JUDGMENT : Abhay Chaturvedi, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant Brajesh Kumar aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 37/2011 (State vs. Brajesh Kumar) by which the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 498-A IPC Rigorous Imprisonment of 03 years’ along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 19.03.2011 at 6:45 pm, an information was received at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara to the effect that one Smt. Rekha was admitted at the burn ward bed No. 2, MG Hospital, Bhilwara in a burnt condition. PW-5 Kalu Ram, ASI proceeded to the MG Hospital, Bhilwara where he found that Smt. Rekha was unconscious and not in a condition to give her statement. The Medical Officer, MG Hospital, Bhilwara certified that the patient named Smt. Rekha was unconscious and not in a condition to give her statement, so her statement could not be recorded at that time. PW-5 Kalu Ram came back to police station after intimating the Medical Officer at MG Hospital, Bhilwara to communicate him whenever she gets conscious. Thereafter, the condition of Smt. Rekha deteriorated so on 21.03.2011 she was referred to Udaipur and admitted in burn ward bed No. 33 at M.B. Hospital, Udaipur. 3. It seems that the patient respondent. Accordingly, the statement of Smt. Rekha was recorded by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, the then Judicial Magistrate, on 25.03.2011 after obtaining a certificate of fitness to give statement issued by PW-20 Dr. Rohan. In her statement Smt. Rekha Kumari alleged that she was married to the accused-appellant-Brajesh Kumar two years before the date of the occurrence. On 19.3.11, her husband Brajesh Kumar (accused-appellant) poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. It was further stated by the victim that she attempted to escape but the accused-appellant closed the door of the room and confined her. On 19.3.11, her husband Brajesh Kumar (accused-appellant) poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. It was further stated by the victim that she attempted to escape but the accused-appellant closed the door of the room and confined her. She alleged that after the marriage, she was ill treated by her husband for demand of a motorcycle and a gold chain. On the day of occurrence, she told the accused-appellant to go on his job but he refused to budge, got annoyed and set her on fire. On 29.03.2011, Smt. Rekha expired due to the burn injuries inflicted upon her body by the accused-appellant. The post mortem examination of the deceased Smt. Rekha was conducted by a Medical Board constituted at MB Hospital, Udaipur which issued the post mortem examination report (Ex. P/17). The Medical Board found that the deceased was having 95 percent burns on the entire surface area of her body and opined that the cause of death of the deceased was shock due to septicemia caused by secondary bacterial infection over extensive burn area which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 4. On 30.03.2011 at 6:00 pm, PW-3 Shreeram Bhagat, brother of Smt. Rekha (deceased) submitted a written report to the SHO Police Station Bhilwara alleging therein that his sister Smt. Rekha was married to the accused-appellant Brajesh on 01.06.2009. They were residing at Jawahar Nagar, Bhilwara. On 19.03.2011, he received an information from the accused-appellant that the deceased Smt. Rekha had been burnt and was admitted in Bhilwara Hospital and owing to her deteriorating condition, she had been referred to Udaipur Hospital for better treatment. Thereupon, on 21.03.2011, he reached the MBGH, Udaipur where Smt. Rekha was being treated. Shreeram Bhagat further alleged that the accused-appellant used to treat his sister badly and often beat her for demand of a motorcycle and a gold chain. He further alleged that his sister told him that the accused-appellant poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. Thereafter, she passed away while undergoing treatment. His sister had been killed by her husband by setting her on fire. On the basis of this information, an FIR No. 21/11 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC came to be registered at Mahila Police Thana, Bhilwara and the investigation was under taken by PW-18 Rahul Kotoki. 5. Thereafter, she passed away while undergoing treatment. His sister had been killed by her husband by setting her on fire. On the basis of this information, an FIR No. 21/11 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC came to be registered at Mahila Police Thana, Bhilwara and the investigation was under taken by PW-18 Rahul Kotoki. 