JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Sajiya wife of Ishaq challenging judgment and order dated 30.05.1990 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby she has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that on 07.09.1985 at 12.05 A.M., Bhanwar Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector recorded statement of one Munni alias Naseem wife of Murtaza wherein she stated that she was married to Murtaza 12 months back. Her in-laws used to treat her badly as also abuse her. She was not given food throughout the day. Her silver anklets were taken away by her sister-in-law (wife of elder brother of her husband) Smt. Sajiya. In the evening she was cooking food in the room. Suddenly, her husband’s younger brother Farooq poured kerosene over her body and her sister-in-law Sajiya put her on fire by a match stick. All other family members were present in the house at that time. All of them had conspired to kill her. One Jamila had subsequently removed the burnt clothes from the person of Smt. Munni alias Naseem. 3. On that basis, FIR No. 162/1985 (Exhibit P-3) under Section 307 IPC was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar. Subsequently, on 07.09.1985 at 5.05 A.M., Shri Kamal Raj Singhvi, Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sikar recorded dying declaration (Exhibit P-15) of Mrs. Munni in the hospital. She narrated almost the same story in the dying declaration. Mrs. Munni died on 08.09.1985 at about 9.10 P.M. Her body was subjected to post mortem. Thereafter, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused-appellant Mrs. Sajiya and co-accused Farooq in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. Trial of Farooq, being minor, was transferred to the Children Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar. The trial court framed charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Thereafter, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she pleaded innocence. The trial court framed charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Thereafter, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she pleaded innocence. In defence, four witnesses were produced but no document was got exhibited. Upon conclusion of trial, the trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 30.05.1990, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. V. P. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant by believing an incident of suicide to be a case of murder. It is abundantly clear from the statements of prosecution witnesses that Mrs. Naseem had burnt herself. Her own father Yaseen (P.W.3) and mother Saleema (P.W.5) have stated before the trial court that she herself was responsible for the burning. The deceased told her parents in the hospital that she had set herself on fire. The statement made by the deceased to her own parents is in every respect to be placed on the same footing as that of dying declaration. The learned trial court has totally ignored statements of Mahmood Ali (P.W.8) and Abbas Ali (P.W.9), who reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. These witnesses ruled out the possibility of presence of present appellant at the place of incident. Presence or involvement of the accused-appellant is completely ruled out from the evidence of the prosecution. It is argued that Jamila (P.W.10) has categorically stated that she immediately rushed to Mrs. Naseem and helped her in changing her burnt clothes. On enquiry, Mrs. Naseem had informed this witness that she (Naseem) had set herself ablaze out of rage. Thus, it is the first dying declaration which Mrs. Naseem made after the incident wherein she has categorically stated that she herself was responsible for burning. It is argued that from medical evidence it is clear that it is a case of suicide rather than homicide, which fact is also supported by all the attending circumstances including the facts reflected in the inspection note. From the evidence on record, it is revealed that Mrs. Naseem suffered from Neurosis and was often given to out bursts of bad temperament. 5. From the evidence on record, it is revealed that Mrs. Naseem suffered from Neurosis and was often given to out bursts of bad temperament. 5. Learned counsel argued that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of defence witnesses in proper perspective. Bashir Ahmed (D.W.4) is the next door neighbour to the house of in-laws of Mrs. Naseem where the incident took place. Bashir Ahmed who is real maternal grand father (nana) had corroborated the theory of suicide. He has stated that his granddaughter Mrs. Naseem had told A.S.I. Bhanwar Lal in his presence that she alone was responsible for burning herself. The trial court has seriously erred in relying upon the two recorded dying declarations i.e. Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-15. These dying declarations suffer from numerous infirmities and in congruencies, which has resulted into failure of justice. The deceased at the relevant time was cooking food, but no cooking material or even presence of a hearth/stove etc. was found in the room by the investigating officer where kerosene was poured over her body. It is argued that second dying declaration (Exhibit P-15) also suffers from material improbabilities. In this dying declaration also she has stated about cooking but no cooking material was found in that room. There is no endorsement by any doctor that Mrs. Naseem was in fit condition of mind at the relevant time to give statement. There are contradictions between evidence of the prosecution witnesses and dying declarations. It is well settled that dying declaration cannot be believed unless it is corroborated by evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is argued that apart from two recorded dying declarations, the deceased had made at least third oral dying declarations also. There is glaring inconsistencies between the recorded dying declarations and the oral dying declaration. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments relied upon judgment of this Court in Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan, Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1988 page 376. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has produced certified copy of judgment dated 15.12.1997 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Children Court, Jaipur, acquitting co-accused Farooq, juvenile by disbelieving the dying declaration. