Judgment A.S. Godara, J.-This appeal has been filed, under Section 374, CrPC through the jail authorities, by the convict appellants against the Judgment and order dated 29-1-1993 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 200/-and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story relevant for the present decision is as follows: Smt. Santara (deceased) was married to the appellant about 15 years prior to the incident which took place on 9-5-199 1 at about 8 AM Besides PW. 6 Kum. Sunita aged 10 years, two more daughters were born out of their wedlock. PW. 3 Anwar and PW. 4 Trilok are brothers of the appellant. PW. 2 Smt. Mohani is their mother. The appellant was living in Pattipeda, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. The appellant often meted out cruel and torturous treatment to his wife (deceased) and used to beat her. .3. On 9-5-199 1 at about 8 AM, while Smt. Santara was at her house, the appellant was in a State of drunkenness and he started abusing her and, lastly, he poured a tin full of Kerosene on Smt. Santara and he lit a match-stick and set Smt. Santara ablaze and as a result she was seriously burnt. She cried and as a result, PW. 2 Mohani, who was living in the neighbouring house along with her another son PW. 3, Anwar, as well as neighbours came to the spot. Smt. Santara was taken to the P.B. M. Hospital, Bikaner in a serious and burn .condition. She was immediately admitted as an indoor patient. 4. PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh, Inspector of Police, who was also Officer in charge of the Police Station, Kotagate, Bikaner, was informed by PW. 3 Anwar on telephone that the appellant had set ablaze his wife Smt. Santara and, on this information, Tribhuwan Singh, inimediately accompanied by the staff members, left for the place of occurrence. He found that Smt. Santara was removed to the hospital and, therefore, he immediately reached the P.B.M. Hospital at 9.10 AM He found that Smt, Santara was admitted in the Surgical (Burn) Unit. He found that Smt. Santara was removed to the hospital and, therefore, he immediately reached the P.B.M. Hospital at 9.10 AM He found that Smt, Santara was admitted in the Surgical (Burn) Unit. He immediately recorded her statement Exhibit-P- 13 in which she clearly stated that the appellant was displeased with her and she was told that he would bring another wife though she was married to him 15 years back and three children were born out of their wedlock. On the fateful date her husband had set her ablaze after dousing her in Kerosene. 5. On the basis of Exhibit-P-13, an FIR under Section 307, IPC was registered and investigation was taken up by Tribhuwan Singh. 6. PW. 1 Dr. P. N. Mathur, Medical Jurist, attended Smt. Santara and at about 9.30 AM he prepared Medicolegal Report Exhibit-C. 1 and he observed as follows:-Superficial & deep burns of various degrees on face, neck anteriorly and posterior, abdomen anteriorly and posteriorly, both upper extremeties, both thighs anteriorly except few patches left involving about 70 to 75 % of total body surface. Scalp hairs, eye brows, anxillary hairs are singed. Sooty-blackening present at places in burnt areas. Kerosene like small present. 7. PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh deputed Rewat Ram, A.S.I. and sent him, along with Exhibit-P-14, to request the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, PW. 9 Madhu Sudan Shastri to record dying declaration of Smt. Santara. Tribhuwan Singh himself went to the place of occurrence and he inspected the site and Exhibit-P- 9 site plan was prepared. He found many burnt pieces of clothes lying scattered in the central open space of the house. He seized the burnt-clothes as well as wine vide Exhibit-P- 10 seizure memo and packed and sealed the same on the spot. The appellant was arrested on 9-5-199 1 vide Exhibit-P- 15 arrest memo. 8. PW. 11 Dr. S. K. Trehan, who was posted in the Surgical Unit-3 of the P.B.M. Hospital Bikaner, attended to Smt. Santara and, on enquiry from Smt. Santara, he was told by her that her husband had burnt her and this statement of her’s was recorded in Exhibit-P- 24 Bed Head Ticket at A to B in his own hand. She was treated by PW. 11 Dr. Trehan as well as PW. 10 Dr. MM Bagadi, Associate Professor, who was also In-charge of the Surgical Unit-3. Dr. She was treated by PW. 11 Dr. Trehan as well as PW. 10 Dr. MM Bagadi, Associate Professor, who was also In-charge of the Surgical Unit-3. Dr. Bagadi attended to her from time to time and also prescribed medicines and treatment as are noted in Exhibit-P- 24. He also confirmed the statement A to B of Exhibit-P- 24, as recorded by Dr. Treha 9. PW. 9 Madhu Sudan Shastri, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, before whom Rewat Ram presented