JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Accused-appellant Parmanand was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, for committing the murder of Inder Singh by sprinkling kerosene over him and then lifting the fire. This incident took-place on 4.1.92 at about 7.00 p.m. in village Khajuri Kadaran. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.1.92, at about 7.00 p.m., deceased Inder Singh enquired from accused Parmanand who had scattered the bushes which were placed by him in a heap near his house. This enquiry enraged accused Parmanand, he abused Inder Singh and thereafter started beating him by shoes. Inder Singh entered his house but the accused dragged him outside the house, poured kerosene lying in the house on the body of Inder Singh and then lit the fire. Asha Ram intervened and rescued Inder Singh. Inder Singh thereafter, in a burning position, went to the house of his father PW 4 Panna Lal and narrated the whole incident to him. Thereafter he was taken to the Dispensary where he was attended by PW 7 Parmanand Soni a Male Nurse (Compounder) posted at that dispensary. PW 7 Parmanand Soni sent an intimation (Ex. D.l) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Jawar. PW 12 Abdul Aziz, S.H.O. Police Station, Jawar, alongwith two Police Constables, went to the dispensary and recordedthe Parcha Bayan Ex. P. 9. Looking to the serious condition of Inder Singh, PW 12 Abdul Aziz recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) of Inder Singh in the dispensary in the presence of PW 7 Parmanand Soni and PW 8 Laxmi Narain. Thereafter Inder Singh succumbed to the injuries in the same night. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses and the accused, in his defence, examined three witnesses. The case of the accused-appellant, in defence, was that Inder Singh himself sprinkled kerosene over him and lit the fire and himself put him to the flames and the accused did nothing. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses and the accused, in his defence, examined three witnesses. The case of the accused-appellant, in defence, was that Inder Singh himself sprinkled kerosene over him and lit the fire and himself put him to the flames and the accused did nothing. The learned trial Court disbelieved the defence version and on the basis of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above by his judgment dated 16.12.92. It is against this judgment that the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence as there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the independent witnesses, produced by the prosecution, do not support the prosecution case and as such no conviction can be based on the evidence of the person(s) related to the deceased and interested in the prosecution case. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not in a position to make the statement and the alleged dying declarations, on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court, were not made by the deceased and does not inspire-confidence as the dying declaration is neither trust-worthy nor true. It is further contended that the provisions of rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules have not been followed by Abdul Aziz, S.H.O. while recording the dying declaration and the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) has been recorded by the police personnel and is not in the question and answer form and, therefore, it does not inspire confidence. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the recoveries believed by the learned trial Court, also, does not inspire confidence and the appellant has wrongly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below. 4. Before considering the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we will first like to consider the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. PW 1 Prabhu Lal has only stated that Inder Singh died, how he met his death he cannot say. 4. Before considering the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we will first like to consider the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. PW 1 Prabhu Lal has only stated that Inder Singh died, how he met his death he cannot say. PW 2 Badda has stated that Inder Singh and accused Parmanand were quarrelling over scattering of the bushes. Inder Singh asked accused Parmanand why he scattered the bushes, whereupon Parmanand asked him that the bushes were already scattered when the same were placed by Inder Singh. Thereafter Inder Singh abused accused by the bad name of his mother and accused Parmanand objected to the abuses. Inder Singh then threw a spear upon the accused. According to him Inder Singh died but he does not know he met his death. PW 3 Bhairu Lal and PW 9 Ram Prasad are the two Motbir witnesses. PW 3 Bhairu Lal is a Motbir witness to the various recoveries as well as the preparation of the site plan while PW 9 Ram Prasad is a witness to the recoveries of the burnt clothes and the soil from the place of the incident vide Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3. PW 4 Panna Lal is the father of deceased Inder Singh who has stated that on the date of the incident, at about 7.00 p.m., Inder Singh came to his house and at that time he was in a burnt condition and all of his clothes were in a burnt condition except the underwear and the trousers. Inder Singh informed him that accused Parmanand has burnt him. The cause & manner of burning disclosed by Inder Singh was that he was burnt by Parmanand after sprinkling kerosene and lifting the fire on being enquired about the scattering of the bushes. He and PW 5 Duli Chand thereafter took him to his