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has produced certified copy of judgment dated 15.12.1997 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Children Court, Jaipur, acquitting co-accused Farooq, juvenile by disbelieving the dying declaration. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. 8. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the trial court has recorded finding of conviction of the accused-appellant solely relying on dying declaration of the deceased (Exhibit P-15), therefore, we have to test the correctness of the said finding recorded by the trial court in the light of all attending circumstances. Parcha bayan (Exhibit P-2), on the basis of which first information report was lodged, was recorded by Bhanwar Lal, ASI (P.W.13), at 00.15 A.M. on 07.09.1985, according to which, the incident took place at about 5.45 P.M. on 06.09.1985. In the parcha bayan, it was alleged by the deceased that her in-laws used to harass her and her husband also often used to abuse her. She went to her parents’ house on the occasion of Eid and returned back on the following day. Sajiya, who happens to be her jethani (wife of elder brother of her husband) had taken her silver anklet. In the evening, when she was preparing food around the time of Ajan of Magrib (evening prayer), younger brother of her husband, Farooq poured kerosene over her body and her ‘jethani’ Sajiya lit fire by match stick. Then the deceased stated that her father-in-law Moti Lala; her mother-in-law Jubeda, her jeth Mannu, her devar Usman and her husband Murtaza were all present at home. All of them often used to quarrel with her. Bhanwar Lal, A.S.I. gave a written request to S.H.O., Police Station Sikar at 3.00 A.M. on 07.09.1985 requesting for getting her dying declaration recorded from Magistrate. Eventually Shri Kamal Raj Singhvi (P.W.16), Judicial Magistrate recorded dying declaration of the deceased (Exhibit P-15). Bhanwar Lal, A.S.I. (P.W.13) had given requisition (Exhibit P-14) to duty doctor for obtaining fitness certificate at 4.30 A.M. on 07.09.1985 whereupon the duty doctor mentioned that Munni (deceased) was conscious and could answer the questions normally. Her next dose of sedation will be repeated after half an hour, i.e. 5.00 A.M. and before that she was fit to give her statement. Her next dose of sedation will be repeated after half an hour, i.e. 5.00 A.M. and before that she was fit to give her statement. It is thereafter that Shri Kamal Raj Singhvi (P.W.7) recorded dying declaration of the deceased. In the dying declaration, Munni repeated same allegation that her devar, younger brother of her husband, Farooq poured kerosene over her body and her ‘jethani’ Sajiya lit fire by match stick. Her marriage was solemnized eleven months ago. Her husband had left a woman earlier also. When she was burnt, all family members were present in the house. Timings of Ajan of Magrib was about quarter to six and she was put to fire around that time. She alleged that her ‘jethani’ Sajiya on the previous day had taken her silver anklet, which she was wearing on her legs. After putting her on fire, her ‘jethani’ Sajiya, ‘devar’ Farooq, her mother-in-law ran away from the house. Upon hearing hue and cry, neighbourer Jamila came there and changed her clothes. 9. Even though Jamila has appeared as P.W.10 and has not supported case of the prosecution, yet she has not been declared hostile. The prosecution is therefore bound by her testimony. She has stated that on the fateful day, she was preparing food in her house. Suddenly she heard sound of hue and cry from the house of Naseem. She stated that their houses were adjacent to each other divided by one wall only. She went rushing to the house of Naseem. She saw that Naseem was sitting in the room of Abbas. Her clothes were burnt and her body was wet by water. Her clothes and body parts were burnt. She was wearing salwar suit of red colour, most of which had already burnt. Naseem asked this witness to give her another pair of clothes. Thereupon, she helped her in change her clothes and laid her on the cot. After sometime, she (Jamila) returned back to her house. This witness stated that when she reached the room of Naseem, there were several women namely Sayri, Fatija, Mahrajan. She, after changing the clothes, gave the burnt clothes to her ‘devar’ Farooq. In cross-examination by the counsel for the defence, this witness has stated that her parental house as also parental house of Naseem were located near Fatehpur. Naseem was her cousin. She used to frequently visit house of Naseem. She, after changing the clothes, gave the burnt clothes to her ‘devar’ Farooq. In cross-examination by the counsel for the defence, this witness has stated that her parental house as also parental house of Naseem were located near Fatehpur. Naseem was her cousin. She used to frequently visit house of Naseem. She never heard any complaint from her about misbehavior by her father-in-law or mother-in-law. When she changed her clothes, neither Sajiya nor Farooq were present there. Sajiya never maltreated Naseem. In fact, her cousin Naseem by nature was a woman of short tempered and her temperament was also not good. She used to suddenly become angry, at times to the extent of madness. Even when she was unmarried, she tried to put herself on fire at her parents’ house. When she enquired from Naseem as to how she caught fire, she told her that out of frustration, she tried to burn herself. At that time, Rehana daughter of Mubin was also present there. 10. Yaseen, father of the deceased (P.W.3) has stated that Naseem was his daughter. She was married to Murtaza resident of jamadaron ka mohalla at Sikar. She used to often get fits of madness and in that state, she used to become uncontrollable. Her in-laws were quite upset with her such habit. When he went to the hospital, his daughter told her that she in a fit of anger put herself on fire. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that an incident once took place in his house when the deceased was unmarried, she poured kerosene over her body and tried to put herself on fire. He stated that Bashir Ahmed was the maternal grandfather of the deceased and that distance between house of in-laws of the deceased and house of Bashir was about 200 ‘pawandas’. 