Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for committing murder of Deepa Bachhani (since deceased) by setting her on fire at about 9.30 am on 26-4-2001.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :

The deceased and her husband were residing in the first floor of the house belonging to one Kundanmal, whereas the appellant's family reside in the ground floor of the same building. The deceased was alone in her house on 26-4-2001. The appellant made allegation on the deceased that she has committed theft of her ear rings ¼>qedk½ and, thereafter, quarrel broke out between the appellant and the deceased. After some time, the appellant reached the first floor, sought kerosene oil from the deceased herself, thereafter, poured the kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and set her on fire by igniting matchstick, which she had brought with herself. Deceased climbed down in burning condition to open the water tap. Some persons saw the deceased, but no effort was made to save her. At the time of incident, the husband of the deceased had gone to the market for bringing vegetables. After his return, he took the deceased to the Mission Hospital, Dhamtari, wherefrom information was sent to the concerned police.

3. In course of investigation, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Jugal Kishore (PW-13), the Executive Magistrate/Naib Tahsildar at about 7.45 am on the date of incident itself. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the next day i.e. 27-4-2001.

4. Based on the dying declaration of the deceased and the case diary statements of other witnesses, the police filed the charge sheet and examined several witnesses namely; Naresh Kumar (PW-1), Brijlal (PW-2), Kundanmal (PW-3), Smt. Indira Devi (PW-4), Smt. Sunita Juri (PW-5), Ajay Panjwani (PW-6), Harvansh Sahu (PW-7), Santosh Sahu (PW-8), Dadu Ram (PW-9), Sadhu Ram Yadav (PW-10), Anup Bara (PW-11), Dwarika Prasad (PW-12), Jugal Kishore (PW-13), Somnath Singh (PW-14), Ashok Kumar (PW-15), Mangal Prasad (PW-16), Guniram (PW-17), Dr. Madan Lal Jain (PW-18), Mohd. Akhtar Nurani (PW-19), Omprakash Verma (PW-20), Dr. Arvind (PW-21), Sharad Singh Thakur (PW-22) & Santosh Singh (PW-23).

5. After completion of trial, the trial Judge has convicted the appellant, as stated supra, by placing reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased.

6. Shri Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would argue that the dying declaration is not reliable because there is no fitness certificate given by any doctor certifying that the deceased was in fit mental state to record her dying declaration. Shri Paranjape would further argue that the conviction is not permissible only on the basis of dying declaration. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Others v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695, Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi v. State of Gujarat (2002) 7 SCC 56, Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254 and Javed Masood and Another v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 3 SCC 538 and the decision of this Court rendered in Abdul Rasid; Jahida Begum v. State of Chhattisgarh 2012 Law Suit (Chh) 108 : Cr.A.No.290 of 2015 (decided on 2-2-2012).

7. Per contra, Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the State, would support the impugned conviction on submission that there is no legal requirement of issuance of fitness certificate by Doctor before recording the dying declaration. Shri Tripathi would further submit that if on the overall analysis of evidence the Court reaches to the conclusion that the dying declaration appears to be uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration or it inspire confidence, the same can by relied upon for sustaining the conviction.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the original