Exhibit-P- 19 report at 11.30 AM on 9-5-1991 and consequently, Madhu Sudan Shastri, proceeded to the hospital and reached Surgical Unit-3, wherein Smt. Santara was admitted on Bed No. 22. He contacted PW. 11 Dr. Trehan at 12.25 PM and enquired whether Smt. Santara was in a fit condition to get her statement recorded but he was told by the Medical Officer that she was under sedation so she was not in a position to give any statement and it was further told that she might regain her consciousness at about 5 PM when she might be fit to give her statement. Shri Shastri again went to the hospital at 5 PM but he was again told by the same medical officer that she might regain her consciousness by 7.30 PM Shri Shastri again contacted the hospital authorities at 8.15 p. m. and, lastly, he was told by Dr. Trehan that Smt. Santara was in a fit condition to get her statement recorded and, on this certification, he started recording statement of Smt. Santara at 8.22 PM which is Exhibit-P- 21 and the same was completed at 8.35 PM Smt. Santara, while under examination in the form of questions and answer by PW. 9 Shri Shastri, clearly stated that her husband appellant poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze by lighting a match stick. She also stated that the appellant was a drunkard and often used to quarrel with her and beat her often and he also picked up a quarrel with her after being in a state of drunkenness in the same morning who also told her that he would be bringing a second wife. 10. Dr. Bagadias well as Dr. Trehan both found that Smt. Santara had received burns 80% on her body and PW. 1 Dr. Mathur opined in Exhibit-C. 1 that she was burnt to the extent of 70 to 75%. 10. Dr. Bagadias well as Dr. Trehan both found that Smt. Santara had received burns 80% on her body and PW. 1 Dr. Mathur opined in Exhibit-C. 1 that she was burnt to the extent of 70 to 75%. Smt. Santara being under treatment, as above, expired on 10-5-199 1 at 5. 45AM 11. The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was performed by a Medical Board of three Medical Officers which also included PW. 1 Dr. Mathur. The Board, on examination of her body, found the burns as are noted in Exhibit-P- 1, Exhibit-P- 24 B.H.T. and it was opined that the deceased who had received not less than 70 to 75% burns all over her body, died as a result of shock caused due to burns which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. 10.12. The case was converted from one under Section 307, IPC to under Section 302, IPC 113. After completion of investigation, the accused-appellant was challenged under Section 302, IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, who in turn, committed it to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner. .14. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who commenced the trial against the accused-appellant for the .commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence the trial was completed. 115. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses besides exhibiting Exhibit-P- 1 to Exhibit-P- 24-B. 116. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313, CrPC who did not deny the death of his wife after having been so burnt, but he denied the prosecution story that he had set her ablaze and he had caused her death. On the contrary, he pleaded that he was at his shop situated at K.E.M. Road, Bikaner whereat he was informed of the incident and he immediately rushed to the hospital whereat Smt. Santara was admitted. Thus he has pleaded alibi. He examined D.W. 1 Karan Singh who also is a shoe-repairer and carried on his vocation of shoe-repairs out side the shop of the appellant. 117. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge relying on the dying declarations Exhibit-P- 13, Exhibit-P- 24 and Exhibit-P- 21 as recorded by PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh, PW. 11, Dr. Trehan and PW. He examined D.W. 1 Karan Singh who also is a shoe-repairer and carried on his vocation of shoe-repairs out side the shop of the appellant. 117. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge relying on the dying declarations Exhibit-P- 13, Exhibit-P- 24 and Exhibit-P- 21 as recorded by PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh, PW. 11, Dr. Trehan and PW. 9 Madhu Sudan Shastri, respectively held the appellant guilty of causing intentional death of his wife Smt. Santara. As a result, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as above, and hence this appeal. 118. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the impugned Judgment along with the case record and considered the same carefully. 