ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The sole appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 10,000; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was further convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs 2000; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court upheld the convictions. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. Conviction of the appellant is based upon three dying declarations out of which two are oral dying declarations; one made before PW 3 (Chandran), which is earliest in point of time and the other was before PWs 1 and 2 (Smt Jayanthi and H. Xavior respectively). The third dying declaration (Ext. P-18) has been recorded by C. Siddaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW 12) on the basis of which first information report has been registered. At the bottom of the dying declaration, endorsement of the doctor about the conditions of health and mind of the deceased has been mentioned. All the three dying declarations have been recorded immediately after the incident and on the date of occurrence itself.

4. We have been taken through the evidence of PW s I, 2, 3 and 12 and PW 14 another doctor, who has proved the signature of the doctor who made endorsement on the dying declaration and stated that he had also seen the deceased in the hospital on that day as he was on duty in the hospital and she was in the fittest state of mind to give dying declaration. In our view, the High Court was quite justified in placing reliance upon the three dying b declarations and upholding the conviction of the appellant. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned order.

5. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.