5. During investigation, the following documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer: 1. Inquest Memo Ex.P/3 dt. 30.03.2011 2. Fard Supurdginama Lash Ex.P/4 dt. 3103.2011 3. Site Plan Ex.P/10 dt. 31.03.2011 4. Seizure Memo of the Stove Ex.P/11 dt. 30.03.2011 Photographs of the place of occurrence (Ex. P/12 to P/15) were also taken. Statements of witnesses were recorded by the investigation officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after concluding investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC the Magistrate concerned. Since, the offence under Section 304-B IPC was triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Section 498-A, 302 and in the alternative 304-B IPC to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and 22 documents were exhibited to prove its case. 7. Upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the same and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence, but two documents were exhibited by the accused-appellant. 8. After hearing and appreciating the submissions advanced by the defence and the prosecution and appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of guilt arrived by the learned trial Judge against the appellant is contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned trial Court has not considered the statements of independent witnesses PW-8 Dinesh, PW-9 Bindeshwar Mishra, PW-10 Meena Devi, PW-14 Manbhar, PW-16 Seema, who were neighbours of the deceased Smt. Rekha and the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court has not considered the statements of independent witnesses PW-8 Dinesh, PW-9 Bindeshwar Mishra, PW-10 Meena Devi, PW-14 Manbhar, PW-16 Seema, who were neighbours of the deceased Smt. Rekha and the accused-appellant. The witnesses as mentioned above did not support the prosecution case and completely disproved the prosecution allegation that deceased was ill treated by the accused-appellant and on the contrary they have stated that the appellant tried to save his wife and immediately got her admitted to the hospital. It was also urged that the incident took place on 19.03.2011 PW-3 Shreeram Bhagat, brother of the decease had arrived at MB Hospital Udaipur on 21.03.2011 but the FIR was not lodged by him till 30.03.2011 for nearly 09 days from the date of the incident. Hence, the delay itself is fatal to the prosecution. It was further urged that as per the arrest memo Ex. P/1 dated 03.04.2011, burn injuries were found on the hands of the accused-appellant which proves it beyond doubt that the accused-appellant had tried to save his wife and in the course of rescuing her, he also sustained burn injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has put emphasis on the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) but the same is unworthy of credence as in the endorsement made by Dr. Rohan (PW-20) neither the name of patient nor the ward number or the bed number where the deceased was admitted are mentioned. He also submitted that as per the prosecution case, the deceased sustained 95 percent burn injuries and the person having sustained such extensive burn injuries could not have been in a mental or physical condition so as to give any statement. 10. On the alternative, he urged that PW-3 Shreeram Bhagat, the brother of the deceased, admitted in his statement before the Court that he remained with deceased in the hospital throughout and had ample opportunity to have conversation with her thus, it can be safely inferred that there was imminent possibility that the deceased had made the statement (Ex. P/6) on being prompted by her brother. Hence, the Dying Declaration (Ex. P/6) is a suspicious document which cannot be acted upon for convicting the accused-appellant without being corroborated by other independent evidence. P/6) on being prompted by her brother. Hence, the Dying Declaration (Ex. P/6) is a suspicious document which cannot be acted upon for convicting the accused-appellant without being corroborated by other independent evidence. On this ground, learned counsel for the appellant implored the Court that the appellant herein is entitled to be acquitted of the charges and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on a just and proper appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record and thus, there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar; perused the record and minutely re-appreciated the evidence led by the party. 13. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that the deceased, Smt. Rekha was married to the accused-appellant on 01.06.2009. She was admitted to the MG Hospital, Bhilwara on 19.03.2011 at about 7:30 pm in a burnt and unconscious condition. Though, PW-5 Shri Kalu Ram tried to record her statement but as Smt. Rekha was unconscious and the medical officer opined that she was not in a fit condition to give her statement, thus, Kalu Ram could not succeed in recording her statement. Thereafter, she was referred to MB Hospital, Udaipur for better treatment on 21.03.2011. 14. On 25.03.2011, at about 4:15 pm, statement (Ex. P/6) of deceased Smt. Rekha was recorded by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, Judicial Magistrate after PW-20 Dr. Rohan examined the victim and found her to be in a fit condition to give the statement. 15. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the prosecution case is primarily hinges on the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) given by the deceased to PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, Judicial Magistrate. 