1. - This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated October 3, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast Track) Kota, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to. suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,0001-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The conviction of appellant is primarily based on the dying declaration of Anita. In cases of homicide, statements made by a person, since deceased, are admissible to prove the cause and circumstances of the man's death. Such statements are called 'dying declaration'. The admissibility of 'dying declaration' rests on the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a man's mind' the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath - 'NEMO MORITURUS PRAESUMUNTUR MENTIRI'. The general principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, a situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of justice.

3. It is the prosecution's case that on March 7, 2001 at 6.30 PM Ramesh Chand ASI Police Station Railway Colony Kota (Pw.8) recorded parcha bayan (Ex.P-11) of injured Anita (since deceased) at MBS Hospital wherein she stated that 3-4 months prior to the incident her Nata-marriage was performed with the appellant and he was to pay Jhagra-money. On the day of incident around 12 o' clock her mother, sister and uncle came to take Jhagra-money from the appellant, thereupon appellant quarreled with them and said that he had no money at that time, he also gave two blows with his shoe on her person. Thereafter the injured went to take bath at the hand-pump. The appellant chased her and after pouring kerosene on her set her ablaze and fled away. On raising alarm her uncle rushed and put off the fire and removed her to hospital. On that Parcha bayan a case was registered under sections 307 IPC and investigation commenced. In the course of the investigation, injured succumbed to her injuries and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence. Three witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment took us through the material on record.

5. On the body of Anita 90% burns were found. As per Post Mortem report (Ex.P-9) following ante-mortem injuries were seen on the dead body :

"Epidermal to Demoepidermal burn present all over body. There were 80% to 90% burns over body."
In the opinion of Dr. P.K. Tiwari (Pw.7) the cause of death was shock as a result of burn injury.

6. Before analysing the submissions advanced before us we deem it necessary to narrate the principles governing dying declaration, Lald down by the Apex Court in the various judgments. They are as under :

(i) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination K. Ramchandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618 .

(ii) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. Rashid Beg v. State of M.P., (