119. It may be stated at the very out set that, as usually happens in such case, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence supporting the prosecution case. Though PW. 2 Mohani and PW. 3 Anwar as well as PW. 6 Kum. Sunita being mother, brother and daughter of the appellant, were examined as eyewitnesses but, as is revealed, because of their relationship and the circumstances, they have resiled from their police statement and instead they have denied to have been the appellant setting Smt. Santara ablaze and stated that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. They have been declared hostile and were allowed to be cross-examined by the learned public prosecutor. 120. PW. 1 Dr. Mathur, PW. 10 Dr. Bagadi and PW. 11 Dr. Trehan are the Medical Officers. Therefore, the decision mainly rests on the three dying declarations made by Smt. Santara before PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh, PW. 11 Dr. Trehan and PW. 9 Madhu Sudan Shastri, the same being Exhibit-P- 13, Exhibit-P- 24 (A to B) and Exhibit-P- 21 respectively. 121. As regards violent and unnatural death by way of burns received by Smt. Santara, the same is not a subject matter of serious dispute in this appeal. 19.22. Smt. Santara was examined by PW. 1 Dr. Mathur, Medical Jurist, at 9.30 AM on 9-5-199 1 and he noticed burns, as are detailed hereinbefore and as a result 70 to 75% part of the body of the deceased received burns and was burnt as such. 19.22. Smt. Santara was examined by PW. 1 Dr. Mathur, Medical Jurist, at 9.30 AM on 9-5-199 1 and he noticed burns, as are detailed hereinbefore and as a result 70 to 75% part of the body of the deceased received burns and was burnt as such. He also opined that the burns so received from dry-heat which were dangerous to one’s life, and he also prepared Exhibit-P-C-1 M.L.R. This was not challenged while he was under cross-examination during the trial. Dr. Mathur was also a Member of the Medical Board constituted for performing autopsy of the dead body of Smt. Santara on 10-5-1991. He has opined that the Board conducted post-mortem of the dead body at 12.40 PM and found her body so burnt as is noted in Ex. C-1 as well as Exhibit-P- 24. He has stated that, in the opinion of the Board, the deceased having received burns to the extent of not less than 70 to 75%, had died of such burns resulting in shock and injuries received by way of burns were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. He also opined that the lyrings and trachea received carbon particles while rest of the organs were healthy. 20.23. PW. 11 Dr. Trehan who was so working in the Surgical Unit-3, stated that Smt. Santara was referred to his unit along with B.H.I. Exhibit-P- 24 by the Casualty Department on 9-5-199 1 and he immediately prescribed treatment. He also summoned the Medical Jurist PW. 1, Dr. Mathur. 224. PW. 10 Dr. Bagadi who was also Medical Officer In-charge, as a Specialist, of the Surgical Unit-3 under whom PW. ii Dr. Trehan was working, stated that Smt. Santara was admitted to his Ward, as above, and he has clearly stated that he had attended to and observed her condition and prescribed varying treatments to her till she succumbed to her burn-injuries at 5.45 AM on 10-5-1991, as are noted in Exhibit-P- 24. 225. PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh prepared ‘Panchayatnama’ Exhibit-P- 4 and Exhibit-P- 5 inquest report, as is supported by PW. 4 Trilok also, which also further strengthens the fact that Smt. Santara had died because of burns-injuries. 226. The appellant also could not deny the fact that Smt. Santara was burnt and admitted to the hospital whereat she lastly succumbed to her burn-injuries and met with an unnatural death. 227. 4 Trilok also, which also further strengthens the fact that Smt. Santara had died because of burns-injuries. 226. The appellant also could not deny the fact that Smt. Santara was burnt and admitted to the hospital whereat she lastly succumbed to her burn-injuries and met with an unnatural death. 227. That being so, there cannot be any valid objection against the conclusion, as also arrived at by the learned trial Judge, that Smt. Santara received burn-injuries to, the extent of not less than 70 to 75% on her body and she, lastly, so died due to such burn-injuries resulting in shock and her ultimate unnatural death. 