16. The question for consideration before the Court is as to whether the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) made by the deceased Smt. Rekha was genuine, voluntary and untutored which may form the basis for convicting the accused-appellant for the offence charged. 17. PW-20 Dr. Rohan was posted at the MB Hospital, Udaipur. 16. The question for consideration before the Court is as to whether the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) made by the deceased Smt. Rekha was genuine, voluntary and untutored which may form the basis for convicting the accused-appellant for the offence charged. 17. PW-20 Dr. Rohan was posted at the MB Hospital, Udaipur. He stated on oath that on 25.03.2011 at 4:15 pm, he received a call from the hospital to examine and opine as to whether a patient admitted in the hospital was in a fit condition to give statement or not. Thereupon, he examined the deceased - Smt. Rekha and found that she was in a fit condition to give her statement. Thereafter, PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan (Judicial Magistrate) recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P/6) in his presence. He appended a certificate to this effect on the statement Ex. P/6 at portion "E to F". 18. PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, Judicial Magistrate stated on oath that on 25.03.2011, he was authorised by the order of CJM, Udaipur (vide Ex. P/22) to record the statement of the deceased Smt. Rekha Kumari who admitted at the MBGH Hospital, Udaipur. Thereupon, he proceeded to the Hospital to record the statement of the said Rekha Kumari who was admitted in burn ward bed No. 33. He further stated that PW-20 Dr. Rohan Gopikishan, after examining the deceased Smt. Rekha, certified that she was in a fit condition to give her statement. Thereupon, he recorded Rekha's statement (Ex. P/6) in his own handwriting and the same was read over and admitted to be correct by Rekha. He further stated that since both the hands and left leg of Smt. Rekha were severely burnt, therefore, he got her right toe impression affixed on the statement (Ex. P/6). 19. A perusal of the statement (Ex. P/6) in his own handwriting and the same was read over and admitted to be correct by Rekha. He further stated that since both the hands and left leg of Smt. Rekha were severely burnt, therefore, he got her right toe impression affixed on the statement (Ex. P/6). 19. A perusal of the statement (Ex. P/6) goes to show that it is in a question-answer form, which reads as under: ^^iz'u & vki fdrus HkkbZ cfgu gS\ mRkj & ge pkj cfgus o 1 HkkbZ gSA eS rhljs ua dh gwW iz'Uk & vki fdrus ekg ls HkhyokMk jg jgs Fks\ mŸkj & rhu ekg gks x;s gSA iz'u & vkids ifr D;k dke djrk gS\ mŸkj & esjs ifr diM+k fey esa dke djrs FksA iz'Uk & vkidh 'kknh fdlls o dc gqbZ\ mŸkj & esjh 'kknh czts'k dqekj iq= jkeflag izlkn ls nks o"kZ iwoZ gqbZ FkhA iz'u & vki dSls tys Fks\ mŸkj & eq>s esjs ifr czts'k dqekj us ?kklysV Mky dj tyk;k gSA iz'u & vkidks dc] fdl fny tyk;k\ mŸkj & eq>s esjs ifr us gksyh ds fnu] 4&5 cts 'kke dks tyk;k FkkA iz'u & tykrs oDr dkSu&dkSu Fks\ mŸkj & eS o esjs ifr gh FksA eq>s tyk;k rks eS Hkkxus yxh fdUrq esjs ifr czts'k us njoktk cUn dj fn;kA iz'u & D;k igys Hkh ekjihV vkids ifr djrs Fks\ mŸkj & eS esjs ifr dks dke ij tkus gsrq dgrh rks eq>s cgqr ekjrs FksA iz'u & vkidks D;ks tyk;k\ mŸkj & esjs ifr dks eSus ukSdjh ij tkus gsrq dgk rks xqLlk gks x;s vkSj eq>s tyk fn;kA eq>s lqcg rks dke ij tkus gsrq euk fd;kA fQj 'kke dks dgk rq>s tyk nqaxk vkSj eq>s tyk fn;Ka iz'u & vkidks cpkus dkSu vk;k\ mŸkj & eq>s tykus ds ckn esjs ifr us dejk cUn dj fn;k fdUrq esa fdokM+ [kksy dj tyrh gqbZ ckgj xbZ rks eq>s okil esjs ifr vUnj ys x;s fQj gYyk lqu dj edku ds ekfyd] fdjk;snkj vk;s FksA iz'Uk & vki fdjk;s ds dejs esa dkSu&dkSu jgrs Fks\ mŸkj & ge nksuks ifr&ifRu gh jgrs FksA Ikz'u & vkidks vkSj dqN dguk gS\ mŸkj & 'kknh ds ckn eq>s jkst ekjrs FksA mijksDr dFku dk o`rkUr xokg dks i<+ dj lquk;k o le>k;k rks xokg us lqu le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj dj viuk vaxqBk fu'kku fd;Ka uksV %& xokg ds nksuks gkFk o mYVs ikap tyk gksus ls lh/ks ikap dk vaxwBk fu'kku yxk;k x;kA^^ 20. A perusal of the Dying Declaration of the deceased shows that she had specifically alleged that she simply asked the accused-appellant to go for his job, upon which he got annoyed and set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her body. She further alleged that when she tried to come out of the house, accused-appellant pushed her back inside and closed the door. On hearing her hue and cry, neighbours and landlord of the house came there. 