house, laid him there and thereafter took him to the dispensary and went to the Police Station to lodge the report but the S.H.O. threatened him with the dire consequences if the report would be found false. The S.H.O. thereafter came to the place of the incident and Inder Singh was taken to the dispensary where he was medically treated. The S.H.O. thereafter recorded the dying declaration of Inder Singh. The S.H.O. thereafter came to the place of the incident and Inder Singh was taken to the dispensary where he was medically treated. The S.H.O. thereafter recorded the dying declaration of Inder Singh. Thereafter the S.H.O. enquired from Inder Singh how the incident took place and Inder Singh told him that accused Parmanand, after sprinkling kerosene over him lit the fire. Inder Singh died on the next day. The police recovered the burnt clothes and prepared the recovery Memo Ex. P. 4. The police, also, recovered the dead-body vide Ex. P. 5 which bears his signatures. PW 5 Duli Chand is the brother of PW 4 Panna Lal and the uncle of deceased Inder Singh. He has stated that he was informed by his brother Panna Lal that accused Parmanand, after sprinkling kerosene over Inder Singh, put him to fire. He thereafter went to his house, enquired from Inder Singh what had happened, on which Inder Singh informed him that accused Parmanand had put him to fire after sprinkling kerosene and litting the fire when he was in his house. Thereafter Nand Kishore, Panna Lal and Ram Kishan went to the hospital and on receiving the information the S.H.O. asked them to proceed to the place of the incident. He went to the place of the incident on a motor-cycle. PW 6 Asha Ram has stated that on the day of the incident, at about 6.00 p.m., a quarrel ensued between accused Parmanand and deceased Inder Singh and he intervened and separated them. Badda and Prabhu asked him why he has committed this act, whereupon he went to his house. When he left the place of the incident, at that time Inder Singh and Parmanand were there. Inder Singh was drenched with kerosene, who poured kerosene on him, he does not know. Of course, he heard the cries 'he has been burnt...he has been burnt'. When he left the place of the incident, at that time Inder Singh and Parmanand were there. Inder Singh was drenched with kerosene, who poured kerosene on him, he does not know. Of course, he heard the cries 'he has been burnt...he has been burnt'. PW 7 Parmanand Soni is the Male Nurse (Compounder) posted in the Government Dispensary, Jawar, on 4.1.92 and in his presence the S.H.O., Police Station, Jawar, recorded the statement of Inder Singh and Inder Singh stated before the S.H.O. that at about 7.00 p.m. a quarrel took place between him and accused Parmanand regarding the bushes and first the accused gave beatings to him by shoes and thereafter he entered into his house, the accused followed him, poured kerosene over his body and lit the fire. The S.H.O., after recording the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) of Inder Singh, got the signatures of Inder Singh appended and he and Laxmi Narain, also, appended their signatures on the dying declaration Ex. P. 6. The dying declaration was recorded in the presence of him and Laxmi Narain. PW 8 Laxmi Narain is a witness to the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) but he has not supported the prosecution case. He has, however, admitted that the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) bears his signatures. PW 10 Laxmi Narain was the Police Constable posted at Police Station, Jawar, who, on 24.1.92, took five sealed packets from the Police Station and after obtaining the forwarding letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar, deposited the sealed packets in the State Forensic Science Laboratory on 25.1.92, in the same sealed condition. PW 11 Om Prakash Godara was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aklera, who was the Circle Officer and took the investigation from PW 12 Abdul Aziz on 5.1.92 and completed the same. PW 12 Abdul Aziz was the S.H.O. posted at Police Station, Jawar, on 4.1.92, who received the information Ex. D. 1 at about 11.30 p.m. that Inder Singh has received extensive burns and has been brought to the Primary Health Centre, Jawar, for treatment. On receiving this information he went to the dispensary, recorded the Parcha Bayan Ex. P. 9, got the signatures of Inder Singh appended and thereafter, looking to the serious condition of Inder Singh, recorded his dying declaration Ex. On receiving this information he went to the dispensary, recorded the Parcha Bayan Ex. P. 9, got the signatures of Inder Singh appended and thereafter, looking to the serious condition of Inder Singh, recorded his dying declaration Ex. P. 6 in the presence of PW 7 Parmanand Soni and PW 8 Laxmi Narain and got the case of Inder Singh referred for treatment to the Government Hospital, Jhalawar, but as there was no conveyance available in the night, Inder Singh could not be taken to the Jhalawar and he breathed his last in the dispensary at Jawar. He thereafter prepared the Panchnama Ex. P. 10 and Furd Surat Haal Lash Ex. P. 11 and handed over the investigation to PW 11 Mr. Om Prakash Godara, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 5.1.92. PW 13 is Dr. Kailash Chandra Mena, who conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Inder Singh. 