228. Therefore, the crucial adjudication with which we are left for consideration is whether it was the appellant alone who had set her ablaze as is the prosecution story and as a result the deceased met with her unnatural death. As already discussed hereinbefore, PW. 2 Smt. Mohani, PW. 3 Anwar and PW. 6 Kum. Sunita have turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution that it was the appellant who alone set Smt. Santara ablaze as a result of which she had died. 29. PW. 2 Smt. Mohani stated that at the time of the occurrence while she was in her adjoining house, she heard the cries of Smt. Santara that she was burnt-burnt, and she immediately rushed to her house. She found that Smt. Santara was lying in open space of her house and she immediately poured water over her. She was burnt all over her body. She was accompanied by her son Anwar. She had also gone to the extent of stating that she was told by Smt. Santara that she had herself set her ablaze. On being declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned public prosecutor, she resiled from the previous statement Exhibit-P- 2 given before PW. 8 Tribhuwan Singh wherein she had stated that the appellant had poured Kerosene over the deceased and had set her ablaze. She further stated that she took Smt. Santara to the hospital who was in a speaking condition. She further stated that the appellant was not at his house and he had gone to his shop at about 5 to 5.30 AM. which is, apparently, besides being most unnatural and unbelievable, a false statement motivated will) a view to save her own son. She further stated that the appellant was not at his house and he had gone to his shop at about 5 to 5.30 AM. which is, apparently, besides being most unnatural and unbelievable, a false statement motivated will) a view to save her own son. She has also stated that she was present throughout by the side of the deceased till she died. 30. P.W, 3 Anwar also, while supporting statement of his mother stated that at about 8 or 8.30 AM while he was in his house, he heard the cries of Smt, Santara from her adjoining house who was crying “save-save” in a quite contrast with the statement of his mother, as above. On reaching the spot, he found that Smt. Santara was ablaze and his mother took her to the hospital while he went to PW. 4 Trilok to inform about the incident. Both them have stated that Kum. Sunita was sent to fetch a toffee from the market and was not present at her house. He also stated that he went to Prakash and brought him to his house whereas Prakash himself stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C that he had immediately rushed to the hospital directly from his shop. He also admitted that on reaching the hospital, he saw that Smt. Santara was weeping and crying in the hospital. He has also been contradicted with his police statement Exhibit-P- 3 and he has resiled from his previous statement that the appellant used to beat and maltreat his wife Smt. Santara and that he was told by Smt. Santara at the spot that the appellant had set her ablaze. Both of them have denied that the appellant and the deceased used to often quarrel. 3.31. PW. 6 Kum. Sunita, who is a child witness, ‘although the learned trial Judge, on enquiry, observed that she was an intelligent witness and was in a position to understand the importance of statement and on her examination, without administering her any oath, she stated that they are three sisters and are presently living with their grand-mother PW. 2 Mohani. She stated that she was despatched for bringing some thing from the market and in her absence Smt. Santara set her ablaze after pouring Kerosene on her body and, on her return, she found her mother burnt. She was taken to the hospital by PW. 2 Mohani. She stated that she was despatched for bringing some thing from the market and in her absence Smt. Santara set her ablaze after pouring Kerosene on her body and, on her return, she found her mother burnt. She was taken to the hospital by PW. 2 Smt. Mohani. She has also been cross-examined and she resiled from her previous police statement Exhibit-P-11 but she has throughout maintained that she did not see the appellant setting Smt. Santara ablaze as is the prosecution story. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant did quarrel with the deceased at intervals. They also quarreled a day prior to the date of incident. She further staled that her mother never abused her father and has also denied that the appellant used to drink and as such quarreled with her mother. She also admitted that she was living with her grand-mother along with her sisters. Her grand-mother often told her that since her father was in jail, he had to be got released from there. She was always accompanied to our Court during the course of hearing by her grand mother, as per her own admission. She also further stated that her grand-mother and her uncles often told her that let them go to the Court and get her father released. She was also examined under Section 164, CrPC vide Exhibit-P- 12 statement by PW. 9 Madhu Sudan Shastri, wherein she has deposed as an eye -witness to the occurrence wherein she had clearly stated that the appellant poured Kerosene over the body of the deceased and set her ablaze but, presently, in the above circumstances, he has resiled from her previous statement as L; given in Exhibit-P- 2 before P.W, 9 Madhu Sudan Shastri who has proved the same arid, therefore, having regard to the statement of Kum. Sunita, as above, the possibility cannot be ruled out that she has been prompted by her grind-mother and her uncles who have naturally given her food, shelter and protection thereby not to depose against the appellant. 