JUDGMENT : RAMESH SINHA, J. 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C.) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, in Sessions Trial No. 45/2013, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that 8-9 years prior to the date of incident, the appellant had married with the deceased namely Nanbai and were residing at Sanjay Nagar, Korba. On the date of incident i.e. 22.02.2013, both of them had an altercation as the appellant used to doubt the character of his wife and threatened her that he would burn her alive. Being scared, the deceased went in her room and lied on the cot. At that time, the appellant came and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The deceased came out of the room screaming for help and fell on the ground. 3. The matter was reported to the police upon which the police reached the place of incident and took the injured Nanbai to the Hospital. Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/16) was recorded by Police Sub Inspector, Arun Kumar Sahu bearing Crime No. 0/2013 under Section 307 IPC on 22.02.2013 at 02:00 p.m. at the place of incident i.e. house of the accused and the deceased at Sanjay Nagar, Korba. The deceased informed the IO that she was residing with the accused for the last 8-9 years as his wife and she does the labour work. On the date of incident, at about 1:00 p.m., the accused started quarrelling with the deceased on some old dispute and stated that today he will not spare her and would kill her. She got scared and went to her room and lied on the cot. At that time, the accused came ad poured kerosene on her and burnt her with a match stick. She got scared and went to her room and lied on the cot. At that time, the accused came ad poured kerosene on her and burnt her with a match stick. When she screamed for help and went outside the house, at that time, Rizwan and other people of the area came and they saw that her husband i.e. the accused had tried to kill her. 4. Thereafter, on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/16), Arun Kumar Sahu who is the Investigating Officer (for short, the I.O.) registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 140/2013 on the same day at 20:00 hours under Section 307 of the IPC. 5. The deceased was taken to the Indira Gandhi District Hospital, Korba, where she was admitted and during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her on the same day i.e. 22.02.2013 at 9:35 pm. On the basis of information (Exhibit P/12) given by Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (PW/7), merg intimation (Exhibit P/18) was recorded by the I.O. on 23.02.2023 at 6:30 a.m. The body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by Dr. O.S. Kanwar (PW/8) who prepared the postmortem report (Exhibit P/13). 6. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the Accused under section 302 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba who in turn committed the case to the Session Court for trial and was registered as Sessions Trial No. 45/2013 7. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 16.07.2013 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 8. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 16.07.2013 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 8. Amongst others, the prosecution has filed the following documents in support of its case: (i) Dying declaration and information under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/1) (ii) Duty Certificate (Exhibit P/2) (iii) Nazri Naksha (Exhibit P/3) (iv) Summons under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/4A and P/4) (v) Inquest report (Exhibit P/5) (vi) Statement of Jamila Bai (Exhibit P/6) (vii) Statement of Muskan (Exhibit P/7) (viii) Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/8) (ix) Panchnama (Exhibit P/9) (x) Statement of Ali Khan (Exhibit P/10) (xi) Statement of Shamsood Khan (Exhibit P/11) (xii) MLC Information (Exhibit P/12) (xiii) Application for post-mortem and post-mortem report (Exhibit P/13) (xiv) Arrest memo (Exhibit P/14) (xv) Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/15) (xvi) FIR (Exhibit P/16) (xvii) Merg intimation (Exhibit P/17) (xviii) Application for bed head ticket (Exhibit P/18) (xix) Application for bed-head ticket (Exhibit P/19) (xx) OPD Slip (Exhibit P/19A-C) (xxi) Consent for medical treatment (Exhibit P/19B-C) (xxii) Indoor Bed head ticket (Exhibit P/19C-C) (xxiii) Information of arrest (Exhibit P/20) (xiv) Receipt (Exhibit P/21) (xv) Statement of Nanbai under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/22) (xvi) Article A-1 to A-3 Photographs 9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: (a) Nand Kumar Singh (PW-1): He is the Tehsildar. He stated that he was posted at Korba and had recorded the dying declaration (Exhibit P/1) of the deceased. He had asked the Doctor regarding the condition of the victim as to whether she was in a condition of giving her statement upon which the Doctor told that she was capable of giving her statement and the Doctor has also given a certificate in this regard. On asking, the deceased informed him that her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. She was further asked as to whether she had to say anything more, the deceased stated that her aunt (Mausi) had told her husband that she (the deceased) used to give food to some one in polythene bag upon which the deceased and her husband had a quarrel. After the quarrel, she went and lied on her cot when this incident