namely Shyampati convicted tbs appellant under , Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/—, in default of payment of fme amom'xt additional Iigmus imprisonment for 5 months. gonvicdon is impugned on the ground that without any iota of— evidence sumcient for conviction of the appellant,-Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an ,_ illegality. As per case of the prosecution, on fateful day of 23/9/2003 on account of previous dispute of appellant with another woman Patraparheen at about 5:00 RM. appellant poured kerosene oil over Shyampati (since deceased) and set her ablaze, she shouted for help then Bheem Singh, Bargah, Bhola and other persons came to save whom her she made dying declaration. Bheem Singh brought her to Government Hospital, Pratappur Where she admitted for treatment. PW15 A.S.I. Moda'r Ram Nikunj, then Head Constable recorded the statement of injured Shyampati under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the, Code’) along with statement of other persons thereafter reg‘stered First Information Report vide Ex. P- 14. PW4 Dr. V.K Manwani examined injured Shyampati vide Ex. f ' P—4 and found bum injuly over her face, hands, abdomen and legs up to 35.8%. She was referred to .District Hospital, Ambikapur, he also intimated for recording her statement vide Ex. P—5. PW11 B. Toppo, . Naib Tehsildar has recorded dying declaration vide Ex. P— 1.0 of Shyampati aftef‘ obtaining certiflcate from the ‘ a edoctor relating to her ability to give statement in which Shyampati made dying declaration that present , appenant‘has poured kerosene oil over her and has set her ablaze. During course of treatment, she died on 1 7/ 10/2003 at District Hospital, Ambikapur. Marg was , recorded vide Ex. P-l 1. After summoning the Witnesses vide Ex. P—l, inquest over the dead body of deceased Shyampati was prepared vide Ex. P-2. Dead body of Shyampati was sent for autopsy to District Hospital, v Ambikapur where team of doctors consisting PW13 Dr. N.K. Pandey & PW18 Dr. S.P. Jaiswal conducted autopsy vide Ex; P—12 and found extensive superficial and deep bum injury. Mode of death was shock. During course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-7. Burn piece of cloths, one kerosene lamp and matchbox were seized from spot vide Ex. P—6. » Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex. . 13-8. Investigating Ofncer prepared spot map vide Ex. P— 18. /\ / \\\ Statements f the witnesses were recorded under o Section 161 of the Code. After completion of the , ; investigation charge sheet was filed before Judicial , i Magistxate First Class, Ambikapur who in tum ‘committed the case to the Court of Sessions, ‘ Ambikapur from where learned Second Additional v Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur District Surguja has . 3x ‘7 - ' received the case on transfer for trial. 5; In order to prove the guilt of the appellant prosecution v§ examined as many as 21 Witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he. t denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocency and false implication in crime in question is. claimed. Appellant has taken defence that deceased r Shyampati his wife was under ed‘ect of liquor and she has poured kerosene oil over him and set him ablaze. During course of incident, she also received bum injury and as a result of such burn injury she died. Accused/appellant has examined defence Witness DWI Dr., J.K. Jain who has deposed that appellant was admitted in hospital and he has examined the appellant Vide Ex. D- l, he was burnt up to 45% specially upon over neck and faoe. After an‘ording an opportunity of hearing to the parties leamed Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), r Surajpur District Surguja convicted and sentenced the . appellant as aforementioned. 7. Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agawal, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgnent impugwd and record of Court below perused. lfevarned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued’ that‘conviction of the appellant is substantially based oh the evidence of dying declaration, which does net inspire confidence and trustworthy. Other witnesses of dying declaration are resident of same vicinity have not corroborated the factum of dying declaration. Appellant has also received burn injury, he has admitted in hospital, injury found over the body of appellant has not explained by the prosecution and he has not caused burn injury to his wife i.e. Shyampati. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that deceased Shyampati has caused injury to appellant and during course of causing injury, she herself has received burn injury resulting into her death therefore, present appellant is not liable for commission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife Shyampati. ,V 10. Learned counsel for the appellant piaced reliance in the matter of Stéte 6f Rajasthan v. Ashfaq Ahmed1 in which Supreme Court has held that in absence of any t opinion of doctor that patient is in condition to make statement and the evidence of father of deceased that .. deceased was not in p6sit'lon to make any statement ehis condition was critical no reliance can he placed on the dying declaration so placed. Wed iCounsel for the appellant further placed reliance in the matter of Laxmi [Smt.] v. Om Prakash V, ' 85 Ors.2 in which Supreme Court has held that in case of more than one dying declaration found contradictory to each other and not truthful no reliance can be L placed up on any of the dying declaration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the appeal and argued that i. evidence relating to dying declaration inspire confidence and trustworthy. At the time of lodging First Information Report, PW15 A.S.I. Modar Ram Nikunj, then Head Constable has recorded statement of deceased Shyampati under Section 161 of the Code. .On the basis of her statement, he has also reg'stered First Information Report Ex. P— 14, after the death of injured 11. 