21. The conduct of the accused-appellant as depicted in the Dying Declaration shows that he intended to cause death of the deceased by setting her on fire. 22. PW-17 Dr. Anupam Johari, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, stated that the deceased was having 95 percent burns on the surface area of her entire body caused by fire and in the opinion of the Board, the deceased died due to Septicemia brought about by bacterial infection. He opined that the infection associated with the burning was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 23. The Dying Declaration was challenged by the counsel for the accused-appellant as tutored one on the strength of the statement of PW-3 Shri Ram Bhagat that he had talks with the deceased throughout the period, from the time he reached at the hospital, Udaipur up to 25.03.2011. It may be observed here that, no suggestive question whatsoever was put to PW-3 Shri Ram Bhagat in his cross examination that he bore any kind of grudge with the accused appellant which could have persuaded him to tutor the deceased so as to falsely implicate the accused-appellant for her burn injury. The accused-appellant has also not offered any reason whatsoever as to why the deceased would falsely implicate him in this case. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. 24. So far as the plea of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the non-mentioning of name of the patient, bed and ward number in certificate issued by PW-20 Dr. Rohan on dying declaration (Ex. P/6) is concerned, a perusal of the statement of PW-20 Dr. Rohan shows that he admitted that the name of the patient and the ward number of the patient were not mentioned in portion "E to F" of the dying declaration (Ex. Rohan on dying declaration (Ex. P/6) is concerned, a perusal of the statement of PW-20 Dr. Rohan shows that he admitted that the name of the patient and the ward number of the patient were not mentioned in portion "E to F" of the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) but at the same time he explained that he admitted the deceased Smt. Rekha in burn ward bed No. 33 of the Hospital on 21.03.2011. On 25.03.2011, after examining the patient (deceased Smt. Rekha), he found her to be in fit state of mind to give the statement upon which he marked the endorsement "G to H" on the statement Ex. P/6. His statement is corroborated by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, the Judicial Magistrate, who clearly stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased after Dr. Rohan-PW-20 certified that the deceased Smt. Rekha was fit to give her statement and he recorded the statement in the presence of the doctor. Thus, there is no ambiguity regarding identity of the person whose statement was recorded by the doctor (PW-20). Apart from that, Ex. P/6 contains certificate issued by the PW-20 Dr. Rohan on the same paper which was used for recording the statement of the deceased by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, the Judicial Magistrate, so merely because the details of the patient and ward number were inadvertently omitted to be written on the certificate issued by the doctor in the portion "E to F" of Ex. P/6. Thus, this does not create any doubt regarding the fact that the statement recorded was not of the deceased Smt. Rekha. Therefore, the plea taken by learned counsel for the accused-appellant in this regard is not tenable. 25. So far as the statements of neighbours PW-8 Dinesh, PW-9 Bindeshwar Mishra, PW-10 Meena Devi, PW-14 Manbhar, PW-16 Seema are concerned, it is apparent from the perusal of their statements that all of them claimed that after the deceased received the burn injuries, the accused-appellant tried to rescue her by pouring water upon her and that the relations between the spouses were cordial and there was no strife between them. They used to live amicably. Taking the evidence of these witnesses on face value, it cannot be assumed that the statement given by the deceased in the form of a dying declaration (Ex. P/6) is untrue. They used to live amicably. Taking the evidence of these witnesses on face value, it cannot be assumed that the statement given by the deceased in the form of a dying declaration (Ex. P/6) is untrue. It is a common knowledge that the routine disputes and differences between the husband and wife may not come out to the knowledge of other people including neighbours. These are the affairs which occur within the four walls of the private space of the spouses and the minute details would not only be in their knowledge. Therefore, the statements of neighbours are not of much value in the light of the statement of the deceased in the form of dying declaration (Ex. P/6) in which she has specifically stated that the accused-appellant used to treat her badly. 