JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Ganesha Ram and Bhagirath were tried by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh respectively for the offences under Section 302 IPC and sections 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in connection with the murder of Ami Chand son of Harlal of village Talwara Jheel with in the jurisdiction of Police Station Tibi. While Bhagirath was given benefit of doubt by the Additional Sessions Judge No 1, Hanumangarh and acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellant Ganesharam was held guilty under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Ganesha Ram was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was that on June 25, 1980, Kirshan PW 2 was at his house in village Talwara Jheel. Amichand deceased came to the house of Kirshan PW 2 at about 8 a.m. and told him to accompay him to his village to clear the Khala (water course) in his field. At about 9.30 a. m. Krishan PW 2 and Amichand deceased went to the field in Chak I-GGR. They cleared water course (Khala) to the extent of about 4 foot-steps. Ami Chand then told that it was too hot and they may go to the canal to have a bath. Both of them went to the canal and when they were bathing, Bhagirath and Ganesha Ram appellant came to the canal. It is alleged that Bhagirath had a 'Gandasi' in his hand but Ganesharam was empty handed. Bhagirath inquired from them when they will go back to the village. They replied that they will return to the village just now after having the bath. After taking bath Krishan and Amichand along with Bhagirath and the appellant started from the canal towards their village. They passed near the Jhuggi in the field of Ami Chand deceased and after drinking water they proceeded towards their house in village Talwara Jheel. At about 12 or 12.30 p.m. they reached on the field of Pratap Singh Raisikh--Bhagirath and Krishan were walking together 7 or 8 steps behind Ami Chand and Ganesha Ram. They passed near the Jhuggi in the field of Ami Chand deceased and after drinking water they proceeded towards their house in village Talwara Jheel. At about 12 or 12.30 p.m. they reached on the field of Pratap Singh Raisikh--Bhagirath and Krishan were walking together 7 or 8 steps behind Ami Chand and Ganesha Ram. Ami Chand was walking ahead of all of them followed by Ganesha Ram behind him. At that lime Ganesha Ram took out a 12 bore pistol out of the wrappings of his 'tahmad' and fired a pistol shot aimed at Ami Chand which hit Ami Chand on his back. On receiving pistol shot injury, Ami Chand immediately fell down on the ground Krishan reached near Ami Chand and raised an alarm that Ami Chand had been killed where upon both Bhagirath and appellant took to their heels towards their field. Ami Chand asked Krishan to go to village Talwara Jheel immediately and to inform his uncle Nanak Ram. Krishan went to the village and informed Nanak Ram PW 3 of the incident. Nanak Ram called his neighbour Jesa Ram and then Krishan, Nanak Ram and Jesa Ram with a tractor belonging to Nanak Ram reached the spot. The tractor was left at a distance of one Killa and all these three persons reached the place where the injured Ami Chand was lying. Ami Chand told them that Ganesha Ram appellant had fired a shot to him on account of enmity arising due to the dispute relating to Bara. Krishan brought a cot from the 'Jhuggi' of Ami Chand and the latter was brought to the village Raji Ram father of Krishan and Megha Ram had also arrived on the spot. Then Ami Chand injured was brought to Government Dispensary at Tibi in the jeep of Kalu Ram. There were no other persons near by the field where the incident took place except the injured, Krishan, the appellant and Bhagirath. Nanak Ram PW 3 tied the part of the body of Ami Chand where he had received the wound by Ami Chand's turban. 3. At Government dispensary Tibi, Ami Chand was shown to Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig PW 1 who was Medical Officer Incharge of the dispensary. Dr. Surendra Kumar sent a letter to the Station House Officer of Police Station Tibi (Ex. 3. At Government dispensary Tibi, Ami Chand was shown to Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig PW 1 who was Medical Officer Incharge of the dispensary. Dr. Surendra Kumar sent a letter to the Station House Officer of Police Station Tibi (Ex. P 1) informing him that patient named Ami Chand has got gun shot injury and requested the S.H.O. to come and take necessary action. Letter Ex. P. 1 was received at the Police Station Tibi by Head Constable Pala Ram PW 9 as the Station House Officer Anop Singh was out from Police Station and had gone to Nohar on duty. Pala Ram entered the contents of letter Ex. P. 1 at serial No. 809 of the Roznamcha Aam Ex. P. 23. Pala Ram went to the Government Dispensary Tibi along with Bal Ram Food Constable. On reaching the dispensary Pala Ram obtained a report from Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig and the doctor made an endorsement on Ex. P. 1 that Amichand was fit to give his statement. Pala Ram Head Constable in his own hand writing recorded the declaration of Amichand which is Ex. P. 2 on the record. This dying declaration was also signed by Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig at place A to B on Ex. P. 2. In this dying declaration Amichand is said to have inter alia made the statements that when, they were returning after clearing the Khala at about 12 noon along with Krishan, appellant and Bhagirath, the appellant took out a pistol, and fired a shot at him which hit on his back and he fell down. There upon the appellant and Bhagirath ran away. Krishan went to the village to give, information of the incident where upon Jesa Ram, Nanak Ram, Raji Ram and Surja Ram came on the spot and took him to his house. It was also stated by him that there was previous enmity and the pistol shot was fired at him in order to kill him Surendra Kumar advised Nanak Ram PW 3 to take Amichand to Government hospital at Ganganagar hospital. Amichand thereupon started from Tibi in a jeep along with Amichand to take him to Ganganagar Hospital. Hardly they had reached near Hanumangarh that Amichand succumbed to his injuries and died. They brought him back to Tibi Government dispansary. Dr. Amichand thereupon started from Tibi in a jeep along with Amichand to take him to Ganganagar Hospital. Hardly they had reached near Hanumangarh that Amichand succumbed to his injuries and died. They brought him back to Tibi Government dispansary. Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig carried on the autopsy of the dead body of Amichand and gave the report Ex. P. 3. According to the post mortem report Amichand died due to shock by internal bleeding from the vital parts of the body caused by fire arm injury He found that there were 12 wounds of entry at the back right side 6th to 10th thorasic vertebrae lateral side. Size of the wounds had 1/2c.m. diameter. Both the lungs were punctured by pellets. Aorta was punctured in the middle. Small and large intestines and lever were also punctured. Six pellets were found in the anterior wall of the abdomen near umblicus. He extracted out six pellets from the body of Amichand deceased, kept them in a vital and sent the same in sealed condition to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Tibi along with his letter Ex. P. 4. 4. On the basis of the dying declaration given by deceased Amichand, Pala Ram Head Constable recorded the First Information Ex. P. 24 and registered crime No. 12 of 1980. Anop Singh, Officer Incharge of the Police Station Tibi returned to the Police Station at about 6 p.m. on June 25, 1980 and Pala Ram handed over both Ex. Ps 2 and 24 to Anop Singh. Anop Singh went to the hospital and requested the doctor to carry out post mortem examination of the dead body of Ami Chand. As already stated the post mortem examination was conducted on the next day morning. Anop Singh seized the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of his death under seizure memo Ex. P. 9. He also prepared inquest report Ex. P 8. He went to the place of the incident and prepared the site plan Ex.P.5 and the memorandum pertaining to the site inspection Ex. P. 5A. He also seized blood smeared and plain sand from the place of the incident under seizure memos Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P. 15. Bhagirath and the appellant were arrested on June 26, 1980. Part of the Investigation was also carried out by Nazir Ahmed PW 2. P. 5A. He also seized blood smeared and plain sand from the place of the incident under seizure memos Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P. 15. Bhagirath and the appellant were arrested on June 26, 1980. Part of the Investigation was also carried out by Nazir Ahmed PW 2. According to the appellant while he was under arrest gave an information Ex. P. 10 that one 12 bore Deshi Pistol had been hidden wrapped in a white cloth under a Berdi tree in field bearing square No. 113. On the basis of this information and at the instance of the appellant, Nazir Ahmed PW 5 recovered a 12 bore Deshi pistol containing in it an empty cartridge at the instance of the appellant and in the presence of Mani Ram and Surjaram Motbirs and seized the same under the seizure memo Ex. P. 6. A site plan Ex P. 7 was also prepared of the place from where the recovery of the pistol along with empty cartridge within it were made. The seized articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, under letter dated July 17, 1980 for examination. The Assistant Director Ballistic Dr. P S. Moncha gave a report Ex. P. 19 about the pistol and its capability to fire, the 12 bore empty cartridge seized and with regard to the six lead buck shots. After necessary investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and Bhagirath and after trial the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh acquitted Bhagirath, but convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid. Ganesha Ram convict has preferred this appeal before this Court against his conviction and sentence. 