JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE appellant, aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 28/1982, recorded by Shri T. N. P. Pancholi, Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, district Guna, by judgment dated 24-12-1982, has preferred the appeal He has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, indian Penal Code. ( 2. ) SONABAI was the wife of the appellant Both had two children. Sonabai had gone to her fathers place, but had not returned to her nuptial home. Hence the appellant filed an application in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mungaoli, on 25-6-1981 for issuance of a search warrant, in pursuance of which she was recovered and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Admittedly, in that application the appellant had alleged that the father and brother of his wife Sonabai bad forcibly detained her in their house and had snatched her ornaments away with an ulterior planning of selling her away. On 7-11-1981 she was produced before the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Mungaoli; she stated that she had gone to her fathers place willingly in the company of her brother Taxman, but now she wants to reside with her husband, the appellant. Consequently, she accompanied her husband, came to her nuptial home and soon after i. e. , on 12-11-1981, she died of burns. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the appellant was furious with his wife, deceased Sonabai and they off and on quarrelled with each other. On 12-11- 1981 the appellant is alleged to have poured kerosene oil upon the body of his wife Sonabai and set her aflame. Her clothes were burnt,she was virtually naked except a covering over her loins. She came out of her house, where she was met by Nathu Singh (PW 1), rajaram (PW. 2) and Bhagwan Singh (PW. 3 ). they naturally inquired as to what had happened, and she, in turn,one by one disclosed to them that her husband bad poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fie. She in such a precarious condition, when came out of her house, wanted to go to the Chowkidar of the village for reporting the incident, but fell in a brook having a little water. She stayed in the cooing comfort of the little water of the brook. She in such a precarious condition, when came out of her house, wanted to go to the Chowkidar of the village for reporting the incident, but fell in a brook having a little water. She stayed in the cooing comfort of the little water of the brook. Meanwhile, Nathu Singh (PW I) searched for the Police, and at some distance he found Kailash Narain Sharma, Head Constable of Police (PW 6) and narrated the incident to him. He recorded Dehati Nalishi (Extp-1) and rushed to the spot, where he perceived deceased Sonabai rolling on the coolness of the water of the brook. He summoned a bullock-cart to take her to Mungaoli, situate at a distance of 18 miles, where only medical aid was available. Kailash Narain Sharma, Head Constable, by way of abundant caution, recorded her dying declaration, which is Est P-8, then , despatched her to the Civil Dispensry at Mungaoli, where Dr. H. V. Jain (PW 7)examined her. The Police along with burnt Sonabai also delivered to Dr. Jain Ext. P-9 for recording her dying declaration, but as she was, by then, completely senseless, he was unable to record her dying declaration, and that is what he has recorded in Ext. P-9-A. He by Ext. P-10 post-haste referred Sonabai to the Civil Surgeon of Guna Hospital for treatment He has given vivid description in his testimony about the burns he noted on the person of deceased Sonabai Subsequently, she breathed her last as me evening, and dr. K. L Bandil (PW 8) was catted upon to perform the post-mortem examination on the dead body. On 14-11-1981 at 8. 30 am. he performed the post-mortem examination, which is Ext P-15. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and he was tried in the Court of Session. During the trial, after the appellant examined Karodi (DW 1), Mitua (DW 2), Chhutta (DW 3) and in defence. ( 4. On 14-11-1981 at 8. 30 am. he performed the post-mortem examination, which is Ext P-15. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and he was tried in the Court of Session. During the trial, after the appellant examined Karodi (DW 1), Mitua (DW 2), Chhutta (DW 3) and in defence. ( 4. ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, argued elaborately, punctuated with strident emphasis on several points support of the innocence of the appellant Inter alia, he has contended that Rajaram (PW 2)was in mimical terms with the appellant, Nathu Singh (PW 1) and Bhagwan Singh (PW 3) are first cousins of rajaram and these are the three witnesses who allegedly proved the oral dying declaration of deceased Sonabai These three witnesses should not be relied upon by this Court, as has been done by the trial Court He pointed out discrepancies in the testimony of these witnesses here and there. He further contended that no thumb impression of Sonabai was affixed upon Ext P-8, the dying declaration and, hence, it should not be relied upon. The teamed counsel also contended that as the conviction has been based upon the sole evidence of dying declaration, it should not be believed by this Court. He has further contended that deceased Sonabai might have committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil upon herself and set herself ablaze. In support of the above contentions, Shri Gupta relied on the following decisions :- (i) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . (ii) Bhaiyan, AIR 1978 SC 36 . (iii)K. Ramchandra Reddy, AIR 1976 SC 1994 . (iv)Mupnu Raja, AIR 1976 SC 2199 . (v) Ram Kumar, AIR 1975 SC 1026 . (vi) Balak Ram, AIR 1974 SC 2165 . (vii) Udaipal Singh (1972) 4 SCC 142 . (viii) Pomoiah, AIR 1965 SC 939 . (ix) Khushal Rao, AIR 1958 SC 22 . (x) Narayan, 1986 (II) MPWN 136. ( 5. ) SHRI