12. ' 2010(1)C.G.L.J.21(SC) 2 2001 Cr. LR. [so] 549 ~ @ Shyampati both the documents become dying declaration of Shyampati (since deceased). PW11 B‘ Toppo, Naib Tehsildar has recorded her two dying declaration vide Ex. P— 10. Aforesaid three dying declaration of deceased Shyampati are sumcient for ' drawing an inference thét present appellant has caused homicidal death of Shyampati. 13. In order‘to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf E‘Sf the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 14. In the present case, death as a result of burn injury of p Shyampati has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant on the other hand, otherwise p also established by the evidence of PW13 Dr. N.K. ?andey, PW 18 Dr. S.P. Jaiswal and autopsy report Ex. P—' 12, death of Shyampati as a result of burn injury and 7 its complication. 15. As regard the question of homicidal death of Shyampati and complicity of the appellant in crime in question, in the present case, appellant has also received bum I injury and he was examined by DWI Dr. J.K. Jain vide Ex. D-l. As per his evidence, he has examined the ‘1‘ i appellant on 24/9/2003, he was having 45% burn \ ‘ injury specially over neck and face. He was admitted in ‘\ h¢spita1 aom 23/9/2003 tin 8/ 10/2003. Pw15 A.s.1.‘ a { Modar Ram Nikunj, then Head Constable has also admitted aforesaid facts in Para‘8 of his evidence which is sumcient to establish that present appellant was present at the time of incident. Conviction is substantially, based on dying declaration made by deceased Shyampati. " 16. Principle of dying declaration is based on legal maxim “nemo ifwriturus proesumitur mentirf— a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. l7. Lord Chief Justice Baron Eyre {See R. v. Woodcock, (1789) 1 Lea 502} expressed his View relating to dying declaration as follows:— 33" ‘...That such declarations are made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone; when every motive to faisehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth; a situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law as creating an obligation, equal to that which is imposed by apositive oath in a court ofjustice... " While dealing with the question of dying declaration, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Ram Saga: Yadav? has held that if the Court is satisfied that the dyin declaration is true and g v 3AIR 1985 sc 416 \ \ \ voluntary it can based conviction on it, without corroboration. In the present case, as per evidence of PW15 A.S.I. Modar Ram Nikunj, then Head Constable who has recorded First Information Report Ex. P—14 on 23/9/2003, he has also recorded statement of injured A Shyampati under Section 161 of the Code. Ex. 11-14 promptly lodged First Information Report reveals that X present appellant has poured kerosene oil over Shyampati and set her ablaze. Defence has cross- examined this witness in detail, in Para—8 of his cross- examination he has admitted that on 23/9/2003 .7 }-; sufficient material was available against the appellant but he had not arrested the appellant on 23/9/2003 _ because injured Shyampati and appellant both were admitted in hospital. Appellant was also having burn injury and was under treatment. He has also admitted- that he has not mentioned the aforesaid facts in his charge sheet. In Para-10 of his cross—examination, he has further admitted that he has recorded the statement of Shyampati after recording dying declaration by Naib Tehsildar. PW11 B. Toppo, Naib Tehsildar has deposed in his . evidence that he has recorded dying declaration of Shyampati Ex. P—10. In Para—4 of his cross- r examination, he has admitted that before recording her statement he has obtained certificate &om the doctor {V thereafter he has recorded her statement. In Para—9 of his cross—examination, he has denied the suggestion that Shyampati was not able to state, he has also denied the suggestion tn Para-11 of his cross— e'xamination that he has recorded statement Ex. P— 10 , at the instance of parents of injured Shyampati. Ex. P— ‘10 Xstatement recorded by PWll B. Toppo, Naib Tehsildar reveals that he has recorded statement-hr question and answer form. He has obtained certificate from the doctor prior to recording her statement. While answering the question No. 10, Shyampati has deposed that her husband has poured kerosene oil over her and set her ablaze. Ex. P— 10 dying declaration recorded by PW11 B. Toppo, Naib- Tehsildar is well corroborated by 1 promptly lodged Vlj‘irst Information Report Ex. P- 14 and statement of PW15 Modar Ram Nikunj, A.S.I. then ‘ :(Head Constable. Aforesaid dying declaration inspire confidence and trustworthy. 21. As per dying declaration, on account of dispute relating to Patraparheen appellant poured kerosene oil over ‘ Shyampati and set her ablaze. During course of such incident, appellant has also received burn injury, he was admitted in hospital but the fact remain that W? ‘ u @ appellant has poured kerosene oil over her and set her ablaze shows that he has poured kerosene oil over her with intent to cause the death of his wife i.e. Shyampati. 22. As held in case of State of Rajasthan & Laxmi [Smt.] (Supra) in the present'case, deceased was alive for;15 , a. if days. All three dying declarations reveal that deceased was 1n tit condition to state. In the present case, there Hxz 2 rs is no any in consistency in the aforesaid'three dying declarations therefore, the case of State of Raja'sthan 85 Laxmi [Smt.] (Supra) are distinguishable on the grounds of fact. 23. After appreciating the evidence available on record ‘ learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur District Surguja has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Conviction .i of the appellant is based on legal, clinching, credible and reliable evidence sustainable under the law. 24. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality for conviction and sentence of the appellant. Consequently, criminal appeal is devoid of merits, same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. / \‘~ ‘ Sdl- i Prashant Ku‘mar Mishra ‘ 45w“. Judge