JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by three accused challenging the judgment and order dated 25.9.2012 rendered by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. By the said judgment, the learned Judge convicted the appellants accused for offences punishable under sections 302, 452, 342 and 114 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The first informant, the victim himself, who died due to severe burn injuries had lodged the First Information Report. Keshav Prasad Shivprasad, the first informant, who lodged the FIR stated that on 14.1.2008, in the afternoon around 1, when he was at home cooking, the three accused i.e. Prabhu Tulsiram Gaud, Rameshwar Bhaurabhai Mustari and Ramfal @ Gayalal Kamta Yadav entered his house reprimanding him for an incident of 12.1.2008 wherein the complainant had objected the three accused who were abusing one Lilavatiben. The three accused had for the said incident, started abusing Keshav Prasad. The accused No. 1 Ramfal @ Gayalal Kamta Yadav poured kerosene over Keshav Prasad and accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold of him. They poured kerosene over him, lit a matchstick and burnt him. They locked the door from outside and left the premises. The first informant shouted for help, pushed opened the door on his own and ran out. The neighbours doused the flames. According to the victim, the argument that occurred on 12.1.2008 between the accused and the victim resulted into the accused carrying out the offending act of putting him on fire. The First Information Report further reveals that after the incident when he ran out, he went to Pandesara police station. He collapsed outside the police station and, thereafter, was subsequently shifted to Civil hospital for treatment. 3. Lilavati Ratiram Yadav, Prosecution Witness No. 18, is examined at exh.74. She turned hostile. However, on perusal of her testimony in examination-in-chief, it is revealed that precursor to the incident of 14.1.2008 of burning of the first informant, was an incident of 12.1.2008. On that date when she was outside her house, the three accused had abused her. As is evident from the contents of the FIR, the motive behind putting the victim on fire at the hands of the accused was revealed from the testimony of this witness. 4. The panchnama of the scene of offence is produced at exh.23. On that date when she was outside her house, the three accused had abused her. As is evident from the contents of the FIR, the motive behind putting the victim on fire at the hands of the accused was revealed from the testimony of this witness. 4. The panchnama of the scene of offence is produced at exh.23. The panchnama indicates that the deceased Keshav Prasad was occupying a small room which had a sole exit through a door. Kerosene was found spilled on the floor. 5. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded by Rayoman Sorabji Ilaviya, Executive Magistrate, Prosecution Witness No. 11 at exh.38. According to this witness, he received message on 14.1.2008 at 6:15 in the evening from the police head constable Basirkhan Kalukhan to record the dying declaration of the victim Keshav Prasad. On receiving such Yadi, the witness went to the Burns ward at Civil hospital at 6:35. The doctor at the Civil hospital certified the fitness of the victim. After obtaining such certificate, he proceeded to record the dying declaration. After verifying that the patient was conscious and fit to give dying declaration, he started recording the dying declaration. The Executive Magistrate initially asked him formal questions about his name, age, occupation and address. Thereafter, the witness questioned the victim about the injuries received by him. The victim informed him that due to an earlier incident of argument of 12.1.2008 between the victim and the three accused whom he addressed by name, namely, Rameshwar Mustari, Prabhu and Gayababa, entered his room, beat him up and burnt him by pouring kerosene on him. He had sustained burn injuries all over the body. The declarant further stated that he ran towards the Pandesara police station from where he was carried to Civil hospital for treatment. The witness has produced dying declaration of victim Keshav Prasad at exh.40. This witness was also cross examined. In the cross examination, the defence has tried to question the genuineness of dying declaration. In this context, the defence had put suggestions to the witness on obtaining the fitness certificate from the doctor. The defence has tried to put up the suggestion that the dying declaration did not carry thumb impression in view of the fact that his hand was bandaged. In this context, the defence had put suggestions to the witness on obtaining the fitness certificate from the doctor. The defence has tried to put up the suggestion that the dying declaration did not carry thumb impression in view of the fact that his hand was bandaged. The