5. In order to connect Ganesha Ram appellant with the murder of Amichand deceased, the prosecution evidence consists of four descriptions Firstly, there is evidence that there was some dispute between the deceased on the one part and the appellant and Bhagirath on the other, for the reason that appellant and Bhagirath wanted to open door towards the 'bada' of Amichand to which Amichand objected. Due to this reason there had been some scuffle between them 6 or 7 months before this incident. This enmity led Ganesha Ram appellant to shoot the deceased. Due to this reason there had been some scuffle between them 6 or 7 months before this incident. This enmity led Ganesha Ram appellant to shoot the deceased. Secondly, there is testimony of the solitary eye witness Krishan PW 2 who was coming with Amichand, Bhagirath and the appellant after taking bath in the canal to the village and he saw that Ganesha Ram took out pistol from the wrapping of his 'tahmad' and fired a shot at Amichand which hit on his back. Krishan informed of the incident to Amichand's uncle Nanak Ram PW 3. Nanak Ram came to the spot along with Krishan and Jesaram. Thirdly, according to the prosecution, Amichand made an oral dying declaration to Nanak Ram and Jesa Ram that the appellant had shot him on account of the enmity arising out of the dispute relating to 'bada'. There is also written dying declaration Ex. P 2 which was recorded by Pala Ram Head Constable while Amichand was admitted in the Government Dispensary Tibi. This written dying declaration is Ex. P 2 and it is signed by Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig also. Lastly, the prosecution evidence is that 12 bore pistol was recovered on the basis of information Ex. 10 given by the appellant, while in custody, to the Investigating Officer Nazir Ahmed and it was recovered and seized from the field of the appellant bearing Square No. 113 in Chak I-GGR hidden under neath a 'berdi' tree in the field. The pistol along with cartidge case in it and six lead buck shots had been sent to the Ballistic Expert and he has opined that the pistol was serviceable and it had been fired. The 12 bore cartridge case could have been fired from the pistol. The holes on the shirt of the deceased could have been caused by the lead pellets/buck shots and that six lead buck shots could have come out from 12 bore cartridge case sent to him. There is evidence of the doctor coupled with post-mortem examination report that Amichand died due to shot by internal bleeding from the vital parts of the body caused by fire arm injury. 6. It cannot be disputed and was not dispted that Amichand died as a result of fire-arm injury sustained by him on his back. The post-mortem report Ex. There is evidence of the doctor coupled with post-mortem examination report that Amichand died due to shot by internal bleeding from the vital parts of the body caused by fire arm injury. 6. It cannot be disputed and was not dispted that Amichand died as a result of fire-arm injury sustained by him on his back. The post-mortem report Ex. P 3 goes to show that Amichand deceased received 12 wounds of entry at the back right side 6th to 10th thorasic vertebrae lateral side. Size of the wounds was 1/2c.m. in diameter. Six pellets were found in the anterior wall of the abdomen near umblicus. Both the lungs and aorata were punctured by the pellets. Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig has deposed that this injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has also stated that Amichand was brought to the Government dispensary Tibi in an injured state and he sent the letter Ex. P 1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Tibi informing him that Amichand had got gun shot injury and requested the Station House Officer to come to take necessary action. Thus it is very well established that Amichand died as a result of tire arm shot injury and the injuries were ante mortem. 7. It was, therefore, vehemently contended by Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial Judge was in grave error in placing reliance upon the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses Krishna PW 2 who was highly interested in the deceased and his statement suffers from material contradictions on various points. It was further contended that the alleged dying declaration Ex. P 2 recorded by Palaram Head Constable at Government Dispensary, Tibi does not appear to be a genuine document because having regard to the nature of the injuries-sustained by the deceased and his grave condition, hi was not in a position to give any statement. Attention was also invited to some interpolation about the time given by Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig in his letter Ex. P 1 addressed to the Station House Officer, Tibi, and also in last but one line of the dying declaration recorded by Pala Ram. Attention was also invited to some interpolation about the time given by Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig in his letter Ex. P 1 addressed to the Station House Officer, Tibi, and also in last but one line of the dying declaration recorded by Pala Ram. Further it was contended that the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the appellant does not appear to be genuine one and the use of the pistol has not been proved beyond all manner of doubt. 