happened. This witness states that he had not received any order from the Sub Divisional Magistrate for recording the dying declaration. After the quarrel, she went and lied on her cot when this incident happened. This witness states that he had not received any order from the Sub Divisional Magistrate for recording the dying declaration. Sometimes order is given orally and sometimes, in writing. He clearly deposed that when he had taken the statement of the deceased, she was mentally fit and the same has been recorded as was stated by the deceased. (b) Santan Yadav (PW-2): He is the Home Guard posted at Police Station Kotwali, Korba. On the direction of the Station House Officer, he had taken the dead body alongwith the application for postmortem to the District Hospital, Korba. (c) Jameela Begum (PW-3): She is the neighbour of the deceased. When the incident had taken place, she was at her home. She stated that she is not aware as to how the deceased got burnt. She states that when she heard the screaming of the deceased for help, then she came out of her house. She had signed the spot map (Exhibit P/3) prepared by the police. She is also the witness to the inquest (Exhibit P/5). (d) Muskan Ali (PW-4): She is also a neighbour of the deceased. She states that she had seen the deceased when she heard the screaming of deceased for help and was asking for water. Her children informed this witness that the deceased was burnt. She had seen the dead body of the deceased at the Hospital. She is also a witness to the inquest. She further states that she had not seen any quarrel of the deceased and her husband and it was incorrect to state that they always used to fight. She further states that since the accused is her neighbour, so in order to save him, she is stating incorrect facts. She also expressed her ignorance as to where the accused was when the deceased was burnt. (e) Shamsher Ali (PW-5): He is also the neighbour the deceased and husband of Muskan Ali (PW-4). He had also seen the deceased in the burnt condition when there were lot of people gathered in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased was asking for water and the police had taken the deceased to the hospital. He states that the inquest was prepared in his presence but no seizure proceedings were conducted in his presence. He had also seen the deceased in the burnt condition when there were lot of people gathered in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased was asking for water and the police had taken the deceased to the hospital. He states that the inquest was prepared in his presence but no seizure proceedings were conducted in his presence. He also stated that it was incorrect to say that the appellant and the deceased always used to quarrel and that he is stating the incorrect facts to save the appellant as he is his neighbour. In the cross examination, this witness states that the inquest proceedings were conducted in the hospital and the entire body of the deceased had turned black, her both the hands and palm had turned black and all the fingers got stuck together and the flesh of the neck, face and mouth had completely burnt and got stuck together. He further states that neither he nor his wife had seen the accused running away or around the house. (f) Samshood Khan (PW-6): He states that he was a Driver and after doing his night duty, after taking his lunch he was resting at his house. When he heard the commotion of his neighbours, he came out of his house when he saw the deceased in burnt condition who was asking for water. He further states that he is unaware as to how she got burnt nor he had asked anything from the deceased. On the next day, he came to know from the news in the T.V. that the deceased expired. He had seen the dead body of the deceased and had signed the inquest notice (Exhibit P/4) and also in the inquest report (Exhibit P/5). He also states that it was incorrect to say that the deceased and the appellant always used to quarrel with each other. (g) Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (PW-7): He is the Doctor who was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Korba on the date of incident. He states that the deceased was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition. When he examined the deceased at 9:00 p.m. she was in a very serious condition. He could hardly find her pulse, blood pressure also could not be recorded as it was very low, she could hardly breathe and even her heart beat could not be detected. He states that the deceased was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition. When he examined the deceased at 9:00 p.m. she was in a very serious condition. He could hardly find her pulse, blood pressure also could not be recorded as it was very low, she could hardly breathe and even her heart beat could not be detected. Even after giving life saving drugs, there was no signs of her being alive, hence, she was declared dead. He had given information (Exhibit P/12) regarding death of the deceased to the police outpost of the Hospital. He further states that he cannot say as to what was the condition of the deceased prior to the treatment given by him. The body of the deceased was 70% burned. He states that when he had examined the deceased, the rate of breath was 1-2 breath per minute and he was not aware as to what was the situation at the time of her admission in the hospital which can only be informed by the concerning Doctor. The deceased was given