5. The first contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are not trustworthy and their evidence does not inspire confidence and the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, no conviction can be based against the accused-appellant on the basis of the oral testimony of the relative and interested witnesses. PW 1 Prabhu Lal and PW 2 Badda, though they were produced by the prosecution as eye witnesses of the occurrence, have stated that they do not know how Inder Singh received bum injuries. PW 2 Badda has only stated that a quarrel took place between Inder Singh and accused Parmanand on the question of scattering the bushes. PW 6 Asha Ram, the another eye witness of the incident, whose name, also, finds mention in the dying declaration , has not stated that he had seen the occurrence and has only stated that a quarrel took place between Inder Singh and accused Parmanand on the question of scattering the bushes of Inder Singh. He has, also, admitted that at that time Inder Singh was drenched with kerosene oil but who poured it on his body, he does not know. He has, also, admitted that he heard the cries, "HAI RAM JAL GAYA HAI RAM JAL GAYA". He has, also, admitted that at that time Inder Singh was drenched with kerosene oil but who poured it on his body, he does not know. He has, also, admitted that he heard the cries, "HAI RAM JAL GAYA HAI RAM JAL GAYA". From the evidence of these three eye-witnesses, it is, therefore, clear that a quarrel took place between Inder Singh and accused Parmanand over the scattering of the bushes and at that time the clothes of Inder Singh were found drenched with kerosene. Of course, from the statements of these witnesses it cannot be said who poured kerosene on the body of Inder Singh and that it was the accused who sprinkled kerosene over the body of Inder Singh. The other witnesses have, also, not stated that they had seen the accused sprinkling kerosene over Inder Singh and putting him to fire. There is no infirmity in the occular testimony of the prosecution witnesses and there is, also, no material contradiction in their statements. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, is, therefore, devoid of any force. 6. The prosecution case, mainly, rests upon the dying declaration made by deceased Inder Singh. There are two dying declarations - one is oral, made by deceased Inder Singh before PW 4 Panna Lal and PW 5 Duli Chand, and the another is the dying declaration (Ex P. 6) recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz in the presence of PW 7 Parmanand Soni and PW 8 Laxmi Narain. PW 4 Panna Lal has stated that on the fateful day, in the evening, Inder Singh came to him and at that time he was in a bum state and on enquiry he disclosed that he was put to fire by accused Parmanand after sprinkling kerosene over him and litting the fire. Similar is the statement of PW 5 Duli Chand. The deceased came to his father in a burnt condition and it was, therefore, natural for his father to enquire from Inder Singh : how the incident took place, and Inder Singh narrated the incident to him as well as to his uncle PW 5 Duli Chand. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted on these two witnesses but nothing could be elicited which could discredit their testimony. This oral dying declaration, therefore, stands proved from the statements of these two witnesses.The second dying declaration Ex. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted on these two witnesses but nothing could be elicited which could discredit their testimony. This oral dying declaration, therefore, stands proved from the statements of these two witnesses.The second dying declaration Ex. P. 6 has been recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz. The prosecution has produced three witnesses to prove the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6). PW 12 Abdul Aziz was the Station House Officer, who recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) of deceased Inder Singh. He has stated that he reached at Government Dispensary, Jawar after receiving the information at 11.30 p.m. and recorded the Parcha Bayan. As the condition of Inder Singh was grave, therefore, he recorded his dying declaration Ex. P. 6 and did not call any Magistrate and the doctor as they were not available there and recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) in the presence of PW 7 Parmanand Soni, a Male Nurse, and PW 8 Laxmi Narain. PW 7 Parmanand Soni has stated that in his presence Inder Singh disclosed that the quarrel between him and accused Parmanand took place on account of scattering of the bushes and accused Parmanand first gave beatings to him by shoes and when he entered into his house, accused followed him, sprinkled kerosene on his body and put him to fire. The dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) was recorded in his presence by the S.H.O. which bears his signatures A to B. PW 8 Laxmi Narain was, also, called and he, also, put his signatures on Ex. P. 6. PW 8 Laxmi Narain, though admitted his signatures on Ex. P. 6 but stated that he was called later on and he appended his signatures on Ex. P. 6 but the dying declaration Ex. P. 6 was not recorded in his presence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) is that it was recorded by the Investigating Officer and it is not in the' question and answer form and while recording the dying declaration the provisions of rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules were not followed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) is that it was recorded by the Investigating Officer and it is not in the' question and answer form and while recording the dying declaration the provisions of rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules were not followed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over: Kachwa v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 121 , Kishore