JUDGMENT : - B. L.Yadav, J. 1. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 3342 of 1979 has been preferred by Smt. Veerawati whereas Jail Appeal No. 849 of 1980 has been preferred by Darbari, the alleged paramour of Smt. Veerawati, against the judgment and order dated December 11, 1979, rendered by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 1978, convicting the appellants for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment. As both these appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. The appeal preferred by Smt. Veerawati, would be referred as the first appeal whereas the appeal preferred by Darbari would be referred as the second appeal. 2. THE prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is that on 12th August. 1977 at about 11.30 A.M. Hari Om deceased was in his house in Mohalla Nai Basti Police Station Baradari district Bareilly. Smt. Veerawati, the appellant in the first appeal, the widow of the deceased Hari Om also used to reside in the same house. Darbari the appellant in the second appeal used to visit the house of Hari Om very often and developed some illicit intimacy with the appellant in the first appeal. One leg of Hari Om had become useless on account of some ailment. Darbari the appellant in the second appeal was a Chaukidar in Vishnu Inter College, Bareilly. Illicit relation between the appellants in the first appeal and the second appeal was known to the deceased and the deceased had lodged a report against Darbari. In spite of being reprimanded, Smt. Veerawati did not dissuade from the company of Darbari, hence her relations with her husband became strained. On the date of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant alongwith other persons heard that the deceased was crying, hence the informant alongwith Sia Ram, Girja Mistri and Baboo Thekedar went to the house of Hari Om and tried to enter the house, but the moment they reached there, Darbari was coming out from the house and Smt. Veerawati was seen inside the house. Darbari managed to escape leaving his Rickshaw in front of the house of Hari Om. Darbari managed to escape leaving his Rickshaw in front of the house of Hari Om. THE informant and other persons saw that some acid was thrown on the body of Hari Om deceased as a result of which his skin was burnt but the deceased was alive and stated that acid was thrown over his body by his wife Smt. Veerawati whereas Darbari the appellant in the second appeal had caught hold of him (the deceased). Thereafter, Darbari had thrown burnt cowdung cakes. All this was done so that the deceased breathed his last. THE witnesses took Smt. Veerawati to police station and first information report was lodged (Ex. Ka 1) verbally. Head Moharrir Udaipal Singh prepared chick report and G. D. report on the basis of oral first information report. Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash, P.W. 3 started investigation and interrogated Smt. Veerawati. He reached the spot alongwith the witnesses and prepared a site plan (Ext. Ka 5). He recorded the statement of the deceased Hari Om (Ext. Ka 6) and recovered acid from the floor and burnt clothes and ashes from the site and sealed the same in separate container. He also prepared the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 2). The Rickshaw was also found standing by the side of the road and it was told that it belonged to the accused Darbari, the appellant in the second appeal. It was also taken into custody. Later on Rickshaw was released in favour of its owner Jugal Kishore. Injured Hari Om was sent to District Hospital, Bareilly alongwith a constable. The statements of witnesses Mirza Hamid-ur-Rehman and Baboo were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. (Exts. Ka-7 and Ka-8). The earlier reports lodged by Hari Om and Smt. Veerawati (Exts. Ka 9 and Ka-12) and the compromise arrived at between the parties (Ext. Ka-10) were proved. Later on injured Hari Om died the same after noon. Hence the case was converted under Section 302, 1.P.C. Sub- Inspector Brijendra Sharma prepared the inquest report, photo and challan of the dead body (Exts. Ka-13 to Ka-15) and the sealed dead body was sent to hospital for post-mortem examination. As the Sub-Inspector conducting the investigation was transferred, S. I. Shiv Charan continued the rest of the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against Smt. Veerawati on 18.12.1977 (Ex. Ka-16). Ka-13 to Ka-15) and the sealed dead body was sent to hospital for post-mortem examination. As the Sub-Inspector conducting the investigation was transferred, S. I. Shiv Charan continued the rest of the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against Smt. Veerawati on 18.12.1977 (Ex. Ka-16). On 26.7.1978 accused Darbari was arrested by S. I. Shiv Charan and a charge-sheet was submitted against him (Ext. Ka-17). 3. DR. P. K. Boss, P.W. 5 carried out medical examination of the injured Hari Om on 12.8.1977 at about 1.10 p.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries : "External superficial aid deep burns all over body extending from forehead, neck, front of chest, abdomen, back of chest, abdomen both upper limbs, both lower limbs." The injury by acid was kept under observation. In the opinion of the doctor, this Injury could have been inflicted on the deceased on that day at about 11.30 a.m. DR. Indrajeet, P.W. 4 carried out post-mortem examination of the deceased on 13.8.1977 at about 4 p.m. and in his opinion the deceased was aged about 30 years and was of average built. Rigor Mortis was present and some blood was coming out from mouth and nostril. There were streaks on the abdomen and thigh of acid trinkling. The deceased died as a result of shock and burn injuries and the ante mortem injuries caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 4. ON receipt of the charge-sheet, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, committed both the appellants in these appeals to the Court of Sessions on 17.10.1978 to stand their trial under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC on 16.5.1979 charges were framed against the accused. They were read over and explained to both the appellants who pleaded not guilty. In the statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. both the appellants stated that they were not present on the scene of occurrence and were falsely implicated due to enmity with Kailash Punjabi, the landlord, who wanted the house to be vacated by the deceased and Smt. Veerawati in the first appeal. Smt. Veerawati denied her illicit relation with the appellant Darbari in the second appeal or that she had any connection with him. The occurrence took place while she was away. She was taken to Police station by force. In fact, she was falsely implicated. Smt. Veerawati denied her illicit relation with the appellant Darbari in the second appeal or that she had any connection with him. The occurrence took place while she was away. She was taken to Police station by force. In fact, she was falsely implicated. Darbari appellant in the second appeal also denied his implication in the matter. He further stated that he was not present on the scene of occurrence and the Rickshaw did not belong to him and alleged that he had been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined P.W. 1. Mirza Hamidur Rehman, P.W. 2 Baboo, P.W. 3, S. I. Ved Prakash Verma, P.W. 4. Dr. Indrajeet, P.W. 5. Dr. P. R Boss, P.W. 6 constable Mohan Lal, P.W. 7 constable Udalpal Singh whereas no witness was examined on behalf of the appellants. 