cited supra. In the absence of the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate about the mental fitness of the deceased, we cannot place any relies on this dying declaration. 13. Assuming that these two dying declarations, namely, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 could be considered, we find lot of contradictions between these two. According to Ex.P.5, when the deceased was cooking and frying fish, the accused came into her house and took the vessel which was on the stove and threw the burning oil on her. But in the statement under Ex.P.6, she has stated that while she was lying on the cot at the entrance of her house, the accused came with an Aluminium Vessel containing boiling vegetable oil and threw the same on her face. According to the positive case of the prosecution, while she was lying on the cot, the accused came with the vessel containing boiling oil and threw the same on her. This material contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution at all. This creates further doubt in the case of the prosecution. Similarly, P.W.1 to P.W.3 have not stated as to whether the deceased was found in the kitchen or she was lying on the cot. For these reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 14. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to express, with anguish, our total displeasure over the way in which the dying declaration has been recorded by P.W.5, the then XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The dying declaration extracted herein above by the learned Magistrate would go to show as to how reckless she was in recording the dying declaration. 14. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to express, with anguish, our total displeasure over the way in which the dying declaration has been recorded by P.W.5, the then XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The dying declaration extracted herein above by the learned Magistrate would go to show as to how reckless she was in recording the dying declaration. It is too elementary for a Magistrate to know that before recording a dying declaration, she should satisfy her judicial conscience about the mental fitness of the declarant and to record the said satisfaction in the dying declaration itself. In the instant case, she did not ask any question to ascertain the mental fitness of the declarant. She did not record that she was satisfied or not satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind to give a dying declaration. Thus, in our considered view, the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate has not discharged her judicial function with adequate care. We hope that in future, the subordinate judicial officers will discharge the above solemn judicial function with all sincerity and adequate care to avoid failure of justice. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the accused are set aside and he is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant, shall stand cancelled. The fine, if any, paid by the accused, shall be refunded to the accused.