v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 R.C.C. 214 and Smt. Kalawati v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 798 .It is not in dispute that the dying declaration in the present case has been recorded by the Investigating Officer himself. Normally the investigating officer are interested in the success of their investigation and, therefore, it is expected that he should not record the dying declaration during the course of investigation. But when neither the doctor not the Magistrate was available at that time and the condition of injured Inder Singh was grave then PW 12 Abdul Aziz, took over this job with him and recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) of Inder Singh. When neither the doctor nor the Magistrate was available and the condition of injured Inder Singh was precarious, therefore, if the dying declaration has been recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz, S.H.O, then it cannot become untrustworty only on this ground and it is admissible in evidence under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as sub-section (2) of Section 162 Cr P.C. provides an exception for the admissibility of such statement. It is, no doubt, true that the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) is not in the 'question and answer' form. If it would have been in the question and answer form then while considering the acceptibility of the dying declaration in evidence, the Court could have known: to what extent the answers have been suggested to the question put to the injured but merely because the dying declaration has not been recorded in the question and answer form, it cannot be thrown away on this count along because what is necessary to be seen is : what exact the statement was made by the deceased and whether the correct statement, made by the deceased, has been made available to the Court or not ? It is the substance of the dying declaration which matters and not the nature and the manner in which it was recorded. The dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz, S.H.O., do exhibits the circumstances leading to the death of Inder Singh.The next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the dying declaration has not been recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz, S.H.O., in accordance with rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules reads as under:- "Rule 6.22-Dying Declarations.-(1) A dying declaration shall, whenever possible, be recorded by a Magistrate. (2) The person making the declaration shall, if possible, be examined by a medical officer with a view to ascertaining that he is sufficiently in possession of his reason to make a lucid statement. (3) If no Magistrate can be obtained, the declaration shall, when a gazetted police officer is not present, be recorded in the presence of two or more reliable witnesses unconnected with the police department and with the parties concerned in the case. (4) If no such witnesses can be obtained without risk of the injured person dying before his statement can be recorded, it shall be recorded in the presence of two or more police officers. (5) A dying declaration made to a police officer should, under Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure, be signed by the person making it." Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules provides that a dying declaration may be recorded by a Magistrate and a Certificate of the Doctor before recording the statement, may be taken with a view to ascertain whether the injured is in a fit condition to make a statement and if no Magistrate is available and the declaration is made before the Police Officer then it should be recorded in the presence of two or more witnesses unconnected with the Police Department and if no such witness can be obtained without on risk of the injured dying before his statement is recorded, it can be recorded in the presence of two or more police officers and it should be signed by the person making it. The dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz, S.H.O. satisfies the conditions laid down in rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules. The dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) recorded by PW 12 Abdul Aziz, S.H.O. satisfies the conditions laid down in rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules. PW 12 Abdul Aziz has stated that the Magistrate and the doctor were not available and the condition of the injured was serious and, therefore, he recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) in the presence of PW 7 Parmanand Soni and PW 8 Laxmi Narain. This declaration Ex. P. 6 also, bears the signatures of the deceased as well as the aforesaid two witnesses. The provisions of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, therefore, stand complied with. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of any force.Now, we take up the cases on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the case of: Kachwa v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 121 , what has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is that "a dying declaration has its own peculiar features. It is not made on oath. It is not made in the presence of the accused and its matter is not available for cross-examination. It is, thus, all one-sided affair. And yet law attaches considerable importance and special sanctity to a dying declaration. The logic for this rests on the popular belief and legal assumption that truth sits on the lips of a dying man and one who goes with a lie in his mouth does not meet the Almighty and does not get salvation and eternal peace. The conviction of an accused can