A dying declaration must inspire confidence and not be rendered suspicious to form the basis of conviction.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th of July, 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 270/2006 by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `300/- with default sentence of S. I. for 1 month.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :"
Deceased - Sita Bai was wife of accused - Rajkumar (A - 2). They were residing in a separate house. Appellant - Shankar Bareth (A - 1) is father - in - law and Durpati Bai (A - 3) is mother - in - law of the deceased. The deceased sustained burn injuries in the intervening night of 18th - 19th of April, 2006. She was admitted in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science (CIMS), Bilaspur at about 4.00 a.m. on 19-4-2006. An information was sent to the concerned police outpost and a dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the police on 19-4-2006. In dying declaration, the deceased had stated that she had put herself on fire on account of ill - treatment by the accused persons (A - 1 to A - 3). Later on, another dying declaration (Ex. P / 2) of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, M. R. Gaikwad (PW - 5), at about 6.03 p.m. on 19-4-2006. In the said dying declaration, she made allegations against her father - in - law, Shankar Bareth (A - 1). The deceased died during the course of her treatment on 23-4-2006. Jhadi Ram (PW - 1), Pramila (PW - 2) and Dewari (PW - 3), father, mother and uncle of the deceased, had met the deceased in the hospital. Pramila (PW - 2) claimed that the deceased had made oral dying declaration taking the names of all the three accused persons, whereas, Dewari (PW - 3) claimed that the deceased told him the name of two accused persons as her assailants who poured kerosene on her and put her on fire. The Sessions Judge relied on written dying declaration (Ex. P / 2) and held that it was proved that the appellant (A - 1) alone was responsible for putting the deceased on fire. The appellant (A - 1) thus was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and the two other accused persons i.e. husband and mother - in - law (A - 2 and A - 3) were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

3. Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the dying declaration was not properly proved; it comes in the evidence of Jhadi Ram (PW - 1) that the deceased was throughout unconscious after 11.00 a.m. of 19-4-2006, therefore, the dying declaration becomes suspicious; no Doctor has been examined in this matter; the certificate given on the dying declaration (Ex. P / 2) is also not proved; and the post - mortem report is also not proved.

4. Ms. Madhu Nisha Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

5. We have heard counsel for the parties.

6. The dying declaration (Ex. P / 2) was recorded by Executive Magistrate, M. R. Gaikwad (PW - 5). According to the contents of the dying declaration, it was recorded at about 6.03 p.m. on 19-4-2006. In the said dying declaration, the deceased had made allegations that she was put on fire by her father - in - law (A - 1) by pouring kerosene on her body. There is an endorsement of the certification of the Doctor in the dying declaration, but, the Doctor was not examined to prove the above certification. M. R. Gaikwad (PW - 5) admitted in Para 4 of his cross - examination that the above certificate was taken by him after recording the entire dying declaration of the deceased.

7. Jhadi Ram (PW - 1) is father of the deceased. Paragraph No. 6 of his cross - examination is important. He deposed that t