11. Saleema, mother of the deceased (P.W.5) stated that the deceased survived for as long as 11 months after his marriage with Murtaza. Her daughter never complained of any maltreatment by in-laws or husband. When she got burn injuries, she went to meet her in hospital at Sikar. Her daughter told her that she herself got the burns. It is wrong that she told her that her ‘devar’ Farooq poured kerosene and ‘jethani’ Sajiya lit fire by a match stick. Her daughter never complained of any maltreatment by in-laws or husband. When she got burn injuries, she went to meet her in hospital at Sikar. Her daughter told her that she herself got the burns. It is wrong that she told her that her ‘devar’ Farooq poured kerosene and ‘jethani’ Sajiya lit fire by a match stick. This witness was declared hostile, but in cross-examination, she stated that her daughter would often get fits of madness and in that state, she would become uncontrollable. Once in their house also, she poured kerosene over her body and tried to burn herself. When she enquired from her daughter reason of these burn injuries, she told that she poured kerosene over her body and put herself on fire. 12. Mahmood Ali (P.W.8) happens to be cousin of the husband of the deceased. He stated that their family and family of the accused stayed in the same haveli of Mohalla Jamindaran. When the deceased burnt herself, he was sitting in his room. When he heard sound of hue and cry, he went there and saw deceased Munni coming out of the room in burnt condition. He rushed towards her but before he could reach, Abbas had poured water over her body. Thereafter, he also poured water on her body and then the fire was extinguished. At that time, there was no one else in the room except him and Abbas. Sajiya and Farooq were also not present there. After some time, Jamila, whose house was adjacent, also came there and she changed clothes of the deceased. Even this witness in the cross-examination stated that the deceased used to often get fits of madness and that she was a woman of short temper. This witness stated that he was student of engineering at Gulbarga. 13. Abbas (P.W.9) has stated that on that day, he was in his room of the ground floor along with his sister Rehana. Her mother and her another sister Mehmooda had gone to house of his maternal grandfather. At that time, he was taking food. He suddenly heard sound of hue and cry from the first floor that wife of Murtaza had burnt herself. He rushed towards first floor and saw that clothes of Munni had caught fire. She was wearing a red colour suit. He poured a bucket of water over her body. At that time, he was taking food. He suddenly heard sound of hue and cry from the first floor that wife of Murtaza had burnt herself. He rushed towards first floor and saw that clothes of Munni had caught fire. She was wearing a red colour suit. He poured a bucket of water over her body. Thereafter, Mehmood also poured water over her body and then, the fire was extinguished. Farooq and Sajiya were not present there. However, Jamila came and asked both of them to go out of the room. She then changed clothes of the deceased. This witness also stated that he never saw any kind of maltreatment being meted out to the deceased by her in laws. 14. In view of above evidence, even if we do not go into the question whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statement, we have to decide whether this kind of dying declaration can be relied without any corroboration. There is no corroboration to the fact that the deceased was being maltreated by her husband or her in laws or that there was any demand of dowry in connection of which she used to be harassed or subjected to cruelty. There is also no corroboration to the allegation that Farooq, her ‘devar’ poured kerosene over her body and that her ‘jethani’, Sajiya lit fire by match stick. In fact, the Children Court vide its judgment dated 15.12.1997 has acquitted juvenile Farooq by not believing dying declaration of the deceased. 15. The Supreme Court in Atbir vs. Government of NCT of Delhi- (2010) 9 SCC 1 , while revisiting its previous judgements 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 principles to be kept in view while dealing with a case of dying declaration. It would be evident from the law enunciated in the aforesaid case that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction provided it inspires the full confidence of the Court. It would be evident from the law enunciated in the aforesaid case that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction provided it inspires the full confidence of the Court. However, the Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It has also held that where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. But it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. However, where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. 16. In the present case, testimony of all the aforementioned witnesses makes it clear that the trial court should have looked for corroboration before recording finding of conviction of the accused-appellant while relying upon dying declaration of the deceased (Exhibit P-15). Fact which emerges from the surrounding circumstances on the basis of evidence of so many witnesses including parents of the deceased is that the deceased used to get fits of madness and would be uncontrollable in that state and some times she would become furious. In fact before marriage, in such state of madness, the deceased even tried to put herself on fire at her parents’ house. On this occasion, when she put herself on fire, neighbours Abbas and Mehmood extinguished fire but did not see Sajiya and Farooq present there. These statements create doubt about the correctness of version given by the deceased in dying declaration (Exhibit P-15) and it would be highly unsafe to convict the accused-appellant solely on the basis of dying declaration (Exhibit P-15). 17. In view of above, present appeal deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.1990 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant Sajiya is acquitted of the charges framed against her. She is on bail and need not surrender. Her bail bonds stand cancelled. 18. 17. In view of above, present appeal deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.1990 passed by the trial court is set aside. The accused-appellant Sajiya is acquitted of the charges framed against her. She is on bail and need not surrender. Her bail bonds stand cancelled. 18. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellant, Sajiya is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.