oxygen and treated with all life saving drugs and it was incorrect to state that before giving any treatment by him, she had expired. (h) Dr. O.S. Kanwar (PW-8): He is the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. On external examination, the body was cold, mouth was closed, stiffness in the body was present. He has described about the injuries sustained by the deceased and stated that the deceased died because of the shock due to 75% burn injuries and the duration of death was within 26 hours. He further states that in the postmortem report, there is no mention with regard to sticking of the fingers with each other. He further states that if the entire hand is burnt 9% alongwith fingers, then the thumb impression cannot be taken. (i) Rizwan Memon (PW-9): He is also a neighbour of the deceased. He states that when his neighbours called him, he came to know that deceased was burnt. He asked the deceased as to how she got burnt, the deceased stated that her husband i.e. the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He alongwith other members of the locality called the Ambulance and the said Ambulance took the deceased to District Hospital, Korba. She died in the hospital on the same day at night. He asked the deceased as to how she got burnt, the deceased stated that her husband i.e. the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He alongwith other members of the locality called the Ambulance and the said Ambulance took the deceased to District Hospital, Korba. She died in the hospital on the same day at night. He is also a witness to the inquest report (Exhibit P/5). He further states that her entire body was burnt except below the knees. This witness is also a witness to seizure (Exhibit P/8) and the Panchnama (Exhibit P/9) and the spot map prepared by the Patwari (Exhibit P/3), though he states that he is not aware as to whether the Patwari had prepared any spot map or not. He is also witness to the arrest memo (Exhibit P/14). On being cross-examined, this witness states that it was correct to say that the appellant had lodged a complaint in the Police Station against him with regard to some theft. Since he was a booking agent, he frequently goes to the Police Station. He is witness in four-five cases and it was incorrect to say that he is a permanent witness for the police personnel. He further states that it was incorrect to say that since there is animosity between him and the appellant, he is falsely deposing against the appellant. (j) Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-10): He is the Doctor who had admitted and treated the deceased when she was brought to the Hospital. When he examined the deceased, she was in a conscious state but her condition was very poor, pulse was 72 per minute, breath 20 per minute, blood pressure 110/70 mm. hg. body temperature was normal, her face, neck, skin of the skull, her both hands and legs, belly and chest were burnt both sides. When he asked the deceased as to how she got burnt, she informed that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. The deceased was clearly in a condition that she could speak and had certified on 22.02.2013 at 6:45 p.m. that she could give her dying declaration. When he asked the deceased as to how she got burnt, she informed that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. The deceased was clearly in a condition that she could speak and had certified on 22.02.2013 at 6:45 p.m. that she could give her dying declaration. (k) Arun Kumar Sahu (PW-11): He is the I.O. who had investigated the matter and submitted the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. He states that on the date of incident, he was posted at Police Station Kotwali, Korba as trainee Sub Inspector. On having received information during the course of patrolling, he reached the place of incident where the deceased was lying in a burnt condition outside of her house and her husband had absconded. When he made query from the deceased, she informed that her husband Amrit Lal Sahu had a quarrel with her at about 1:00 p.m. and he had burnt her after pouring kerosene on her. He further states that he had registered the FIR (Exhibit P/17) on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/16) and with the help of the people of the locality, he had sent the deceased to the Hospital. On the next day, i.e. 23.02.20213, the information with regard to the death of the deceased was received by him upon which merg intimation (Exhibit P/18) was recorded. The body was sent for postmortem after the inquest proceedings. He had given a duty certificate to the Home Guard for taking the body for postmortem. He had also wrote (Exhibit P/19) to the Doctors for providing him the bed head ticket of the deceased and on 23.02.2013, in presence of the witnesses, the lock of the house of the deceased was opened from where one plastic can which contained kerosene, one piece of burnt Saree, one burnt nokia mobile was seized and seizure memo (Exhibit P/8) was prepared. Photography of the place was also conducted. Spot map was prepared in the presence of witnesses which is Exhibit P/3 and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses Jamilabai, Samshood Khan, Muskan, Alikhan, Rizwan were recorded as was stated by them. The confessional statement (Exhibit P/15) of the accused/appellant was taken on 14.03.2023 and he was arrested and arrest memo (Exhibit P/14) was prepared. Photographs of the deceased was also taken when she was admitted in the hospital (Articles A-1 to A-3). The confessional statement (Exhibit P/15) of the accused/appellant was taken on 14.03.2023 and he was arrested and arrest memo (Exhibit P/14) was prepared. Photographs of the deceased was also taken when she was admitted in the hospital (Articles A-1 to A-3). The statement of the deceased (Exhibit P/22) was recorded on 22.02.20213 in the hospital. 