26. So far as the plea of learned counsel for the appellant regarding fitness of mind of the deceased Smt. Rekha to give her statement on the strength of her having 95 percent burns is concerned, it may be observed here in this regard that the extent of burn injuries is not the conclusive factor while considering the ability of an injured to give the statement. The Apex Court in the case of P.V. Radhakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2003 CHLJ 3717 has observed at para 16-17 which is as under: "16. It was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra ( 2002 (6) SCC 710 ) that where the medical certificate indicated that the patient was conscious, it would not be correct to say that there was no certification as to state of mind of declarant. Moreover, state of mind was proved by testimony of the doctor who was present when the dying declaration was recorded. In the aforesaid background it cannot be said that there was any infirmity. Further if the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant is in a fit medical condition to make a dying declaration then such dying declaration will not be invalid solely on the ground that is not certified by the doctor as to the condition of the declarant to make the dying declaration. [See Rambai v. State of Chhattisgarh ( 2002 (8) SCC 83 )]. 17. [See Rambai v. State of Chhattisgarh ( 2002 (8) SCC 83 )]. 17. The residuary question whether the percentage of burns suffered is determinative factor to affect the credibility of the dying declaration and the improbability of its recording. There is no hard and fast rule of universal application in this regard. Much would depend upon the nature of the burn, part of the body affected by the burn, impact of the burn on the faculties to think and convey the idea or facts coming to mind and other relevant factors. Percentage of burns alone would not determine the probability or otherwise of making dying declaration. As noted in Rambai's case (supra) physical state or injuries on the declarant do not by themselves become determinative of mental fitness of the declarant to make the statement." [Emphasis supplied] In the case at hand, PW-20 Dr. Rohan has specifically stated that after examining the deceased Smt. Rekha, he found that she was in a fit condition to give statement and in his presence PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, the Judicial Magistrate, recorded her statement. His statements stands corroborated by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, Judicial Magistrate. 27. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR by PW-3 is concerned, it is true that the occurrence took place on 19.03.2011 and the FIR (Ex. P/2) came to be lodged at Police Station Mahila Police Thana, Bhilwara as late as on 30.03.2011. PW-3 Shri Ram Bhagat has offered a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. He stated on oath that he was shocked after looking at the severely burnt condition of his sister. He felt that her treatment was necessary and paramount, therefore, he failed to lodge the FIR on time. The explanation so put forward by PW-3 Shri Ram Bhagat is natural and in consonance with the human behavior in the given circumstances. Apart from that, PW-5 Shri Kaluram was present at MG Hospital, Bhilwara on 19.03.2011 i.e. on the date of occurrence when he was informed that Smt. Rekha was not in a fit condition to give statement and thereafter, on 25.03.2011, her statement (Ex. P/6) was duly recorded as stated by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan and PW-20 Dr. Rohan. As a matter of fact, the police should have registered the FIR immediately on receiving this statement. P/6) was duly recorded as stated by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan and PW-20 Dr. Rohan. As a matter of fact, the police should have registered the FIR immediately on receiving this statement. In the peculiar circumstances noted above, even the significant delay in lodging of the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 28. It is a well settled proposition of law that once the statement of the deceased is found to be genuine, voluntarily, consistent, credible and untutored, it assumes great value and can form the sole basis for conviction without requiring any corroboration. In the instant case, the dying declaration was recorded by PW-19 Shri Raj Kumar Chouhan, a Judicial Magistrate and before recording the statement PW-20 Dr. Rohan gave the fitness certificate after examining the deceased Smt. Rekha. PW-20, Dr. Rohan got the deceased Smt. Rekha admitted in the burn ward No. 33 and provide primary treatment to her. The appellant stands squarely implicated for murder in the dying declaration. 29. Therefore, in view of the above, we are fully convinced that the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) was genuine, voluntarily, consistent, credible and untutored and can easily form the sole basis for convicting the accused-appellant for the charges levelled against him. 30. So far as the burn injuries sustained by the accused-appellant is concerned, it may be observed here that the deceased in a natural response to the injuries would be frantic and her reaction must have made her to clutch the accused resulting into burn injuries being caused to him. Hence, injuries sustained by the accused appellant cannot be treated as a circumstance inconsistent with his guilt. 31. In view of the above, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment dated while convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara is upheld. 32. The record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.