JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. —This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 30.08.2013 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Kota in Session''s case no. 259/2010 by which the trial Judge convicted the present appellant : Under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he will further undergo a simple imprisonment of 3 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are : On 3rd June 2010 at about 02:45 am Pawan Kumar, S/o Rajender Kumar gave statement before Jugraj Singh, Sub-inspector at Male Surgical ward Bed No. 31, MBSH Hospital, Kota wherein he stated, "I am a tailor and my grand-mother, Ladobai wanted to shoo me away from my house, but I worked as a tailor and reside in our house. At night my mother asked me to go and bring a bottle of petrol. I bought it and my grand-mother handed it to my father, who spilled that petrol on my body and lit me to fire. I received burn injuries on my mouth, chest, hands, legs and burnt my private parts. I shouted and then my elder aunt 15 came there. She put off the fire and got me admitted in MBSH Hospital, Kota. This occurrence took place at about 1 O''clock at night. A case under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against accused person. Later on, when enquired Pawan expired on 08/06/2010. Then Police added the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. The Police started investigations and after thorough investigation Police, submitted a charge sheet against the present appellant alone in the court of ACJM no. 1, Kota. Later on, this case was transferred to the court of (District and Sessions Judge, Kota where charges of the case were framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Accused denied the charges and pleaded for trial. 4. Prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses in all, then accused was examined under Section 313 IPC. He mentioned that at the time of occurrence the accused was not present in the house. His mother wanted to give property in his name, but his wife wanted that this property be registered in her name. So his wife and his brother gave false statement against him. Pawan gave false statement against him. No witness was examined from the Defence side. His mother wanted to give property in his name, but his wife wanted that this property be registered in her name. So his wife and his brother gave false statement against him. Pawan gave false statement against him. No witness was examined from the Defence side. After conclusion of the trial the learned district & Sessions Judge, Kota by his judgment dated 30.08.2013 convicted the present appellant as mentioned earlier. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the State. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that a false case has been roped against the present appellant because the Police Officer has not called the concerned Magistrate at the time of recording the statement of the Dying Declaration. The Doctor, who gave the certificate that patient was fit for giving statement, has not been examined by the Prosecutor to corroborate the statement of Deceased. The material prosecution witnesses have already been declared hostile and they have not supported the story of Prosecution. He further argued that Police officer has not recorded the statement of the deceased in question answer form. He further urges deceased also named Lado Bai as accused, but Police after investigation has not filed any challan against Lado Bai, so appellant deserves to be acquitted in this case. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the State argued that there is a clear implication of present appellant for commission of this crime. In the dying declaration, deceased clearly mentioned that his father poured petrol on his body and lit the fire. Before recording this statement, the Doctor certified that the deceased is fit for giving statement. The accused after the occurrence left the house and is absconding. Later on, the accused was arrested on 15.06.2010, at Delhi. This conduct of accused shows that after the occurrence he has absconded. 8. Manju, w/o accused appellant examined PW 20. She also corroborated that accused always beaten their children. He consumed liquor daily. She was informed by Vimlesh through telephone. Then she visited in Hospital where deceased informed her that his father lit the fire. 9. Statement of Khushboo, PW-21 who is the daughter of accused. She also corroborated that her father after consuming liquor used to beat them. Her aunt informed her through telephone that your father has set Pawan on fire. She was informed by Vimlesh through telephone. Then she visited in Hospital where deceased informed her that his father lit the fire. 9. Statement of Khushboo, PW-21 who is the daughter of accused. She also corroborated that her father after consuming liquor used to beat them. Her aunt informed her through telephone that your father has set Pawan on fire. So no leniency should be permitted and appeal of the appellant deserves to be rejected. 10. We have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the Prosecution evidence exhaustively and considered the rival contentions. 11. This is a case of dying declaration recorded by a sub-inspector after obtaining certificate from the doctor that patient was fit to give statements. It has also come from the evidence of prosecution that accused appellant always used liquor and started beating his wife and children. 12. Now we elaborate the statements of the prosecution. 13. PW-1 Jugraj Singh who recorded statement of deceased Pawan after obtaining Certificate from Doctor that patient is fit to give statement. This certificate by Doctor is marked as Exp. 2. 