4.32. PW. 4 Trilok is also younger brother of the appellant and he has stated that he was informed of this incident by PW. 3 Anwar at his shop and he immediately rushed to the hospital whereat he found Smt. Santara admitted who was talking and was crying under pain. Her body was burnt. 4.32. PW. 4 Trilok is also younger brother of the appellant and he has stated that he was informed of this incident by PW. 3 Anwar at his shop and he immediately rushed to the hospital whereat he found Smt. Santara admitted who was talking and was crying under pain. Her body was burnt. He has stated that he went to the hospital along with Prakash appellant in a taxi as is not supported by Prakash appellant himself He also resiled from his previous statement given in Exhibit-P- 8 before the police that the appellant used to drink and often beat his wife Smt. Santara and whenever he was asked to refrain from the same, he often quarrelled with them. He also admitted that Smt. Santara was in a state of semi-consciousness in the hospital and she was also speaking incoherently. He was present in the hospital throughout. 33. Asa result of above discussion of the statements of PW. 2 Mohani, PW. 3 Anwar, PW. 4 Trilok and PW. 6 Kum. Sunita, they are the closest relations of the appellant and since Smt. Santara is dead and PW. 6 Kum. Sunita, being a daughter of the deceased but due to her minority and tender age and there being no body else to look after and maintain her as well as her two minor sisters, she is helplessly under the shelter and protection of her grandmother and uncles. They are all interested in the appellant and have, therefore, resiled from their previous statements given before the police and are apparently highly interested in the appellant and have thus conducted in a manner thereby deposing in favour of the appellant that he was not present at his house and instead he had gone to his shop at about 5 to 5.30 AM which is most unnatural and unreliable. 5.34. Thai being so, we now revert to the dying declarations, the same being the basis of conviction of the appellant, as above. 6.35. Thefirst dying declaration Exhibit-P-13 was immediately recorded by PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh. He has stated that, on being informed by one Anwar on Telephone, he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence wherefrom Smt. Santara was already moved to the P.B.M. Hospital and therefore, he also immediately rushed to the hospital and found that she was admitted in Surgical Unit 3. 7 Tribhuwan Singh. He has stated that, on being informed by one Anwar on Telephone, he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence wherefrom Smt. Santara was already moved to the P.B.M. Hospital and therefore, he also immediately rushed to the hospital and found that she was admitted in Surgical Unit 3. He obtained permission from the attending Medical Officers and thereafter recorded statements of Smt. Santara Exhibit-P- 13 correctly which is signed and endorsed by him in his own hand. 7.36. Now coming to Exhibit-P- 13, Smt. Santara clearly stated/declared that her husband (appellant) came to her house in the morning in a state of drunkenness who is displeased with her. He often told her that many other women are available. She was married to him about 15 years back and as a result three children were born to then). Since the appellant was displeased with her, he set her ablaze about an hour before, after pouring kerosene on her body and lighting a match stick. She cried and, as a result, neighbours were attracted who have brought her to the hospital. 8.37. Hereit is to be noted that she even did not disclose that either PW. 2 Mohani or any body else from the family of the appellant brought her to the hospital. This statement purports to have been recorded on 9-5-199 1 by PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh. He forwarded Exhibit-P-13 statement through Budha Ram to the police station for registration of an FIR. 9.38. Hereit is to be observed, though Tribhuwan Singh did receive a telephonic message, as per his statement, that the person on the other side of the telephone (Anwar) informed him that Prakash (appellant) had killed his wife Smt. Santara by setting her ablaze at his house but he further stated that since the information was not complete in all respects, therefore, he made an entry in the Daily Diary of the Police Station and immediately rushed to the spot. Assuming that the telephonic message