10. The Accused got the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Rizwan Memon (PW-9) exhibited as Exhibit D-1. 11. The statement of the Accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.08.2014. He stated that he was innocent. On the date of incident, he was not at home and gone for search of labour work. On the next day, he came to know that Rizwan, with whom he had previous animosity, is having good hold in the police department, hence, he has implicated him in a false case which in fact was an accident. He was aged about 66 years and there is no other person except her wife. 12. The learned Sessions Judge, Korba, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 13. Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The incident is said to have taken place at about 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon in the house of the deceased. No one has either seen the appellant committing the said act nor anyone has seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of incident. Even as per the appellant, he was not present at the place of incident and had gone in search of work. None of the prosecution witness have stated anything concrete against the appellant so as to hold him guilty of the offence. The only witness who has deposed against the appellant is Rizwan Memon (PW-9) who himself has deposed that he was having animosity with the appellant. Except him, there is no witness who has stated that the deceased informed them that she was burnt by the appellant. Further, when the deceased was in such a state of burn injuries and her fingers had stuck together because of those injuries, there was no possibility of her giving thumb impression on the dying declaration or any other document/paper. Except him, there is no witness who has stated that the deceased informed them that she was burnt by the appellant. Further, when the deceased was in such a state of burn injuries and her fingers had stuck together because of those injuries, there was no possibility of her giving thumb impression on the dying declaration or any other document/paper. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any motive with the appellant to kill the deceased as petty arguments/quarrel happens between all the couples which is quite common which cannot be the reason for commission of such a heinous crime, and solely on the basis of dying declaration, the appellant cannot be held guilty of the offence. 14. Ms. Mukherjee lastly submits that since the appellant is aged about 70 years as on date and is in jail since 14.03.2013, a lenient view may be taken towards the appellant. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, learned Government Advocate submits that when the victim herself has deposed against the appellant, who is none other than his wife, then there remains no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence. The conduct of the appellant also goes to suggest that immediately after the incident, the appellant went missing from his house which is indicative of the fact that he is the one who committed the offence and then fled away. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which took place in the marital home of the deceased and that there was a motive for murder. There is no error or illegality committed by the learned Trial Court in convicting the appellant. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 17. The entire issue in the present case hinges on the admissibility and evidentiary value of the dying declarations made by the deceased. 18. From perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, especially the neighbours i.e. Jameela Begum, Muskan Ali, Shamsher Ali, it is evident that they have not stated anything against the accused or that the deceased had informed them that the appellant/accused had burnt her. However, the witness Rizwan Memon (PW-9) had stated that when he asked the deceased how she got burnt, she had narrated the entire story. However, the witness Rizwan Memon (PW-9) had stated that when he asked the deceased how she got burnt, she had narrated the entire story. Even the accused/appellant had made a confessional statement before the police on 14.03.2013 (Exhibit P/9). A perusal of the said statement gets corroborated with the dying declaration (Exhibit P/1) and the statement under Section 161 (Exhibit P/22) made by the deceased. 19. There is no doubt that the deceased had sustained burn injuries for which she was admitted in the District Hospital, Korba and on the next day of admission, she succumbed to the injuries. In the postmortem report also, the Doctor has opined that the death was because of shock due to burn injuries to the extent of 75%. 20. There has been a motive for the appellant for committing the crime in question. As per the dying declaration, the deceased stated that her husband used to doubt her character and there was a quarrel between them immediately before the incident. The accused had threatened her wife that he would kill her. It is the clear statement of the deceased that the appellant used to doubt the character of his wife. Even in the statement made before the Court and before the police, the witness Rizwan Memon (PW-9) has stated that when he asked the deceased how she got burnt, the deceased informed him that her husband Amritlal had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and thereafter ran away. 21. Dying declaration is admitted in evidence. The principle on which it is admitted as evidence is indicated in the legal maxim ‘nemomoriturus prae-sumitur mentire’ which means a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. This is exactly the reason as to why courts have held that an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of ‘Dying Declaration.’ In fact, no corroboration is required since corroboration is only a rule of prudence and not a rule of evidence. 22. Dying declaration is the last statement that is made by a person as to the cause of his imminent death or the circumstances that had resulted in that situation, at a stage when the declarant is conscious of the fact that there are virtually nil chances of his survival. 22. Dying declaration is the last statement that is made by a person as to the cause of his imminent death or the circumstances that had resulted in that situation, at a stage when the declarant is conscious of the fact that there are virtually nil chances of his survival. On an assumption that at such a critical stage, a person would be expected to speak the truth, courts have attached great value to the veracity of such a statement. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that when a statement is made by a person as to the cause of death, or as to any of the circumstances which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question, such a statement, oral or in writing made by the deceased victim to the witness, is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. It is noteworthy that the said provision is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 60 of the Evidence Act that ‘hearsay evidence is inadmissible’ and only when such an evidence is direct and is validated through cross-examination, is it considered to be trustworthy. 23. The Supreme Court, in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SCC 684 , had highlighted the significance of a dying declaration in the following words: “18. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy. Under Section 32, when a statement is made by a person, as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstances which result in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question, such a statement, oral or in writing, made by the deceased to the witness is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. The statement made by the deceased, called the dying declaration, falls in that category provided it has been made by the deceased while in a fit mental condition. A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The statement made by the deceased, called the dying declaration, falls in that category provided it has been made by the deceased while in a fit mental condition. A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration.........” 24. In the instant case, the dying declaration (Exhibit P/1) was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and in the said dying declaration, the Doctor has also certified that the patient was completely conscious while giving the statement. There is no reason why any false dying declaration would be prepared. 25. The credibility of a dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate has also come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases and it has been held that a Magistrate being an uninterested witness and a respected officer and there being no circumstances or material to suspect that he would have any animus against the accused or would in any way be interested for fabricating a dying declaration, such a declaration recorded by the Magistrate, ought not be doubted. Absence of corroborative evidence for convicting an accused based on a dying declaration has been a matter of discussion in several cases [See: Munnu Raja and Another vs. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104 , Smt. Paniben vs. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 , State of U.P. vs. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552 , Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Veerpal and Another, (2022) 4 SCC 741 ]. 26. 26. The conduct of the appellant that immediately after the incident, he went missing raises suspicion against the appellant. Though in the reply given by him to the queries made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he states that he was away from his house as he was a labourer and had gone for searching labour work and because of animosity, Rizwan Memon (PW-9) had falsely deposed against him. He further states that the incident of burning of the deceased was an accident which has been tried to be given the colour of a crime being committed by him. 27. It is an admitted fact that the said witness (PW-9) is a neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. As such, there is nothing unusual that he would have been present there as his house is about 10-20 meters from his house. Thus, the allegation of being an interested witness has no basis. 28. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 29. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 30. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2014 31. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.