Honble B.R. ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.12.93 passed by the Additional district and Sessions Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment. (2) Appellant Kalu Ram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar for committing the murder of Smt. Vimla the concubine of the appellant by Sprirkling kersene and litting the fire. According to the prosecution case, Smt. Vimla was married to one Gopi Ram 14-15 years before and one daughter Pooja was born to her out of that wed-lock . Gopi Ram died five-six years before and Smt. Vimla got herself married with appellant Kalu Ram in a temple and was living with the appellant. Out of this marriage,a year before, a daughter was born to her she died. Pooja is, also, living with the accused-appellant. Three days before the incident, Kalu Ram took a house at Suratgarh Road in front of cotton mills of Jagdish Gour. She alongwith Kalu Ram started living in that house. On the day of the incident, in the morning, Kalu Ram took liquor and asked Smt. Vimla to give him. Rs.1000/- by selling her ear-rings otherwise he will leave the house and she may die. Thereafter the accused sprinkled Kerosene over her body and gave match-box to her and asked her to lit fire. She tried to lit the fire but the match -stick did not work. Thereafter the accused took the match-box from her and lit the fire. Her clothes caught the fire. She tried to put-off her cloths and got burn-injuries on her hands. She raised cries which attracted the neighbourers, viz, Sahab Ram, Makkhan and their wives. Kalu Ram poured water from a pitcher on Smt. Vimla to extinguish the fire but the upper part of her body was burnt. Thereafter Sahab Ram took Smt. Vimla to the hospital.Kalu Ram, in order to kill Smt. Vimla, burnt her. (3) The prosecution, in support of her case, examined eleven witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. Thereafter Sahab Ram took Smt. Vimla to the hospital.Kalu Ram, in order to kill Smt. Vimla, burnt her. (3) The prosecution, in support of her case, examined eleven witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred this appeal. (4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that (i) from the evidence Produced by the prosecution it has been established that the deceased put herself to the fire as she wanted to commit suicide and the appellant tried to extinguish the fire and in that process he got burn-injuries; (ii) the prosecution has not produced the investigation officer Ravi Kumar and therefore the dying declara- tion Ex.P. 25 made by the deceased before him, does not stand proved;(iii) Ex. P.21, the second dying declaration, made by the deceased before Additional Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar is a tainted one as it is a result of tutoring and was made at the instance of the investigating officer and (iv) PW.5 Indu has supported the case of the accused- appellant and she has not been decla- red hostile and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her and no case against the appellant stands proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. (4A). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5) Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties,we would first like to consider the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eleven witnesses.PW.1 Sahab Ram, PW.2 Makkhan Singh, PW.3 Indra Devi and PW. (5) Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties,we would first like to consider the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eleven witnesses.PW.1 Sahab Ram, PW.2 Makkhan Singh, PW.3 Indra Devi and PW. 5 Indu are the neighbourers of the accused-appellant who were attracted by the cries of Smt. Vimla and Kalu Ram came at the place of the incident and found Smt. Vimla burning.The accused poured water on Smt. Vimla to extinguish the fire.Thereafter Smt. Vimla was taken to the hospital whereher dying declaration was recoded and she died in the hospital on 27-5-93 at 1.35 p.m. PW.1 Sahab Ram, PW.2 Makkhan Singh and PW.3 Indra have not supported the prosecution case during the trial and they were declared hostile. PW.6 Pooja is the daughter of the deceased who is an eye witness of the occurrence. She has, also, not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. PW.4 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma was the Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, who, on 27.3.93, conducted the post - mor- tem on the corpse of Smt. Vimla. PW.10 Dr. Avinash Sardana was the Medical Officer posted in the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, who attended Smt. Vimla on 23-3-93 when she was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition. He gave the necessary First Aid Treatment to her and in his presence the dying declaration Ex.P.25, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, was recorded by Ravi Kumar the investigating officer at 11.05 p.m. He is, also, a witness to the dying declaration Ex.P.21 recorded by PW.7 Shri Vinod Kumar Bharwani, Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, on 23-3-93 at 11.45 p.m. Remaining are the police witnesses,who were connected with the investigation at one stage or the another. PW.8 Mahaveer was the Foot Constable posted at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, who took the incriminating sealed articles for FSL examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on 27-5-93. PW. PW.8 Mahaveer was the Foot Constable posted at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, who took the incriminating sealed articles for FSL examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on 27-5-93. PW. 9 Makkhan Singh Head Constable was the Incharge of the Malkhana of the Police Station, with whom the incriminating articles were deposited in a sealed condition by the investigating officer which remained in his custody in the same sealed condition