D.B. BHOSALE, J.:- The Division Bench of this Court. in their order of Reference in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as "Ramesh Gyanoba Kamble's case, doubted the correctness of the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Jivan Tulshiram Dhavali & another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) BCR (Cri) 696 : [2008 ALLMR(Cri) 2018]; and so also, other Division Bench in Laxmibai w/o Maruti Satpute & others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR (Cri.) 182, with regard to the evidence/deposition of the witness who records a dying declaration. In the opinion of the Division Bench since the issue/question framed by them frequently arises and needs to be considered by Larger Bench, vide order dated 29th April, 2011, directed the office to place the papers before the Chief Justice for constitution of the Larger Bench. Accordingly, the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for consideration of the question/issue framed in the Reference order. The question framed and referred by the Division Bench in Ramesh Gyanoba Kamble's case reads thus:

"Whether for proving a dying declaration recorded by a person, Magistrate, Executive Magistrate, is it essential requirement of law that the person who recorded the dying declaration shall repeat while deposing before Court the statement made by the maker or the dying person or narrate in exact words the statement of the maker?"

2. The question formulated by the Division Bench uses the expression "in exact words". Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the expression "in exact words" means, to depose before the Court, the contents of a dying declaration/statement of the dying person, in the words spoken by him, about the name/description, and the act of the accused, which resulted in his death. Thus, we will be considering whether a person/Magistrate/Executive Magistrate, who records a dying declaration, in order to prove the same, needs depose before the Court contents of the "statement" of a dying person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. We would also like to consider that merely because the presumption under Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( for short, "the Evidence Act") in respect of the dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate cannot be drawn, is it necessary that the Magistrate, who records the dying declaration, should depose before the trial Court as to the cause of death of the deceased or to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death and more particularly in respect of the name/description, and act of the accused, in committing the offense.

3. The Division Bench (A.P. Lavande and A.B. Chaudhari, JJ.) in Jivan Tulshiram Dhavali's [2008 ALLMR(Cri) 2018] case, followed by another Division Bench (P.V. Hardas & A.V. Nirgude, JJ.) in Laxmibai w/o Maruti Satpute's case held that it is necessary for the Magistrate, who records the dying declaration, to depose before the Court about the name and act of the accused which resulted into murder, in the words spoken up by the dying person. In the Reference Order the Division Bench (Naresh H.Patil and T.V.Nalawade, JJ.) doubted the correctness of the view in Jivan Tulshiram Dhavali's [2008 ALLMR(Cri) 2018] case.

4. Before we proceed further, it would be relevant to make reference, to the extent it is necessary, to the judgment/order passed by both the Division Benches in Jivan Tulshiram Dhavali [2008 ALLMR(Cri) 2018] and Ramesh S/o Gyanoba Kamble cases to understand the background facts against which divergent views are taken.

5. In Jivan Tulshiram Dhavali's [2008 ALLMR(Cri) 2018] case (supra), the accused had, allegedly, killed the deceased by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. Her statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate (PW 5). This witness had visited the hospital and asked the Medical Officer on duty to examine the victim (deceased). The Doctor, after examining the victim, gave a certificate that she w