JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, upholding the conviction and sentence of the Petitioners under Sections 286 and 304A. I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act. 2. The prosecution case may be stated in brief. On 30.8-1983 at about 4 p. m. there was explosion of bombs inside the casuarina plantation on the sea-beach behind the circuit house at Puri. The sound of the exploitation was such that it attracted the attention of public and some police officers who immediately rushed to the place of explosion and found a thick cloud of smoke at the place of explosion. They also saw that the exploded materials had fan en sprayed far and wide. It was found that the person named Krushna Murari having been seriously injured by the explosion of the bombs was coming out of the place and beseeching some police officers to take him to the hospital, for treatment. On query he stated that along with the Petitioners and Gopal Devnath and Piter Ram alias Brijbhan Ram he bad come to Puri to commit dacoity and finding the casuarina plantation beside the sea-beach lonely they were making bombs the materials of which they had brought with them. All on a sudden the bombs exploded resulting in, injuries on his person, as well as on others who had fled away in different,dejections. Soon thereafter Gopal Devnath who was also injured by the bomb explosion was trying to run away but he was apprehended by one of the police officers. After taking these two persons into custody and sending them to the hospital for treatment, there was a thorough search for the remaining culprits. Three of them namely, Asruf Ali, Subash Shaw and Piter Ram alias Brijbhan Ram were arrested from the Puri Railway Station. The other Petitioner Chouth Shaw alias Jovendra Prasad Shaw was arrested near about the Raj Bhavan at Puri, Krushna Murari died on 3-9-1983 at the hospital while under treatment. The persons arrested, were examined by medical officers and after close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them for having committed offences under Sections 286, 399 and 402, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act. The plea of the Petitioners was, denial simpliciter. 3. The persons arrested, were examined by medical officers and after close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them for having committed offences under Sections 286, 399 and 402, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act. The plea of the Petitioners was, denial simpliciter. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri who tried the case acquitted the Petitioners of,charges under Sections 399 and 402 but convicted under Sections 286 and 304A, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the India Explosives Act and imposed sentences of, various terms of imprisonment which were directed to run consecutively. The Petitioners along with two other accused Persons preferred an appeal which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, who upheld the convective and sentences as aforesaid but gave a direction, to the effect that the sentences should run concurrently. 4. It is not disputed at the time of hearing that there was explosion of bombs at the ti me and place mentioned in the F. I. R. (Ext. 14). It was also a fact that Krushna Murari, who was initially an accused in the case, and Gopal Devnath also an accused were almost caught redhanded while fleeing from the place of occurrence soon after the explosion with burnt injuries caused by explosion. As already stated Krushna Murari, died on 3-9-1983 while undergoing treatment in the hospital whereas, Gapal Devnath convicted of the offences under Sections 286 and 304-A, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosive . Act did not prefer revision. Out of Petitioners Asruf Ali and Subash Shaw who were arrested from their residence at Puri and Chouth Shaw alias Jobhendra Prasad Shaw was taken to custody from near about the Raj Bhawan at Puri sometime after the Explosion took place. The only facts and circumstances which appear against them are-a statement (Ext. 17) recorded by the Investigating Officer (p.w. 18) and used as a dying declaration of Krushna Murari, some minor burnt injuries on some of the Petitioners and their identification by one of the witnesses as staying in a Judge at Puri. The prosecution mainly relied upon the dying declaration of Krushna Murari. Both the courts below believed the same in arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioners were guilty of the offences under Sections 286 and 304, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act. The prosecution mainly relied upon the dying declaration of Krushna Murari. Both the courts below believed the same in arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioners were guilty of the offences under Sections 286 and 304, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act. If the dying declaration is excluded from consideration as not being an admissible piece of evidence, practically there shall be no evidence worth-the-name to sustain the conviction. It is, therefore, for consideration if Ext. 17 relied upon by the courts below is a piece of evidence for being the dying declaration of Krushna Murari is not only admissible in evidence but also acceptable as such as true. 5. Ext. 17 was the statement of Krushna Murari recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure on 30-8-1983 by p.w. 18. It does not contain the signature of the person who made it. It does not appear from it that it was recorded in the presence of other witnesses for signatures of others do not find place therein. The person is said to have made the statement in Hindi, but it was recorded in Oriya script. It was stated that the Petitioners, Gopal Devnath and Krushna Murari bad come to Puri to commit dacoity and finding the casuarina plantation behind the circuit house on the sea-beach to be a lonely place, they were preparing bomb when the explosion took place. Manifestly when the statement was made it was not treated as a dying declaration, but as a statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C.. Subsequently, however, efforts were made for recording the dying declaration of Krushna Murari when his condition deteriorated as would appear from the evidence of p. w 18. He stated in examination-in-chief that he recorded 'the statement in the hospital u/s 161, Cr.P.C., but did not give the text of the statement in Court to show as to what Krushna Murari had actually stated with regard to the occurrence. Nevertheless it was marked as Ext. 17 after objection. From his cross-examination it would appear that be took