till 27-5-93 when he handed-over these articles to PW.8 Mahaveer, FC PW.11 Kashi Ram was the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR on the basis of the dying declaration Ex. P.25. (6) There was only one eye witness to the occurrence, viz. PW.6 Miss Pooja, who has not supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses, who were the neighbourers and came at the place of the incident immediately after the incident and saw the deceased burning and who brought Smt. Vimla to the hospital, also, not supported the prosecution case. (7) The prosecution case mainly rests upon the dying declaration made by deceased Smt. Vimla first before the police, on the basis of which the FIR was regi- stered and second dying declaration was made by the deceased before PW.7 Shri Vinod Kumar Bharwani the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. The dying declarations are accepted in evidence and a conviction can be based upon the dying declaration (s) provided it is true and voluntary and is not the result of tutoring or prompting.The dying declarations are accepted in evidence on the basis of the principle that a dying person will not meet his maker with a lie in his/her mouth. It has, therefore, to be seen : whether the dying declaration Ex.P.21 is true and voluntary and whether it answers all the tests which are required to be applied for the acceptance of a dying declaration? It has, therefore, to be seen : whether the dying declaration Ex.P.21 is true and voluntary and whether it answers all the tests which are required to be applied for the acceptance of a dying declaration? (8) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the dying declaration Ex.P. 25 has not been proved as the person who recorded the same, has not been produced in evidence; and the second dying declaration Ex.P.21 is the result of tutoring as it has come in the evidence that the police asked the dece- ased that if she will give the statement as given in Ex.P.25 then a criminal case will be registered against her and, therefore, an improvement has been made in the later dying declaration Ex.P.21 implicating the accused-appellant. We do not find any merit in these submissions. There is no change in the substratum of the dying declarations.The basic feature of the dying declaration is the same.Deceased Smt. Vimla in her dying declaration Ex.P. 25, has stated that the accused- appellant poured Kerosene over her and gave the match-box to her to lit the fire. She tried to lit the fire but failed.Thereafter the accused took the match-box from her and lit fire. In the later dying declaration Ex.P.21 the version given by the deceased is that the accused sprinkled Kerosene over her and thereafter lit the fire. In both the dying declaration it has,also,been stated that the deceased was living with the accused-appellant as a concubine and she was asked by the accused-appellant to give him Rs. 1000/- by selling ear-rings which she refused and thereafter the accused put her to five by sprinkling Kerosene and litting the fire.There is, therefore, neither any improvement made in the dying declaration Ex. P.21 from that of Ex.P.25 nor Ex.P.21 appears to be a product of tutoring, prompting or imagination.Ex.P.21 has been properly recorded by the learned Magistrate after ascertaining the condition of Smt. Vimal from PW.10 Dr. Arvind Sardana whether she was in a fit condition to make the dying declaration and only after the clearance given by the doctor that the injured is in a fit condition to give statement, the learned Magistrate recorded her dying declaration Ex. P.21. The dying declaration Ex.P. 21 recorded by the learned Magistrate is a narration of the events which took place and how the deceased was put to fire. P.21. The dying declaration Ex.P. 21 recorded by the learned Magistrate is a narration of the events which took place and how the deceased was put to fire. It is most natural narration of the facts and is true and voluntary. It is neither a product of imagination nor it appears to be a prompted or tutored version.Since the dying declaration Ex.P.21 is a true and volu- ntary and had been properly recorded it inspires confidence. When there are more than one dying declarations then the first in time should be given preference but in the case when the subsequent dying declaration has been recorded by a Magistrate then that should be given preference if it inspires confidence and is true and voluntary.In the present case we are of the opinion that the dying declaration Ex.P. 21 recorded by PW7 Shri Vinod Kumar Bharwani,A.M.J.M No 1 Sri Ganganagar, is voluntary and true and is not the result of any tutoring or prompting or of imagination and inspires confidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in relying upon this dying declaration. (9) The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was a Suicidal attempt of deceased Smt. Vimla which resulted in the burn-injuries and the appellant tried to save her by extinguishing the fire and in that attempt he received burn-injuries on his hands. We do not find any merit in this submission. PW.6 Pooja, who has, though, been declared hostile but her whole evidence cannot be wiped-off from record.She has stated that it was her father,i.e., accused- appe- llant Kalu Ram who burnt her mother Smt. Vimla.The circumstances produced by the prosecution clearly indicate that the appellant was the person who sprinkled Kerosene over Smt. Vimla and lit the fire and when she was burnt to some extent and cries which attracted the neighbourers and who came at the place of the occurrence then the appellant tried to extinguish the fire. Sahab Ram thereafter took Smt. Vimla to the hospital and the appellant, also,accompanied her and spent some money on her treatment.It was Sahab Ram a rickshaw puller and a neighbourer who took Smt. Vimla to the hospital and the appellant went there only for the company