8. We have carefully considered the contentions of Mr. Mathur appearing for the appellant. On carefully going through the evidence of Krishan PW 2. who is eye-witness of the incident, we do not find any infirmity in his statement so as to lead to a conclusion that he is not a witness of truth. He is very clear in his statement that Ami Chand deceased had come to his house at about 8 a m. on June 25, 1980 and had asked him to accompany him to Ami Chand's field to dig or clear the Khala (water course). At about 9.30 a.m. both of them went to Amichand's field and partly cleared the Khala. Both of them then went to the canal to have a bath as it was summer season in the month of June. At that time Bhagirath and the appellant came to the canal and inquired from them as to when they would return to the village. On their telling that they would start for the village after taking bath both Bhagirath and the appellant stopped there and after Krishan and Amichand had taken a bath, all of them started from the canal to return to village Talwara Jheel, Amichand was walking ahead of all followed by Ganesha Ram. Bhagirath and Krishan were at a distance of about 8 pawandas' from Ganesha Ram. Krishan had stated that at that time Ganesha Ram took out pistol from the wrappings of his 'tahmad' and fired a shot at Amichand which hit him and he fell down. Amichand asked Krishan to inform Nanak Ram of the incident as Nanak Ram was uncle of Amichand. Krishan had stated that at that time Ganesha Ram took out pistol from the wrappings of his 'tahmad' and fired a shot at Amichand which hit him and he fell down. Amichand asked Krishan to inform Nanak Ram of the incident as Nanak Ram was uncle of Amichand. The prosecution has examined Nanak Ram as PW 3 and he supported the fact that Krishan PW 1 came to him at about 1 p.m. and informed him that Ganesha Ram had fired a short at Amichand and that Amichand was lying in an injured condition on the field of Pratap Singh Raisikh. It is upon the information received from Krishan that Nanak Ram with his brother Jesaram went to the place of the incident along with Krishna and brought Amichand to the house and then Amichand was taken in a jeep to Govt. Dispensary Tibi. It was pointed out that Krishan has stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen this side or that side when Ganesha Ram fired the pistol shot. It was urged that in the Police statement Ex. D 1, Krishan had stated that when he saw this side or that side from a distance of about 1 Killa, he saw that Ganesha Ram was opening his pistol from both his hands. This is no contradiction. Krishan is quite clear that he had seen Ganesha Ram fire the pistol shot and his seeing this side or that side or not does not at all affect the correctness of his testimony. The next contradiction pointed out was that in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC. Krishan had not deposed as to whether it was the appellant or it was Bhagirath who had inquired from Amichand and the witnesses at the canal as to when they will go back to the village. Krishan has stated that it was Bhagirath who had inquired from them about their return to the village. In his police statement also Krishan had stated that it was Bhagirath who had asked the above questions from them. All that can be said is that in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC, it was no specifically asked from Krishan as to whether it was Bhagirath or it was Ganesha Ram who had inquired from him and the deceased as to when they will return to the village. All that can be said is that in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC, it was no specifically asked from Krishan as to whether it was Bhagirath or it was Ganesha Ram who had inquired from him and the deceased as to when they will return to the village. This is no way affects the truthfulness of the witness. It was further pointed out that in his statement Ex. D 2 recorded under Section 164 Cr PC Krishan had stated that when Ganesha Ram took out 12 bore pistol from his 'tahmad' and fired a short on the back of Amichand, the letter ran up to a distance of one or 3/4 Killa and then fell down. However, in his statement recorded in the court, Krishan had stated that Amichand fell down as soon as he received the fire-arm shot and had not run. It is quite possible that on receiving the pistol shot, Amichand might have tried to run only for some distance and then fell down. This minor contradictions do not make the testimony of Krishan false. On the other hand, such minor contradictions occur in the testimony of truthful witness and read as a whole. Krishan had been very consistent in narrating the whole incident correctly and consistently. He belonged to the same caste to which the deceased belonged. It might be that they were very distantly related but only such persons go to assist in the clearing of the Khala and not strangers. Krishan's testimony finds corroboration from the statement of Nanak Ram PW 3 that it was Krishan who came to the village and informed Nanak Ram that Ganesha Ram had tired a shot at Amichand and that Amichand was lying in an injured state. We find the testimony of Krishan PW 2 and that of Nanak Ram PW 3 as of sterling worth and the appellant was rightly held guilty on the testimony of Krishan PW 2. 