14. PW-2 : Pradeep has been examined and he has declared hostile. 15. PW-3 : Roop Kishore has been examined and he said Smt. Manju is my elder brother''s daughter. Manju married with Rajender and he come to know that Rajender lit fire, due to this reason deceased Pawan expired. 16. PW-4 : Monika is real daughter of accused Rajender. She is only 14 year old. She stated that her father after consuming liquor was quarrelling with my mother and on previous occasion he tried to set her on fire. Now her Aunt informed that Raju has put Pawan on fire. 17. PW-5 : Kishore Lal, he said that Jugraj submitted a statement of Pawan and he investigated some of the case. PW-6 Mamta, who is also daughter of accused. She is only 12 year aged. She said that after consuming liquor his father used to beat his mother. My brother Pawan used to rescue my mother. Now my aunt informed that Raju has put Pawan on fire. PW-7 Rano has been declared hostile. PW-8 Naval Kishore has also been declared hostile. PW-9 Mahaveer Prasad has said that Raju is my real younger brother. In the night, the tenant informed that Raju has lit fire to Pawan and has ran away. Now my aunt informed that Raju has put Pawan on fire. PW-7 Rano has been declared hostile. PW-8 Naval Kishore has also been declared hostile. PW-9 Mahaveer Prasad has said that Raju is my real younger brother. In the night, the tenant informed that Raju has lit fire to Pawan and has ran away. PW-10 Vijender & PW 11 Dharam Pal both were witnesses of Panchnama. PW-12 Urmila has been declared hostile. PW-13 Vimlesh has also been declared hostile. PW-14 Manoj, who is only 15 year old, is an eye witness on the day of occurrence when Pawan came with fire on his body and informed that his father lit me on fire. PW-15 Laxmi has been declared hostile. PW-16 Jayanti Prasad. He said that he heard from mohalla people, that Raju has lit Pawan to fire. PW-18 Sarvesh & PW-19 Pervin have both been declared hostile. 18. PW-20 Manju, who is wife of accused appellant. She is very important witness. She narrated in court that her husband always drank liquor and after that he used to beat her and her children. She went to her parent''s house where Vimlesh informed through telephone that Raju had lit fire to Pawan. She rushed to hospital where deceased Pawan also informed that Raju lit this fire. Likewise statement of PW 21 Khushboo, who is daughter of accused and she is only 19 year old. She also informed that after consuming liquor, her father used to beat them. Her aunt informed through telephone that Raju has lit fire to Pawan. 19. PW 22 Manoj has been declared hostile. PW 23 Narayani stated in court that accused Rajender and his wife, engaged in frequent quarrels. PW 24 Rahul has been declared hostile. PW 25 Dipti stated that she heard from someone that Raju lit fire to Pawan. PW 26 Nisar Khan being photographer, is a formal witness. 20. PW 27 Dr. Arun Sharma who conducted post mortem report Ex. 31 and proved death due to Septicaemic shock as a result of burn injuries. 21. PW 28 Kamal is also declared hostile. 22. PW 29 Bhanwarlal being Malkhana in-charge is formal witness. 23. PW 30 Dr. Sharad Kumar, PW 31 Dr. Mayank. Both are the treating doctor of Pawan. They prepared injury report of Pawan marked as Exp 37. They also mentioned that at the time of admission Pawan was conscious. 24. 21. PW 28 Kamal is also declared hostile. 22. PW 29 Bhanwarlal being Malkhana in-charge is formal witness. 23. PW 30 Dr. Sharad Kumar, PW 31 Dr. Mayank. Both are the treating doctor of Pawan. They prepared injury report of Pawan marked as Exp 37. They also mentioned that at the time of admission Pawan was conscious. 24. PW 32 Ram Kalyan is an investigating officer. 25. These are all prosecution witnesses. 26. Counsel for the petitioner cited few judgments, now we will discuss those judgments in detail : 1. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra. Criminal Appeal No. 608/2001 decided on 20.08.2002 . Hon''ble Supreme Court held: "Dying declaration is accepted on the theory that person on death bed will speak the truth - But great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 300 Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32 Dying declaration - Statement of eye witnesses that deceased was in fit and conscious to make the declaration will prevail over medical evidence - A certificate by doctor is essentially a rule of caution. This judgment is not applicable in this case because in this case Police officer had obtained a certificate from the Doctor. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of deceased Pawan. Other witnesses also corroborate the story of Pawan." 2. Bashir Shah and others v. State of Rajasthan recorded in 1994 (RLR) Pg. 30 . "Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, R. 6.22 - Dying Declaration - Recording of R. 6.22 to be followed strictly by I.O. - These rules are just and fair and their strict compliance in letter and spirit must be ensured wherever dying declaration is taken to be sole basis of conviction - (Cr. Trial - Dying Declaration)." This judgment is not applicable in this case because the Police Officer recorded dying declaration in night, at about 1''o clock. And Dying declaration is not sole basis of conviction here in this case the other witnesses corroborate the story of deceased Pawan. 3. Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006(2) RLR pg. 516 . And Dying declaration is not sole basis of conviction here in this case the other witnesses corroborate the story of deceased Pawan. 3. Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006(2) RLR pg. 516 . "Mysterious circumstances under which said declaration recorded by S.I. creating doubt as to its genuineness - Evidence adduced in corroboration found unreliable - Held, the declaration suffers from infirmities and it could not be made basis of conviction." This judgment is not applicable in this case because there was no corroboration of the dying declaration and dying declaration found to be infirm. And it could not be made basis of conviction. Here in this case the Dying declaration coupled with other circumstances shows that dying declaration is a genuine one. 4. Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002(1) Criminal Law Reporter (Rajasthan) pg. 745 . "Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32 Murder - Appeal against conviction - Allegation that appellant poured Kerosene on his wife and set her on fire - Conviction based solely on dying declaration recorded by Investigating Officer - No Certificate obtained by Doctor to the effect that injured was physically and mentally in fit condition to make such statement - There was sufficient time to arrange for Executive Magistrate but no such effort was made - Investigation officer has not followed procedure provided in Rule 6.22 of Chapter VI of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 - Such dying declaration cannot be relied upon by court - Accused - Appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt - Appeal allowed." This case is absolutely different because in that case no certificate was obtained from the DR. about his condition. Here in this case, before recording dying declaration the police officer obtained certificate from the doctor. 5. Sandeep Sharma and others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015(2) WLC (Rajasthan) 124 . about his condition. Here in this case, before recording dying declaration the police officer obtained certificate from the doctor. 5. Sandeep Sharma and others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015(2) WLC (Rajasthan) 124 . "Conviction based on dying declaration - Dying declaration not recorded by Magistrate and bearing Signature of Doctor, yet same not recorded in presence of Doctor, though attending Doctor''s certificate that deceased was fit to make statement - Out of 12 injuries, two below knee and ankle found to be fatal - Last line of alleged during declaration interpolated after death of deceased - Doctor PW-12 admitting that he does not know who recorded Dying Declaration - PW-19 totally silent about taking deceased to hospital - Dying Declaration recorded by Munshi of Police but name of Munshi not disclosed - Defence deprived of questioning as to whose handwriting dying declaration was recorded." This judgment is not applicable in this case because the one who recorded the dying declaration was not examined in court. The Court held that defence was deprived of questioning as to in whose handwriting dying declaration was recorded. However in the present case, the dying declaration was recorded by PW 1, Jugraj Singh and he has been examined in court as Prosecution witness as PW 1. He corroborates the story of dying declaration. 6. Raju alias Rajkumar and others v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 pg. 406 . "Whether any dying declaration was made when injured was not in condition to speak - All eye witnesses improving their statements - Major contradictions in statements of PWs. 12 and 15 - Spot fired from distance only of ft. belied by position of exit wound, since in firing from such short distance bullet would not have remained in body - Incident alleged to have occurred in room and yet no signs of incident were found in room." 27. This judgment is not applicable in this case because it has been held that eye-witnesses improved their statements. Spot fire opened from distance of 1.5 feet was belied by position of exit wound, since in firing from such short distance bullet would not have remained in body and incident occurred in the room and no sign of incident were found in room. Here in the present case, this judgment is not at all applicable and is all together different. 28. Here in the present case, this judgment is not at all applicable and is all together different. 28. Now we are dealing the judgments which were cited by learned counsel for the state. In support of their judgment, the counsel has placed reliance upon following judgments : 1. Munna Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1976 SCC Criminal Page 376 . Hon''ble Supreme Court held : "Whether neither the deceased nor the persons accompanying him were shown to have any particular animus, the dying declaration could be safely relied upon without corroboration." 2. Rama Wati Devi v. State of Bihar reported in 1983 SCC Criminal page 169 : In this it has been held that it is not necessary that dying declaration should be made only before a Magistrate. It may be permissible to convict a person only on basis of a dying declaration alone. 3. Raju Devade v. State of Maharashtra 2016(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 291 : 2017 SCC (Criminal) . Hon''ble Supreme Court Held : "Conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration. The death has been caused by burn injuries, which is proved on record that prosecution by cogent evident having proved the prosecution case. High Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant in this case." 4. Ramen Dowarah v. State of Assam reported in 2016(1) SCC (Criminal) 689 . In circumstantial evidence ''cardinal principle of man may lie, but circumstances do not'', is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence. The Oral evidence and dying declaration of the deceased unerringly pointed out that it was not a case of consensual sexual intercourse. 