father of the deceased was first in point of time where she does not implicate the present applicant. The written dying declaration does not inspire confidence. It is said to have been recorded by Executive Magistrate on 22.04.2014 at 06:40 a.m. and it is also stated that, he had recorded it in presence of doctor. The doctor has deposed before the Court that he attended the duties at 2200 hours on 22.04.2014. This would clarify that the doctor was not present and the said dying declaration is camouflage. The learned counsel further submits that, even the seizure punchanama is not proved. There is no evidence that, it was sealed. The learned counsel submits that, the dying declaration which is made the basis of conviction is not reliable and deserves to be discarded. Even, on the dying declaration the curves and ridges of the thumb appear succinctly. The same cannot be possible in view of the fact that the complete left and right hand was burnt.