JUDGMENT : (M.S. Jawalkar, J.) Heard. 2. The Appellant is being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31/01/2020, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Akola, in Session Trial No. 102/2018, whereby, the appellant is convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the said offence. 3. The incident occurred on 24/05/2018 at about 2:00 p.m. A telephonic information was received to PSI Sangita Randhe at Khadan Police Station, Akola, that one lady was blazed in Kailas Nagar locality, Gorakshan Road Akola, she was hospitalized at Government Hospital Akola. PSI Randhe visited the Hospital Akola and upon completing the legal formalities she met patient Varsha Bhumbarkar and recorded her statement. In the said statement it was revealed that Varsha was set into fire by her husband as she has refused to pay money to him for drinking liquor. Upon the statement of Varsha first information was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code at Khadan Police Station, Akola, at the instance of PSI Randhe. Deceased Varsha succumbed to the burn injuries on 25/05/2018 and accordingly offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. PI Santosh Mahalle arrested the accused on 29/05/2018. The appellant submitted that deceased Varsha have committed suicide by immolating herself. After the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the said offence and in default of payment of fine the accused to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the shirt of accused was burnt and the same was recovered hence there are no burn injuries to accused which is unbelievable. According to Counsel for appellant, the Dying Declaration is suspicious, manipulated and after thought. Sixteen match sticks were burnt at the time of incident, showing that the victim herself was burnt, being tried to commit suicide. It is further contended that no eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution since Vishnu Nichale could have been examined, though other witness Janardan Wakode was died. Sixteen match sticks were burnt at the time of incident, showing that the victim herself was burnt, being tried to commit suicide. It is further contended that no eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution since Vishnu Nichale could have been examined, though other witness Janardan Wakode was died. There was no police report prior to the incident, showing harassment by the accused to the victim. Kerosene Can in the house of accused is doubtful, when there happens to gas stove and cylinder present there. All these things were not considered by the learned Trial Court and passed an impugned order which needs interference by this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for appellant relied on following citations : 1) Chandrakant Vishwanath Solas Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2024 ALL MR (Cri) 852. 6. It is the contention of the learned APP for state that the deceased was reached to the hospital by the neighbour, while the accused had made no efforts to hospitalize her. It is further submitted that the accused was addicted to liquor and to satisfy his vices, he had blazed his wife. It is further submitted that the half burnt clothes having smell of Kerosene, Match Box, Ash, Kerosene Can, had been recovered from the spot. The witness Shruti Pohankar (PW 3) has depicted in her evidence the atrocities and harassment caused by accused upon them, pursuant to his liquor addiction and immediately after receiving information, said Shruti had visited the hospital and met her mother, who had stated the series of events of blazing to her by accused, amounting to oral dying declaration. 7. It is further contended that the witness Anand Wankhade (PW 4) with the assistance of driver had reached deceased Varsha in the car, by wrapping her in a bedspread and during transit, Varsha gave oral dying declaration to him about blazing her by her husband. It is further submitted that one more oral dying declaration recorded by Dr. Sham Bhagat (PW 6), who also examined deceased Varsha before recording her statement by PSI Randhe and himself also recorded her statement. According to learned APP all the dying declaration statements by the aforesaid witnesses are consistent and there is no deviation in it, in order to disbelieve the same. Sham Bhagat (PW 6), who also examined deceased Varsha before recording her statement by PSI Randhe and himself also recorded her statement. According to learned APP all the dying declaration statements by the aforesaid witnesses are consistent and there is no deviation in it, in order to disbelieve the same. As such, there is ample evidence on record and corroboration to the prosecution witnesses by medical evidence, therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is appropriate which needs to be confirmed. 8. Learned APP for respondent/State relied on following citations : 1) Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2973 . 2) Nallam Veera Stayanandam and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2004) 10 SCC 769 . 3) Purshottam Chopra and another Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2020) 11 SCC 489 . 4) Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat, (1992) 4 SCC 69 . 9. We have heard both the parties at length. We have gone through the evidence and judgment placed on record. Considered citations, on which reliance is placed by both the parties. The main ground to file appeal in brief are as under : Firstly that there was no complaint ever lodged by deceased regarding the harassment by the appellant prior to incident. Secondly, there was no motive established by the prosecution attributing to appellant to commit such act. Thirdly, the dying declaration before PSI Sangita and before Dr. Bhagat do not satisfy the requirement of law. Fourthly, eye witness was not examined by the prosecution. 