5. Gulzari Lal v. State of Haryana reported in 2016(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 632 : 2016(2) SCC (Criminal) 325 . Hon''ble Supreme Court held : "A valid dying declaration may be made without obtaining a certificate of fitness of the declarant by a Medical Officer. If dying declaration is reliable, then conviction may be recorded on that basis alone." 6. Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC (Criminal) Pg. 104 in which it has been reported that Doctor has not been examined to say that the injured was fit to give the statement. It his been held that the lapse on the part of investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused. It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. 7. 104 in which it has been reported that Doctor has not been examined to say that the injured was fit to give the statement. It his been held that the lapse on the part of investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused. It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. 7. Prem Pal v. State of Haryana reported in 2014(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 655 : 2015(1) SCC (Criminal) pg. 110 . In case of Dying declaration he court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true, voluntary and not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. Court must be further satisfied that deceased was in a fit state of mind. If a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration by any witness and conviction can be substantial in that basis alone. 8. Satish and another etc. v. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No. 757-758 of 2016 decided on 26.05.2017 . Hon''ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 8 that PW-2 was the son of the appellant Anita. He was a school going child aged 12 years. Both, the trial court and the High Court have found him to be reliable and convincing. We do not find anything from his evidence to make it suspicious as the result of any tutoring by PW-4. The witness has clearly mentioned that his mother was present in the room when the assault was taking place and she asked them to leave the room on the biding of one of the assailants. We do find it a little strange, according to normal human behaviour that at the dead of night, the appellant after witnessing an assault on her own husband, do not rush to the house of PW-1 for informing the same and sent her minor son for the purpose. The fact that she created no commotion by shouting and seeking help reinforces the prosecution case because of her unnatural conduct. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the child witness was not deposing against another family member or a stranger, but his own mother. It would call for courage and conviction to name his own mother, as the child was grown up enough to understand the matter as a witness to a murder. 9. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the child witness was not deposing against another family member or a stranger, but his own mother. It would call for courage and conviction to name his own mother, as the child was grown up enough to understand the matter as a witness to a murder. 9. The witness has clearly identified the other two appellants also in the dock, having seen them during the occurrence. The number of injuries on the deceased is itself indicative that the assault lasted for some time enabling identification and did not end in a flash. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the conviction. 29. Now we elaborate the rival contentions: In this case the dying declaration of deceased which was recorded by PW 1 Jugraj recorded the statement of the deceased after obtaining the certificate from the Doctor that patient is marked Exp 2. The conduct of the accused also shows that after the occurrence, he ran away from the house. And he could not be found until cremation of deceased who is real son of petitioner. He was only arrested in Delhi on 15.06.2010. The conduct itself shows that, after this occurrence the accused ran away from the house. 30. PW 4 Monica who is 14 years old and daughter of accused Rajender, another witness PW 06-Mamta who is 12 year old and who is also daughter of accused Rajender. Yet another witness Khushboo PW 21, who is 19 year old is also daughter of the accused. All these witnesses clearly mentioned that after taking liquor their father used to beat them and their mother. Now they have been informed that their father has lit their brother on fire and ran away. 31. The most important witness in this case is PW 20 Manju who is wife of the accused Raju. She stated that her husband always used liquor often and that he used to beat me and my children. When she came to know that Pawan is admitted in hospital, she reached there immediately. Pawan also informed that Raju lit him on fire. 32. This is an oral dying declaration which was given by the deceased before her. So this story of prosecution is fully corroborated with dying declaration of deceased as well as oral dying declaration before Smt. Manju. Pawan also informed that Raju lit him on fire. 32. This is an oral dying declaration which was given by the deceased before her. So this story of prosecution is fully corroborated with dying declaration of deceased as well as oral dying declaration before Smt. Manju. Conduct of accused shows that after the occurrence, he ran away and absconded. He could only be arrested on 15.06.13 at Delhi. 33. As upshot of the above discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 34. Resultantly the appeal fails and it hereby is dismissed.