5. LEARNED counsel for the appellants in these appeals urged that the statement of the deceased Hari Om made to the Police Officer, Ved Prakash Varma, P.W. 3, who had started investigation and also interrogated Smt. Veerawati, could not be treated to be a dying declaration under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as it was made to a Police Officer and was not reliable statement. On the basis of such statements of the deceased, the appellants in both the appeals could not be convicted. Reliance was placed on Balak Ram v. State of U.P.. (1974 SCC (Cr) 836. It was further urged that the evidence against both the appellants was of circumstantial in nature and on the statements of Mirza Hamidur-Rehman P.W. 1, Ved Prakash Varma P.W. 3 and Baboo P.W. 2, conviction could not he recorded and both the appeals deserve to be allowed. 6. LEARNED Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of U. P. in both the appeals, on the other hand, urged that even though the statement made by the deceased was recorded by Ved Prakash Varma, P.W. 3, in presence of other prosecution witnesses, there was no inducement by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, it could be said to be a dying declaration under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act where only condition was that it must be in respect of cause of death. Consequently, it could be said to be a dying declaration under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act where only condition was that it must be in respect of cause of death. It was a statement as an exception to the fact that hearsay evidence was not admissible and there was no Inducement by the Police Officer rather the statement was voluntarily made in presence of other prosecution witnesses, there was no bar in accepting such statement. As regards the circumstantial evidence, it was urged that in the matter of circumstantial evidence, the court has to proceed with more caution and unless the chain of events is complete and one aspect is connected with the other, the same cannot be relied upon. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence was of such a nature that it has completed the chain of events leaving no room for doubt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants on the basis of such circumstantial evidence has correctly been made and both the appeals are devoid of merits. 7. AS regards the submission about the dying declaration, it is admissible in evidence on the principles of necessity. It is an exception to the rule of hearsay. It can form the basis of conviction if it is found to be reliable. The main principle on which it is based is that a dying person will not falsely implicate an innocent person in the commission of a serious crime. It has to be ascertained as to whether the maker of dying declaration was in a fit state of mind. See Padmaben Shamil Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1991 (1) SCC 744 (SC); Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P., (1991) Supp (1)SCC 353 and Bankey Lal v. State of U. P.. (1971) 3 SCC 184 . Ved Prakash Varma P.W. 3, Investigating Officer, immediately after receiving the information reached the spot and recorded the statement of the deceased. He had no knowledge about the past history of the accused and the deceased, hence statement made by the deceased was recorded by him about the cause of his death and also in respect of circumstances of transaction about the cause of his death. He had no knowledge about the past history of the accused and the deceased, hence statement made by the deceased was recorded by him about the cause of his death and also in respect of circumstances of transaction about the cause of his death. Such statements are admissible, as they are declarations made in extremity, at a time, when a party (Hari Om) was on the point of death, where every hope of his life was gone, when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. It is a situation so solemn and so lawful. The authenticity of the dying declaration has to be judged under the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the statement of P.W. 5 Dr. P. K. Boss was also to the effect that the deceased would have been in the good state of mind when he made the statement to P.W. 3 Ved Prakash Varma, Investigating Officer. Under the circumstances, the dying declaration was not doubtful. It has correctly been relied upon. 8. IN the present case, considering the statement of the deceased made to P.W. 3, Ved Prakash Varma. Investigating Officer and also the statement of P.W. 3, Ved Prakash Varma coupled with the statements of other prosecution witnesses, we are satisfied that the dying declaration made by the deceased was not doubtful and it has correctly been relied upon by the trial court. As regards the second question about circumstantial evidence, we are satisfied that the circumstantial evidence in the present case was of a clinching nature and it leaves no room for doubt and every chain appears to be complete. Consequently, there is nothing to doubt or not to rely upon such circumstantial evidence. We have also considered the statement of other witnesses including P.W. 3, Ved Prakash Varma, P.W. 6 constable Mohan Lal and P.W. 7 constable Udaipal Singh and in our opinion the observation made by the trial court about the reliability of these witnesses is correct and the same need not be repeated. 9. THE upshot of the aforesaid discussions is that both the appeals are devoid of merits. Consequently, they are dismissed. THE inescapable conclusion is that the conviction and sentence recorded by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, is confirmed. THE appellant are on bail. 9. THE upshot of the aforesaid discussions is that both the appeals are devoid of merits. Consequently, they are dismissed. THE inescapable conclusion is that the conviction and sentence recorded by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, is confirmed. THE appellant are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences imposed upon them. Appeals dismissed.