was enough to have enabled Tribhuwan Singh to have immediately recorded an FIR and thereafter proceeding for investigation. Assuming that the telephonic message was enough to have enabled Tribhuwan Singh to have immediately recorded an FIR and thereafter proceeding for investigation. It need not be repeated that a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the provisions of Section 162 and, therefore, even if any statement, written or verbal is made by any person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in case in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question, such statement is relevant whether the person who made the statement was or was not, at the time when the same was made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. That being the position, when Smt. Santara, made such a declaration in the form of her dying declaration which is clearly covered by the said provisions, stated vide Exhibit-P- 13 because of the circumstances stated therein her husband (appellant) was displeased with her and was ever representing that since a number of other women were available so he would re-marry with any other lady and so he often gave beatings to her in a state of drunkenness and as such he was often meted out torturous and cruel treatment by her husband (appellant) and, lastly, he got intoxicated in the morning itself on the fateful day and he so set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her. At any rate, as is most natural and usual in such cases, PW. 2 Mohani, PW. 3 Anwar besides her own daughter PW. 6 Sunita did not stand by their previous statements during the course of investigation. They succumbed to the temptation of saving the skin of the appellant since Smt. Santara had already dead (died). 10.39. Even if it is assumed that the telephonic message itself could have been treated as an FIR and thereafter the steps taken by Tribhuwan Singh were to be treated to be proceedings during the course of investigation, that by itself does not affect the veracity and admissibility of statement Exhibit-P- 13 so recorded by PW. 10.39. Even if it is assumed that the telephonic message itself could have been treated as an FIR and thereafter the steps taken by Tribhuwan Singh were to be treated to be proceedings during the course of investigation, that by itself does not affect the veracity and admissibility of statement Exhibit-P- 13 so recorded by PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh, who did not have any ulterior motive or interestedness in the deceased besides being, any how, prejudiced against the appellant and, therefore, his reliability is beyond doubt. 11.40. As stated above, even PW. 2 Mohani, PW. 3 Anwar and PW. 4 Trilok also could not deny that Smt. Santara had not become completely unconscious at the site nor she was so completely unconscious in the hospital when she is stated to have been examined by Tribhuwan Singh vide her statement Exhibit-P- 13. Tribhuwan Singh has clearly stated that he had examined Smt. Santara as per Exhibit-P- 13 and none-else was there to have prompted Smt. Santara to depose falsely against the appellant. PW. 1 Dr. Mathur had attended to Smt. Santara at 9.30 AM while examining her bum-injuries vide Ex. C. 1 and he also noted in Ex. C. 1 itself that she was conscious. Similarly, PW. 10 Dr. Bagadi as well as PW. 11 Dr. Trehan have also stated that at the time of her admission vide Exhibit-P- 24 Smt. Santara was in a state of consciousness. Tribhuwan Singh has clearly stated that he had sought permission from the team of Medical Officers attending to Smt. Santara who had opined that she was in a fit state of mind to get her statement recorded and thereafter he proceeded to examine her vide Exhibit-P- 13 and, therefore, on the basis of the totality of the evidence available, she was brought under sedation since she was under great pain and even after administering her medicine of pain-relief , she was administered sedatives to make her unconscious, after 9.30 AM when she was also, lastly, medically examined by PW. 1 Dr. Mathur vide Exhibit-C, 1 as well. 1.41. 