position to give her statement at 10.30 p.m., the evidence of PW 8 – Dr. Raut indicates that Sangeeta was in a fit condition to give her statement at 11 p.m. and accordingly PW 3 – Shamkant had recorded the statement of Sangeeta at Exh. 22. Though PW 8 – Dr. Raut has been cross-examined at length, the cross-examination has not made any dent in the evidence that Sangeeta was in a position to give her statement at 11 p.m. Sangeeta did not succumb to her injuries immediately, but expired on 13/11/2003 i.e. two days after the incident. We, therefore, find that the dying declaration at Exh. 22 cannot be doubted on the ground that Sangeeta may not have been in a condition to give her statement at 11 p.m. on account of 94% burns. The dying declaration at Exh. 22 is not an elaborately detailed dying declaration, but is a dying declaration recorded in response to the questions which were put to Sangeeta. The dying declaration also, therefore, cannot be faulted on that score. In our opinion, the dying declaration at Exh. 22 inspires the confidence of the court for its implicit acceptance. The dying declaration at Exh. 46 cannot be relied upon as has been rightly urged before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as there is no endorsement that the dying declaration had been read over to Sangeeta and