9. There is further the evidence of Nazir Ahmed PW 5 that while in custody, the appellant gave him information Ex. 10 that a 12 bore 'deshi' pistol having an empty cartridge in its barrel was hidden wrapped in a white cloth in his field in Square No. 113 in Chak 1-GGR under a 'berdi' tree. 9. There is further the evidence of Nazir Ahmed PW 5 that while in custody, the appellant gave him information Ex. 10 that a 12 bore 'deshi' pistol having an empty cartridge in its barrel was hidden wrapped in a white cloth in his field in Square No. 113 in Chak 1-GGR under a 'berdi' tree. On this information, the pistol Article 1 and the empty cartridge Article 2 were recovered by Nazir Ahmed at the instance and from the place pointed out by the appellant and seized under the seizure memo Ex. P 6. Mani Ram PW 4 was Motbir to this recovery and he has deposed that the recovery was made of the pistol and the empty cartridge from the field of the appellant and it was the appellant who himself who dug the place where the pistol was hidden and the same was seized by the police. The report of the Ballistic Expert is clear on the point that the pistol was serviceable and that the Chemical examination indicated that the pistol had been fired. All that could not be ascertained by him was the time of its last fire. He had given an opinion that the holes marked 'P' present on the shirt of the deceased might have been caused by lead pellets/buck shots as the lead metal was found present or the periphery of these holes. Six lead buck shots sent to him could have some out from 12 bore cartridge. The recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant from his field which had been fired also corroborates the prosecution version that it was the appellant who had fired the shot. 10. Coming then to the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by Amichand deceased, it is quite clear that Amichand had not died immediately on receiving the pistol shot. He was taken to the Government Dispensary Tibi by Menak Ram PW 3 in a jeep of Kalu Ram PW 10. 10. Coming then to the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by Amichand deceased, it is quite clear that Amichand had not died immediately on receiving the pistol shot. He was taken to the Government Dispensary Tibi by Menak Ram PW 3 in a jeep of Kalu Ram PW 10. On being informed by Krishan PW 2 Nanak Ram PW 3, who was uncle of Amichand, came to the place of the incident along with his brother Jesa Ram Both Krishan PW 2 Nanak Ram PW 3 have deposed that when Nanak Ram and Jesa Ram reached the place of the incident Amichand told them that the appellant had shot him by fire-arm on account of the enmity due to Bara. This dying declaration by Amichand deceased made to Nanak Ram appears natural and truthful. When on being informed, a close relation like uncle of the injured reaches to the place of the incident where the injured is lying, it is but natural that the injured will tell about the incident to his near relation Nanak Ram. It may be mentioned that so far as father of Amichand named Har Lal was concerned, he was out from the village on that day as he had gone to some other village called Ailanabad as has been deposed by Har Lal PW 11. Naturally, therefore, the uncle of Amichand was the nearest another relation who was expected to reach the place of incident to take care of the injured and to take him to the hospital and the normal and common course of human conduct is that the injured will undoubtedly name the assailant to his near relation when the letter reached him. This oral dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity and we do not find any reason to disbelieve the oral dying declaration made by Amichand to his uncle Nanakram. The dying declaration of deceased Amichand, therefore, further corroborates the prosecution case and the truthfulness of the testimony of Krishan PW 2 who was an eye-witness to the incident. This much of evidence by itself is sufficient the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and on to establish basis of the above evidence, the learned Addl Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in holding the appellant as guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. This much of evidence by itself is sufficient the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and on to establish basis of the above evidence, the learned Addl Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in holding the appellant as guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant did not hold any licence for the pistol, he was also rightly convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 11. Coming to the written dying declaration recorded by Pala Ram PW 9 at the Government Dispensary Tibi in the presence of Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig, it may be observed at the out-set that the law with regard to basing conviction on the dying declaration is well settled. A person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person, yet the court has to be on the guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination. The court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after he had a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants. Once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration was true and voluntary, it can be sufficient to found the conviction even without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. Each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other piece of evidence. It stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. 