Govind Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State, controverted the arguments of Shri Gupta and supported the impugned judgment. Both the learned counsel have taken us through the entire evidence on record as well as the documents. ( 6. (ix) Khushal Rao, AIR 1958 SC 22 . (x) Narayan, 1986 (II) MPWN 136. ( 5. ) SHRI Govind Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State, controverted the arguments of Shri Gupta and supported the impugned judgment. Both the learned counsel have taken us through the entire evidence on record as well as the documents. ( 6. ) THE contradictions pointed out by Shri J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, in the testimony of Nathu Singh (PW 1), Rajaram (PW 2) and Bhagwan Singh (PW 3) and Kailash Narayan Sharma, Head Constable (PW 6) are, admittedly, there, but they are not contradictions on material facts affecting the very core of the case of the prosecution. It is settled that a Court while appreciating the evidence on record, should always keep in view that the variance and discrepancies in details, contradictions in the narration and embellishment in essential parts, should not affect the core of the testimony of the witnesses. It is also settled, that discrepancies in matters of details always occur even in the evidence of truthful witnesses because of natural differences in faculties of individuals. The credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be subjected to judicial evaluation of totality and not only of isolated scrutiny, as Shri Gupta requests us to do. It has to be observed that sometimes even truthful witnesses are tempted to opt for exaggerations and over-enthusiasm, but it should not be taken as embellishment in their testimony. In the light of the herein above-mentioned settled principles with regard to appreciation of evidence, we shall proceed to meet the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant ( 7. ) THE trial Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon the evidence of the prosecution. In the light of the herein above-mentioned settled principles with regard to appreciation of evidence, we shall proceed to meet the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant ( 7. ) THE trial Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon the evidence of the prosecution. Shri Gupta contends that Nathu Singh is a false witness because in the first information report, that is, Dehati Nalishi (Ext P-1) it is mentioned by him that after setting his wife Sonabai on fire, the appellant had thrown her away in the Nala, while in cross-examination he resiles from this part and says that he had not narrated to Kailash narayan Sharma (PW 6) with regard to the story of throwing of Sonabai by the appellant in the Nala On the other hand, Kailash Narayan Sharma (PW 6) says that Nathu Singh (PW 1) had positively stated to him and he had not written this fact on his own accord. From this, Shri Gupta further contends that in para 4 Nathu Singh says that when he inquired from Sonabai with regard to her catching the fire, Rajaram was not present there. He had gone to the bus stand for getting his sister transported in a bus. From this, shri Gupta wants to emphasize that they are all inimical to the appellant and are falsely trying to implicate him in this crime. It is abundantly clears from the testimony of Nathu singh (PW 1), Rajaram (PW 2) and Bhagwan Singh (PW3) that when they saw Sonabai, the deceased, going in denuded and burnt condition, each of them in turn inquired from her as to how she sustained these burns, and she, to the inquiry of each of them, replied positively that her husband had poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. This oral dying declaration to three different persons, which has been relied upon by the trial court, shall be considered by us only as a corroborative piece of evidence to the dying declaration (Ext. P-8) recorded by Kailash Narayan Sharma (PW 6 ). Kailash Narayan sharma is a senior Police Officer and he had no axe to grind or tell a lie to falsely implicate the appellant in this crime. Kailash Narayan Sharma candidly narrated the entire sequence of the event in his testimony. P-8) recorded by Kailash Narayan Sharma (PW 6 ). Kailash Narayan sharma is a senior Police Officer and he had no axe to grind or tell a lie to falsely implicate the appellant in this crime. Kailash Narayan Sharma candidly narrated the entire sequence of the event in his testimony. On perusal of Ext-P-8, it is clear that it is in question and answer form and was recorded in presence of Gorelal (PW 9) who is said to be the father of Rajaram (PW 2 ). The deceased, who was lying in the shallow brook in a painful condition and cooling her dangerous burns in the cool water, had replied to the queries of Kailash Narayan Sharma (PW 6 ). She had said that her husband had poured kerosene oil upon her and after setting her on fire, fled away. We should, therefore, now seek corroboration to this part of the dying declaration, which was recorded by the head Constable K. N. Sharma (PW 6) on the date of the incident immediately after the crime had occurred. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of K. N. Sharma (PW 6 ). After recording Ext P-8, he had also sent a requisition to Dr. H. V. Jain (PW 7)to get her statement recorded by some Magistrate or Doctor, but by the time the deceased was at Mungaoli, she was totally exhausted after a long bullock-cart journey of 18 miles and was not in a fit condition to give her version to the Doctor or Magistrate. Shri Gupta has forcefully contended that the dying declaration recorded by a Police officer has been discouraged by the Supreme Court in several authorities. We are aware of all those judgments, and are also aware of Dalip Singh ( AIR 1979 SC 1173 ), in which the Honble Supreme Court has held in dear words and expounded the law with regard to the recording of dying declaration by a Police Officer:- "although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act in view of the exception provided in Sub-Section (2) of Section 162, Criminal Procedure code 1973, it is better to leave such dying declaration out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the Court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor. The practice of the investigating officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged. This is not to suggest that such dying declarations are always untrustworthy, but, what has to be emphasized is that better and more reliable methods of recording a dying declaration of an injured person should be taken recourse to and the one recorded by the Police officer may be relied upon if there was no time or facility available to the prosecution for adopting any better method. " But the situation in this case was different Kailash Narayan Sharma, Head Constable (PW 6) was aware that if he had failed in his duty of recording the statement of Sonabai, then there may not be an occasion for her to tell her last words. Consequently, in our opinion - and very wisely too, by way of abundant caution he chose to record the dying declaration in question and answer form. The place of incident was a remote corner of an interior village, where neither a Magistrate nor a Doctor was available. This remote place was 18 miles away from the nearest place of Mungaoli, where resided a Doctor and a Tahsildar. Had Kailash Narayan Sharma (PW 6) failed in his duty in recording the dying declaration, there would have remained no evidence except the oral dying declarations made individually to Nathu Singh (PW 1), Rajaram (PW 2) and Bhagwan singh (PW 3 ). Gorelal (PW 9) is the marginal witness of Ext P-8. He fully corroborates what was recorded by K. N. Sharma (PW 6) in Ext. P-8. Assuming that Nathu Singh (PW 1), Rajaram (PW 2), Bhagwan Singh (PW 3) and Gorelal (PW 9) are inimical to the appellant, we have closely examined their testimony and subjected to harsher scrutiny, and found them to be truthful. There are minor contradictions in their testimony on unimportant details. As observed above, we have subjected the testimony of these witnesses to very strict scrutiny in accordance with the settled principles of law. The alleged enmity is not of such a nature that these prosecution witnesses will falsely implicate the appellant in this ghastly crime. Inimical witnesses always tell lies, and the so-called independent witnesses always tell the truth is not a fact. The alleged enmity is not of such a nature that these prosecution witnesses will falsely implicate the appellant in this ghastly crime. Inimical witnesses always tell lies, and the so-called independent witnesses always tell the truth is not a fact. We have only assumed that these witnesses may be inimical to the appellant; that is why, we placed reliance on their testimony only in the category of corroborative evidence and not as the main evidence. The main evidence in this case is the testimony of K. N. Sharma (PW 6), dying declaration (Ext P-8) and the testimony of Gorelal (PW. 9), who was present on the spot and fully supported the contents of Ext, P-8. None was present to prompt the deceased for falsely implicating her husband. Human minds are strange, and stranger are the ways of life. ( 8. ) SHRI Gupta further contended that exhibit P-8 also should not be relied on, because it is bereft of any thumb impression on it. But, on perusal of the record, not only dr. H. V. Jain (PW 7) and Dr. K. L. Bandil (PW 8) have averred that her palm and fingers were also burnt, but the other witnesses have also stated that her hands were also burnt. Ext. P-8 bears an endorsement by K. N. Sharma (PW 6) that the fingers of both the hands of the deceased were burnt and the skin had peeled off and, hence, the thumb impression could not be obtained. This fact stands corroborated by Dr. H. V. Jain (PW 7) and Dr. K. L. Bandil (PW 8 ). Undoubtedly, the maker of a dying declaration should be in a fit mental condition; undoubtedly, the facts and circumstances of the case, and also on perusal of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that when Ext. P-8 was written, deceased Sonabai was not in a fit mental condition. K. N. Sharma (PW 6) clearly says that when he recorded Ext. P-8, she in presence of Gorelal (PW 9) and Rajaram (PW 2)answered his questions normally. K. N. Sharma (PW 6) has further narrated the way she was trying to cool down her body in the little water of the brook and it seemed to him that she was in great pains. ( 9. ) ANOTHER contention of Shri Gupta deserves rejection. According to him, no recovery of clothes was made. K. N. Sharma (PW 6) has further narrated the way she was trying to cool down her body in the little water of the brook and it seemed to him that she was in great pains. ( 9. ) ANOTHER contention of Shri Gupta deserves rejection. According to him, no recovery of clothes was made. The clothes, it seems, which were worn by the deceased at the time of the incident, were burnt down. The kathari upon which she was burnt, was also in ashes, and that is why no burnt pieces of the clothes were found by the investigating officer on the spot We have found Rajaram (PW 2) to be a truthful witness. He further proves that when deceased Sonabai was descending her steps from her room to the ground floor, the appellant rushed out of the house and went away. This fact itself is very relevant and discloses that none other than the appellant was the author of this ghastly crime. We have no hesitation to hold that the appellant and the appellant only is the person, who has killed his wife by pouring kerosene oil upon her body and setting her on fire by a match stick. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal of the appellant, which is bereft of any merit, is dismissed, and his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are maintained. Appeal dismissed.