1 Dr. Mathur vide Exhibit-C, 1 as well. 1.41. That being so, when Smt. Santara was lying admitted and was immediately so examined vide Exhibit-P-13 and the same statement clearly reveals circumstances in which she was aroused with kerosene by the appellant and further she was immediately set ablaze by the appellant himself and, as a result, her’s being burnt and, therefore, there is no material omission or contradiction much less any improbability in her statement which does not connect the appellant with the unnatural and violent death of Smt. Santara. Although Tribhuwan Singh has not recorded statement of Smt. Santara in the form of questions and answers nor did he get Exhibit-P-13 attested by the Medical Officer along with the certificate of her fitness regarding her being in a fit state of mind to give statement but, having regard to the totality of facts, there were number of Medical Officers including PW. 1 Dr. Mathur, PW. 10 Dr. Bagadi and PW. 11 Dr. Trehan who have stated that she was not unconscious before 9.30 AM before sedatives were administered to her and, therefore, besides, when there are two more corroborating dying declarations as proved by PW. 11 Dr. Trehan as well as PW. 10 Dr. Bagadi besides PW. 9 Madhu y Sudan Shastri, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in the form of A to B Exhibit-P- 24 and Exhibit-P- 13, no valid objection about the admissibility and truthfulness ot Exhibit-P- 13 can be entertained. 2.42. Asregards admissibility of a dying declaration recorded by police officer, in the circumstances noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Betal Singh vs. State of M.P. (1996) 4 SCC 203 , has observed that the dying declaration should be scrutinised very carefully and if the Court is satisfied after such scrutiny that the dying declaration was true and was free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make such a statement and the same is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in founding (finding) the conviction on the basis of such statement. It was further observed that the position does not change even if such a dying declaration is put forward in a bride-burning case whether or not it has been recorded by the police officer during investigation. It was further observed that the position does not change even if such a dying declaration is put forward in a bride-burning case whether or not it has been recorded by the police officer during investigation. It was observed in paras 14 and 15 of the same as below:-It is true that in Munnu Raja vs. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104 : 1976 CriLJ 1718 this Court has struck a note of caution that the investigating officers, who are naturally interested in the success of the investigation, ought to be discouraged in recording the dying declarations, during the course of investigation. However, in Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 332 : 1979 CriLJ 700 this Court noticed the above observation and pointed out that it is not meant to suggest that such dying declarations are always untrustworthy. Their Lordships observed : (SCC 335, Para 8) We do not mean to suggest that such dying declarations are always untrustworthy, but what we want to emphasize 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. Legal position remains unaltered that dying declaration should be scrutinised very carefully and if the Court is satisfied after such scrutiny that the dying declaration was true and was free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make such a statement and is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in founding (finding) the conviction on it, Kusa vs. State of Orissa (1980) 2 SCC 207 :1980 CriLJ 408. The position does not change even if such a dying declaration is put forward in a bride-burning case whether or not it has been recorded by the police officer during investigation. (State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (1988) Supp SCC 704 : 1989 CriLJ 95, Paniben vs. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 : 1992CriLJ 2919, Charipalli Shankararaovs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 24 : AIR 1995 SC 777 . 3.43. (State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (1988) Supp SCC 704 : 1989 CriLJ 95, Paniben vs. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 : 1992CriLJ 2919, Charipalli Shankararaovs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 24 : AIR 1995 SC 777 . 3.43. In this view of the matter, the decisions rendered in Bashir Shah vs. State of Rajasthan 1994 CriLR (Raj) 610 : 1994 CriLJ 2526 in which it was held that since the Head Constable recording dying declaration did not observe the compliance of provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 as laid down in its Rule 6.22 and besides the same being not reliable, the same were disbelieved and hence, as has ‘ been authoritatively so held in the case of Betan Singh ( 1996 (4) SCC 203 ) (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and, in the present case, there are two more dying declarations in addition to one recorded by PW. 7 Tribhuwan Singh in the form of Exhibit-P- 13 and, therefore, Exhibit-P- 13 statement cannot be brushed aside on any ground whatsoever. So also there being overwhelming evidence by the Medical Officers as is borne out of the statement of PW. 1 Dr. Mathur, PW. 10 Dr. Bagadi and PW. 11 Dr. Trehan, the patient was conscious and in a state of fit condition to have giv