12. On behalf of the appellant, it was emphatically argued that the written dying declaration of deceased Amichand recorded by Palaram Head Constable is Ex. P 2 does not appear to be a genuine document for various reasons. Firstly, having regard to the injuries sustained by Amichand and his grave condition, he was not in a position to give any statement to Pala Ram. P 2 does not appear to be a genuine document for various reasons. Firstly, having regard to the injuries sustained by Amichand and his grave condition, he was not in a position to give any statement to Pala Ram. There is an interpolation in last but one line in the dying declaration on a material point. There was interpolation about the time in the letter sent by the doctor Ex. P. 1 to the Station House Officer Police Station Tibi. The condition of Amichand was feeble and he was incapable of giving a statement to Pala Ram. 13. We have given out earnest consideration to examine the truthfulness and voluntary nature of the written dying declaration Ex. P. 2. Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig has admitted in his examination-in-chief that Amichand was brought to the Government dispensary Tibi on June 25, 1980 at 3.30 p.m. and at that time he was in a shocked condition. It was urgently necessary lo send Amichand to Ganganagar hospital for treatment as condition of Amichand was serious. Despite that Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig did not himself care to record a dying declaration of Amichand before the police arrived. There is a definite interpolation about the time at which Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig wrote and sent the letter Ex. P. 1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Tibi. A bare look at portion E to F of Ex. PI goes to show originally the lime of writing Ex. P. 1 by the doctor to, the Station House Officer was written as 3.45 p.m. This time was subsequently interpolated as 3.30 P.M Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig has stated in cross-examination that on account of hurry he originally wrote the time on Ex P. 1 as 3.40 or 3.45 p.m. which was later on corrected as 3.30 p.m. A responsible person like a doctor is not expected to mention a wrong time originally. If Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig was so conscious of time factor, he was also expected to mention the time at which he made the note A to B on Ex P. 1 that Amichand was fit to give his statement However, he glaringty omitted to mention the time at which he made the note A to B on Ex. P. 1. In the post mortem report from there is a specific column to mention the date and hour of death of the deceased. P. 1. In the post mortem report from there is a specific column to mention the date and hour of death of the deceased. However, in Ex. P. 3 the doctor conspicuously omitted to mention the hour of death of Amichand All these are glaring facts to cast a very serious doubt that Amichand was in a fit state of mind when Palaram arrived to give a dying declaration or that Amichand was even alive at that time. Even the dying declaration Ex. P 2 contains an interpolation in last but one line. Originally it was written that there was no previous enmity between the deceased and the assailant. However, the words ugh Fkh were changed by words gqbZ Fkh without even appreciating that these altered words would not fit in appropriately in the sentence. It appeal's to us that there was no FIR before Paid Ram and he got the timings fit in Ex. P. 1 so as to become consistent with the timings given by him in the FIR lodged by himself at Police Station Tibi at 4.30 P.m. on the basis, of the dying declaration recorded by him at the Government dispensary Tibi. It is important to observe that except the name of the Police Station, date and time of the incident and the date and time of lodging the FIR rest of the contents of Ex. P. 24 are in a different ink. It is also important to note that in the police note made below the dying declaration Ex. P. 2 Palaram noted that condition of Amichand was gradually deteriorating and the doctor had advised his shifting to Ganga-Nagar. It is unfortunate that the above facts and circumstances lead to an irresistible inference that Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig acted in a manner as if he was at the mercy of the Head Constable Palaram and it was at the instructions of Pala Ram that he changed the time of wriging Ex. P. 1, omitted to mention the time below his report A to B on Ex. P. 1 and also omitted to mention the time of death of Amichand in the post mortem report. Here was a fry like Pala Ram Head Constable who could have the audacity to dictate to Dr. P. 1, omitted to mention the time below his report A to B on Ex. P. 1 and also omitted to mention the time of death of Amichand in the post mortem report. Here was a fry like Pala Ram Head Constable who could have the audacity to dictate to Dr. Surendra Kumar Wig to adjust the time as he wished and also to make interpolation in the last but one line of the dying declaration Ex. P. 2. A bare look goes to show that the