be safely based on the sole strength of a dying declaration without any corroboration, provided the dying declaration is found trustworthy." In that case it was held that "if the appellant would not have shot the arrow on the deceased, the deceased would not have named him and it is difficult to conceive that the deceased would leave out the real culprit and substitute the appellant for him. The dying declaration, thus, constitutes very valuable evidence against the appellant". This case, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, instead of supporting the accused, supports the prosecution case. The dying declaration, thus, constitutes very valuable evidence against the appellant". This case, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, instead of supporting the accused, supports the prosecution case. In Kishore v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RCC 214 , the dying declaration was not recorded in the presence of the doctor, though recorded by the Magistrate, and it was not mentioned: whether the deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement. Looking to the condition of the injured and the burn injuries found on her body and the other circumstances, it was observed by the Court that the deceased was not in a position to make the statement and, therefore, the dying declaration was ignored. In the present case, the doctor was not available in the dispensary. The Male Nurse (Compounder), who was on duty, was present when the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) was made by Inder Singh. He has appeared in the evidence and stated that the dying declaration was made by Inder Singh in his presence and at that time Inder Singh was in a fit condition to make the statement. This case is, therefore, not of any assistance to the appellant. In Smt. Kalawati v. State of Rajasthan , the dying declaration was recorded by the Investigating Officer without following the procedure provided under rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, but in the present case the dying declaration satisfies the requirements of rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules and has been recorded in accordance with this rule. There is no contravention of the provisions of jule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules in the present case and, therefore, this judgment also, does not lend support to the appellant. 7. Dying declarations are admitted in the evidence on the principle that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. A man at the verge of his death is not likely to make a false statement unless there are reasons to show that the statements are made and secured either by tutoring or prompting. The dying declaration can be relied upon if it is true and voluntary and is not the result of tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. After considering the evidence on record and the dying declaration (Ex. The dying declaration can be relied upon if it is true and voluntary and is not the result of tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. After considering the evidence on record and the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) we are of the opinion that it is a true and voluntary and is not the product of any tutoring or prompting and it answers every test which is required to be applied for the acceptance of the dying declaration. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Court was justified in accepting the dying declarations made by deceased Inder Singh as true and voluntary. No illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in accepting the evidence of dying declarations. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the recoveries. The recoveries of the articles in the present case have not been relied upon as the incriminating circumstance against the appellant by the trial Court because those were the recoveries made from the place of the occurrence and the recoveries of the clothes of the deceased and the Jericane etc. do not connect the accused-appellant with the crime. The accused and the deceased were last seen by PW 2 Badda and PW 6 Asha Ram when they were quarrelling over the scattering of the bushes. The evidence of PW 6 Asha Ram further shows that at that time deceased Inder Singh's clothes were drenched with kerosene oil and thereafter there is a statement of Inder Singh in the form of dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) and the oral dying declaration that accused Parmanand sprinkled kerosene over his body and put him to fire and after receiving the bum-injuries Inder Singh went to his father Panna Lal and made the statement before Panna Lal and Duli Chand how the incident took place and thereafter he was taken to the dispensary where his dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) was recorded by the Station House Officer. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-appellant. The evidence, produced by the prosecution, therefore, clearly establishes that it was the accused-appellant who committed the murder of Inder Singh by sprinkling kerosene over his body and litting the fire. The deceased received 86.5% bums but he got only 9% burns on his hand and, therefore, he was in a fit condition to sign the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) etc. The deceased received 86.5% bums but he got only 9% burns on his hand and, therefore, he was in a fit condition to sign the dying declaration (Ex. P. 6) etc. The dying declaration and the Parcha Bayan bear his signatures. The learned lower Court, therefore, did not commit any illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******