as he was found at the place of the incident and had no opportunity to rescue.Merely because the appellant received burn- injuries on his hands will not make the incident as a case of commission of suicide by the deceased. She had no reason to commit suicide as she was living alongwith her daughter Pooja with the appellant out of her sweet will. Only three days before, this house was taken and she was requesting the appellant to take her to the appellants house which the appellant was avoiding.On the day of the incident she tried to force him to take her to that house and that might be the bone of contention.Therefore, there was no reason with the deceased to commit suicide.It is not a case of commission of suicide by the deceased and the efforts of the appellant to save her but in the present case the appellant first tried to put Smt. Vimla to fire and when the neigh- bourers came there, he tried to extinguish the fire in order to convert the case in to that of suicide.The judgments in:State of Gujarat vs. Mohan Bhai Raghubhai Patel and Anr.(1) and Ira Ghosh(Smt.) and Arn. vs. State (2),relied-upon by the learned counsel for the appellant,are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the present case. In these Case the accused had no motive and they tried to extinguish the fire; while in the present case the accused-appellant first sprinkled the Kerosene and lit the fire and when Smt.Vimlawas sufficiently burnt and cried which attracted the neighbourers who came at the place of the incident that the appellant tried to extinguish the fire.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is therefore, devoid of any substance. (10) The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the investigating officer Ravi Kumar has not been produced in evidence which has prejudiced the case of the appellant as the right of the appellant to cross-examine Ravi Kumar has been denied. (10) The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the investigating officer Ravi Kumar has not been produced in evidence which has prejudiced the case of the appellant as the right of the appellant to cross-examine Ravi Kumar has been denied. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in : Rakesh Kumar @ Sachadeva @ Deva vs. State (Delhi Administration) (3)the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any substance. It has been held by Honble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumars case that non-examination of the investigating officer does not, in any way,affect the prosecution case nor prejudiced the appellant in his defence as nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses wherefrom it could be said that the investigating officers production was essentially required to give an opportunity to the defence to cross-examine him with reference to the statements recorded by him under Sec. 161 CrPC or any steps taken by him during the investigation. It is true that the production of the investigating officer in evidence is necessary for proving the state- ments recorded by him if there are some contradictions.The prosecution, in the present case, made every effort to produce Ravi Kumar, the investigating officer, in evidence Ex.P.25 was recorded by Ravi Kumar, on the basis of which the FIR was registered.That statement was recorded in the presence of PW.10 Dr. Avinash Sardana and he has proved that dying declaration.Even if this dying declaration is ignored because the investigating officer Ravi Kumar has not been produced in evidence, still there remains the dying declartion Ex.P.21 recorded by PW.7 Shri Vinod Kumar Bharwani, the learned Magistrate, which gives the clear narration of the fact and the substratum of the declaration has not been changed and the seriatim in which the facts have been narrated in the dying declaration Ex. P. 21 clearly show that it was true and voluntary and the deceased was in a fit condition to make statement and it inspires confidence.Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to show that on account of non-production of Ravi Kumar in evidence, what prejudice has been caused to the appellant. In this view of the matter,we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of any substance. In this view of the matter,we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of any substance. (11) The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW.5 Indu, who has not been declared hostile, if her statement is properly read, it clearly indicates that it was a case of suicide.We find ourselves unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel to the appellant.PW 5 Indu though has stated that she alongwith her husband Makkhan Singh,was attracted by the cries of accused Kalu Ram and went to the place of the incident, saw Smt. Vimla burning, the accused pouring water over her to extinguish the fire but in the cross- examination she has stated that on enquiry from Smt. Vimla she informed that she herself put her to fire.In the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has admitted that the made the statement Ex.P.18 to the police in which she has stated that on enquiry from Smt. Vimla she informed that Kalu Ram sprinkled Kerosene over her and thereafter lit the fire. In view of these two contradictory statements which she has given, the evidence of this witness that Smt. Vimla tried to commit suicide and put herself to fire, does not inspire confidence and she has said to merely to save her neighbour.She was not declared hostile because she did not give this statement in the examination-in- chief. In this view of the matter,her evidence was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court. (12) The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant.The judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, does not require any interference. (13) In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is here- by dismissed.