steps on 31.8.1983 for recording a further dying declaration of the person by an Executive Magistrate but when the Magistrate came to the,hospital, the condition of the injured bad become precarious and did not 'make the dying declaration. Apart from the statement (Ext. 17 after objection. From his cross-examination it would appear that be took steps on 31.8.1983 for recording a further dying declaration of the person by an Executive Magistrate but when the Magistrate came to the,hospital, the condition of the injured bad become precarious and did not 'make the dying declaration. Apart from the statement (Ext. 17), p.w. 14 another police officer who actually apprehended Krushna Murari in a seriously injured condition stated that when be enquired as to bow the person who had sustained injuries, Krushna Murari stated in Bengali that along with Petitioners and Gopal Devnath he bad come to Puri to commit dacoity in a jewellery shop near the temple and were staying in a Lodge. They had assembled in the casuarina plantation on the sea-beach finding it to be a lonely place to prepare bombs when there was explosion. If Krushna Murari was so conversant in Bengali, as would appear from the evidence of p.w. 14. the dying declaration could have been made in a engage and not in Hindi as has been recorded in Ext. 17. That apart, there does not appear to be any corroboration to the oral dying declaration said to have been made before p.w. 14. It is pertinent to note that both P.Ws. 14 and 18 were police officers and it is to be considered whether the statements made before them and used as dying declaration should be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Ramawati Devi Vs. State of Bihar, .this question came up for consideration. In a case of murder dying declaration was recorded by an assistant Inspector of Police. No questions were put to him to the state of health of the deceased and no suggestion was made that the deceased was not in a fit state of health to make any such statement. The doctor's evidence also clearly indicated that it was possible for the deceased to make the statement attributed to her in the dying declaration in which her thumb:impression had also been affixed. The statement found corroboration in the testimony of other witnesses. None of the witnesses including the Police Officers could be attributed with any kind of ill-feeling against the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts it was held that there is no requirement of law that dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate. The statement found corroboration in the testimony of other witnesses. None of the witnesses including the Police Officers could be attributed with any kind of ill-feeling against the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts it was held that there is no requirement of law that dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying declaration. In Balak Ram Vs. State of U.P., .a dying declaration was alleged to have been made to the investigating officer, it was held that investigating officers are keenly interested in the fruitation of their efforts and though there might not be any suggestion or assumption against their veracity, it is not prudent to base the conviction on a dying declaration made to an investigation officer. In Munnu Raja and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh it was held that investigating officers are naturally interested in the success of the investigation and the practice of the investigating officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab. AIR 1979 S.C. 1173 , it was held that although a dying declaration recorded by a police officer during the course of investigation is admissible u/s 32 of the Evidence Act in view of the exception provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 162, Cr. P. C, 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. From these decisions the well settled principle of law appears to be that a conviction can be based solely on the basis of a dying declaration if the court believe the same to have been truthfully recorded by a reliable person. Even the dying declaration recorded by a police officer may also be accepted and believed provided there was not time or scope for the dying declarations to be recorded either by a Magistrate or a Doctor or any other person and if the same ends corroboration from independent sources. In this particular case as could appear from the evidence of p.w. 18 himself there were scope for getting the dying declaration of Krushna Murari recorded either by a Doctor or a Magistrate because on the date of occurrence itself, that is, 30-8-1983 the same could have been recorded either by a Doctor or by a Magistrate in the hospital whole his condition was better than on 31.8-1983. No attempt was however wade to record his dying declaration after 31-8-1983 and before .he died on 3-9-1983. The oral dying declaration said to have been made before p.w. 14 and the written dying declaration (Ext. 17) do not find corroboration from any quarters. When Ext. 17 was recorded it was done under the provisions of Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure though not to be utilised as a dying declaration during trial, but as a statement in course of investigation when Krushna Murari was himself are accused. In view of the caution the court has to exercise, I do not consider it prudent in the facts and circumstances of the case to accept the evidence of dying declaration both oral and documentary (Ext. 17) made before the police officers placed by the prosecution. If the evidence of dying declaration is taken out of consideration there does not remain any convincing evidence on record for implicating the Petitioners in the alleged offences under Sections 286 and 304-A, I P. C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act. On the scanty evidence of injuries on one of them and their arrest sometime after the bomb explosion they cannot be found guilty of the aforesaid offences. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to sustain the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. On the scanty evidence of injuries on one of them and their arrest sometime after the bomb explosion they cannot be found guilty of the aforesaid offences. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to sustain the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. Therefore, the criminal revision is allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aside. The Petitioners are acquitted of the charges under Sections 286 and 304-A, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives. Final Result : Allowed