alleged signatures of Amichand over-lapped the last line of the dying declaration. It is also not understandable that when Amichand had signed on Ex. P. 2. why there is a sign of thumb impression marked "X" on Ex. P. 2 which Pala Ram could only explain as an accidental thumb mark from the ink-pad which was with him. In our view, Ex. P. 2 was written by Palaram only to use this document as a FIR from the deceased as none had been lodged at the Police Station before Palaram arrived at the hospital and he wanted to use it only to register a case. 14. It State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar AIR 1986 SC 250 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed, with regard to the dying declaration in that case, that when the doctor was available, he should have been requested to record the dying declaration and the Investigating Officer should not have taken the job on himself. His Lordship Ranganath Misra, J., observed: "We are prepared to prefer the evidence of the doctor to the Police Officer in this regard and we hold that the Police Officer did not request the doctor to record the statement and had volunteered to do so all by himself. Ordinarily a document as valuable as dying declaration is supposed to be fool proof and has to incorporate the particulars which it is supposed to contain. "In our view, the written dying declaration Ex. P. 2 suffers from the above suspicious circumstances and infirmities and therefore, we are not going to base our conviction on the basis of the dying declaration Ex. P. 2. 15. As already observed, we believe that Krishan P.W. 2 was an eyewitness to the incident and he is a truthful witness. "In our view, the written dying declaration Ex. P. 2 suffers from the above suspicious circumstances and infirmities and therefore, we are not going to base our conviction on the basis of the dying declaration Ex. P. 2. 15. As already observed, we believe that Krishan P.W. 2 was an eyewitness to the incident and he is a truthful witness. We also believe that Amichand made an oral dying declaration to Nanak Ram, when he reached on the spot on being informed by Krishan, that it was the appellant who had shot him. We may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Manu Raja and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1976 (3)SCC 104 ) . In that case the appellants Mannu Raja and Chhuttan were tried by the Sessions Judge on the charge that they committed murder of Bahadur Singh. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of the two witnesses and on three dying declarations alleged to have been made by the deceased. The two eye-witnesses supported the case of the prosecution only partly and they were permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Since the two eye-witnesses turned hostile the Sessions Judge thought it unsafe and rightly so, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, to rely on their testimony. However, the Sessions Judge was also not impressed by any of the dying declarations and he, therefore, acquitted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court did not discard the evidence of the eye-witnesses but utilised it by way of corroboration to the dying declarations and convicted the appellant. The appellants came before the Supreme Court. His Lordship Chandra Chud, J., (as he then was) stated that no exception could be taken to the view taken by the Sesssions Judge that it was not safe to place reliance on the eye-witnesses and, therefore, their evidence could not be used to corroborate the dying declarations. His Lordships then proceeded to examine three dying declarations made by the deceased. His Lordship accepted the dying declaration which was made by the deceased soon after the incident in the house of one Barjor Singh orally. The second declaration made at the Police Station by way of First Information Report was also accepted. However, their Lordships did not accept the third dying declaration (Ex. His Lordship accepted the dying declaration which was made by the deceased soon after the incident in the house of one Barjor Singh orally. The second declaration made at the Police Station by way of First Information Report was also accepted. However, their Lordships did not accept the third dying declaration (Ex. P. 2 in that case) which was said to have been made by the deceased in the hospital and it was observed in relation to the third dying declaration that if the Investigating Officer thought that Bahadur Singh injured was in precarious condition, he ought to have requested the service of a Magistrate for recording the dying declaration. Investigating Officers are naturally interested in the success of ,he investigation and, therefore, it was bserved that the practice of the Investigating Officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged. Believing the first oral dying declaration and the second dying declaration made at the police station by way of First Information Report by Bahadur Singh injured, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants. So we do believe the first dying declaration made by Amichand to Nanak Ram PW 3 and also believe the eye-witness Krishan PW 2. 16. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******