dying declaration exh.40 when read reveals that on being questioned on unfolding of events of the fateful day, the victim had revealed that at 11 in the afternoon, the three accused entered his room, poured kerosene over his body and lit him on fire. 6. Dr. Gaurang Jagdishchandra Patel, Prosecution Witness No. 4, who was examined at exh.24, carried out the postmortem of the victim. In the opinion of the doctor, the victim had sustained 90 to 95% burn injuries and death was as a result of such burn injuries. The postmortem note is produced at exh.25. Apart from recording various injuries in column No. 17 of the postmortem note, what further is evident from reading the report is that the deceased had sustained rupture over the top part of the shoulder and in front of the chest. Certificate issued at exh.26 recorded that the cause of death was shock due to burns. Nothing substantial is coming out from the cross examination of the doctor. 7. Navinbhai Muchardabhai Chaudhary, Prosecution Witness No. 7, exh.34, was the police sub-inspector of Pandesara police station. In his testimony, he has stated that while he was at the police station on 14.1.2008, in the afternoon, he found the victim Keshav Prasad lying outside opposite the police station. An ambulance was called for and the victim was shifted to Civil hospital. In the cross examination of this witness, defence has tried to suggest that the deceased was unconscious and was not in a position to speak. 8. Deepchandra Ramnarayan Sharma, Prosecution Witness No. 8, exh. 35, also confirms to the testimony of police head constable Navinbhai Chaudhary, Prosecution Witness No. 7. He too was present outside on the road, opposite to Pandesar police station where he saw Keshav Prasad lying. 9. Veersingbhai Nagjibhai Patelia, Prosecution Witness No. 13, exh.50, was the police officer who recorded the FIR at exh.55. Through his testimony the contents of the FIR that the victim lodged stands confirmed. Nothing substantial comes out from the cross examination of this witness. 10. 9. Veersingbhai Nagjibhai Patelia, Prosecution Witness No. 13, exh.50, was the police officer who recorded the FIR at exh.55. Through his testimony the contents of the FIR that the victim lodged stands confirmed. Nothing substantial comes out from the cross examination of this witness. 10. Based on these evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 25.9.2012 convicted the three accused appellants for offences punishable under sections 302, 452, 342 and 114 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. 11. The question before us is whether on the basis of evidence on record, conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge requires interference by this Court? 12. As noted earlier, in the present case, the first informant, the victim himself has lodged the FIR on 14.1.2008 at Civil hospital. Reading of the FIR indicates that while he was at home on 14.1.2008 in the afternoon cooking, the three accused entered the house, started abusing him, beat him, poured kerosene and lit him on fire. In the FIR so lodged he has named the three accused. After the accused left the scene of the incident, he pushed open the door which the accused had locked from outside and then the victim ran towards the Pandesara police station where he collapsed. It has accordingly been so recorded in the FIR. 13. The contents of the FIR though not admissible in evidence, in the present case, is corroborated by the testimony of Veersingbhai Nagjibhai Patelia, Prosecution Witness No. 13 and Navinbhai Muchardabhai Chaudhary, Prosecution Witness No. 7. From the testimony of Veersinghbhai Prosecution Witness No. 7, it is revealed that he found the victim lying outside the police station. His testimony further indicates that the victim was then carried to Civil hospital in an ambulance. His deposition gets corroboration in the form of deposition of Deepchandra Ramnarayan Sharma, Prosecution Witness No. 8, exh. 35. He also confirms to the testimony of police head constable Navinbhai Prosecution Witness No. 7. From his deposition it is revealed that he too was present outside on the road, opposite to Pandesar police station where he saw Keshav Prasad lying and then being carried to Civil hospital. 14. While the victim was at Civil hospital, a Yadi was sent by the police head constable Basirkhan Kalukhan to Rayoman Sorabji Ilaviya, Executive Magistrate, Prosecution Witness No. 11. 