10. So far as non lodging of complaint by the deceased about harassment to her is concerned it is not at all required, it is a matter of general knowledge that tolerance of Indian women is very high. Moreover, it was her second marriage as her first husband expired, therefore, she might have not lodged any complaint. However, evidence of her daughter Shruti as well as deceased dying declaration is clear enough to conclude that the accused used to harass her on the count of money to satisfy his liquor addiction, therefore, it hardly makes any difference whether there was any complaint prior to incidence by the deceased in respect of harassment. Second ground raised by the appellant is that there is no motive brought on record by the prosecution. There are two Dying Declaration recorded by PSI Sangita and Dr. Bhagat. Second ground raised by the appellant is that there is no motive brought on record by the prosecution. There are two Dying Declaration recorded by PSI Sangita and Dr. Bhagat. There are two oral Dying Declarations of the deceased one is made to her daughter namely Shruti Pohankar and other one to Anand Wankhade, PW 4. 11. PSI Sangita as well as Dr. Bhagat both are independent witnesses. Doctor has endorsed that the patient is fit to give statement. There is hardly any scope to tuitor or influence the deceased to frame the accused falsely because both these Declarations are taken immediately after her admission in the hospital and at that time admittedly no relative of deceased had reached to hospital. There is no material discrepancy in both these Declarations. The oral Dying Declarations made to Shruti and Anand Wankhade are also in consonance with the Dying Declaration recorded by Doctor and PSI Sangita. So far as contention of the appellant that patient was not in a fit condition to give any statement as she had sustained 90% burn injuries is concerned, there are so many judgments in which Hon'ble Apex Court held that, even if, there is 99% burn injuries, Dying Declaration of deceased can be considered, if there is endorsement of doctor about her fit condition to give voluntary statement. It depends upon whether burn injuries are superfluous or deep. It appears that doctor before commencing the recording of statement of Varsha, verified her condition to give statement as well as her condition is recorded after recording Dying Declaration was over. Therefore, we do not see any error on the part of learned Trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that Dying Declarations recorded by Dr. Bhagat as well as PSI Sangita can be relied on. 12. Learned Counsel for appellant relied on Chandrakant Vishwanath Solas (supra), in support of his contention that oral declaration is the weakest piece of evidence and unless the testimony of the witness inspires confidence, it cannot be relied upon. However, as discussed above there are two declaration recorded by Dr. Bhagat and PSI Sangita, which are in consonance with the oral declaration made by the deceased to Shruti and Anand Wankhade. There is supporting evidence to oral declaration. 13. Learned APP vehemently argued that even if, there is no certificate of the doctor, Dying Declaration can be relied on. However, as discussed above there are two declaration recorded by Dr. Bhagat and PSI Sangita, which are in consonance with the oral declaration made by the deceased to Shruti and Anand Wankhade. There is supporting evidence to oral declaration. 13. Learned APP vehemently argued that even if, there is no certificate of the doctor, Dying Declaration can be relied on. He relied on Laxman versus State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court is as under : “The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite.” 14. Learned APP also relied on Purushottam Chopra (supra), wherein, principles relating to admissions and acceptability of the statement made by a victim representing the cause of death are laid down. The reference of Laxman vs State is also there. In view of the guidelines laid down, there is no requirement of law that a Dying Declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate, there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement, necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. 15. Learned APP also relied on Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “We have gone through the evidence of the Doctor as well as that of the Executive Magistrate. We find absolutely no infirmity worth mentioning to discard their evidence. 15. Learned APP also relied on Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “We have gone through the evidence of the Doctor as well as that of the Executive Magistrate. We find absolutely no infirmity worth mentioning to discard their evidence. It therefore emerges that both the dying declarations are recorded by independent witnesses and the same give a true version of the occurrence as stated by the deceased. The dying declarations by themselves are sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. The High Court has rightly interfered in an appeal against acquittal.” 16. So far as ground that eye witness is not examined is concerned, it is a choice of prosecution, which witness should be examined and which should not be. In our considered opinion, the Dying Declarations recorded by Dr. Bhagat and PSI Sangita are true version of what deceased stated before them. It also reveals that she was in a fit condition to give statement at the relevant time. Considering all the evidence on record there is no error or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the learned Court. As such, there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.