14. While the victim was at Civil hospital, a Yadi was sent by the police head constable Basirkhan Kalukhan to Rayoman Sorabji Ilaviya, Executive Magistrate, Prosecution Witness No. 11. Pursuant to such Yadi, the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the victim. The dying declaration is produced at exh.40. From the testimony of the Executive Magistrate it emerges that he first obtained fitness certificate from the doctor. It is further revealed from his deposition that after verifying that the patient was conscious and fit to give dying declaration, he started recording the dying declaration. The Executive Magistrate initially asked him formal questions about his name, age, occupation and address and thereafter, the witness questioned the victim about the injuries received by him. Thus it is evident from the testimony of the Executive Magistrate that it is only after ascertaining the mental and physical condition of the victim, that the Executive Magistrate proceeded to record the dying declaration. The dying declaration confirms the fact of the incident occurring on 14.1.2009. In the dying declaration, the declarant had unequivocally named the three accused who entered his room, beat him up and burnt him by pouring kerosene on him. It further records that the declarant ran towards the Pandesara police station from where he was carried to Civil hospital for treatment. The dying declaration when appreciated in context of the contents of the FIR, the version of the victim stands corroborated. When Yadi at exh.30 is seen in context of the suggestion of the defence that the dying declaration should not be believed in view of mental and medical condition of the victim, same requires summary rejection. It is evident from the reading of the Yadi that the doctor had endorsed on such Yadi that the victim was fully conscious and fit to give such declaration. 15. What we have therefore, before us are two versions of the victim. First it the First Information Report which was registered at the first available opportunity by the victim himself. In the FIR, lodged before the Pandesara police station the victim has clearly named the three accused who entered his house reprimanding him for an incident of 12.1.2008 wherein the complainant had objected the three accused who were abusing one Lilavatiben. The three accused had for the said incident, started abusing the victim. In the FIR, lodged before the Pandesara police station the victim has clearly named the three accused who entered his house reprimanding him for an incident of 12.1.2008 wherein the complainant had objected the three accused who were abusing one Lilavatiben. The three accused had for the said incident, started abusing the victim. The accused then poured kerosene over him, lit a matchstick and burnt him. They locked the door from outside and left the premises. The victim shouted for help, pushed opened the door on his own and ran out. The neighbours doused the flames. After the incident when he ran out, he went to Pandesara police station. He collapsed outside the police station and, thereafter, was subsequently shifted to Civil hospital for treatment. The version in the dying declaration at exh.40 confirms the contents of the FIR. The dying declaration records the same analogy of events as is recorded in the FIR. The dying declaration was recording in a fit state of mind of the victim stand confirmed from the testimony of the Executive Magistrate. The motive behind commission of crime is also evident from the FIR as well as from the dying declaration. According to the victim, the argument that occurred on 12.1.2008 between the accused and the victim resulted into the accused carrying out the offending act of putting him on fire. 16. Dr. Gaurang Jagdishchandra Patel, Prosecution Witness No. 4, exh.24 who had carried out the postmortem of the victim deposed that the deceased died to due having sustained burn injuries to the extent of 90% to 95%. In the dying declaration at exh.40 the declarant had stated that before he was set on fire, he was hit by the accused. The genuineness of the said fact is proved in the testimony of the doctor carrying out the postmortem wherein he has deposed that apart from the burn injuries, the deceased had also sustained rupture over the top part of the shoulder and in front of the chest. Thus the genuineness of the dying declaration stands confirmed on the basis of medical evidence so presented by the prosecution. 17. Based on the dying declaration and medical evidence therefore, we have no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus the genuineness of the dying declaration stands confirmed on the basis of medical evidence so presented by the prosecution. 17. Based on the dying declaration and medical evidence therefore, we have no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge correctly convicted the accused for offences punishable under sections 302, 452, 342 and 114 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The suggestion of the defence that the dying declaration ought not to have been believed in view of the fact that it was not so certified by the doctor also needs summary rejection in view of the endorsement of the doctor in Yadi at exh.33. 18. On collective assessment of the evidence on record, conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld. 19. Criminal Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed