JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 30, 1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 1/1992 convicting the appellant Dilip Singh under Section 302 IPC and the appellant Smt. Magan Kanwar under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to a pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The other co-accused, namely : Richpal Singh and Bhanwar Singh were acquitted of all the charges and the appellants were also acquitted of the remaining charges framed against them.2-3. The case relates to the murder of Smt. Om Kanwar, wife of co-accused Bhanwar Singh, who succumbed to her extensive burn injuries sustained by her at her in-laws house in village Sarwadi. In brief, the prosecution case was that the appellant Sent. Magan Kanwar, mother-in-law of the deceased, sprinkled kerosene on her clothes and the appellant Dalip Singh, her `Dewar' (husband's younger brother) set fire on her clothes. The shocking part of the prosecution case is that all the family members of her in-laws left Smt. Om Kanwar unattended in the house. P.W. 12 Bhanwar Singh a neighbour, having come to know that Smt. Om Kanwar was lying unattended in her in-laws' house with burn injuries went to the police station Losal and orally informed the police about this fact at about 12.45 p.m. on the day of incident i.e. on September 30, 1991. On getting information, Head Constable Mahaveer Singh (P.W. 1) along with police constable Riyasat Ali (P.W. 10) came to village Sarwadi and found Smt. Om Kanwar in Govt. Dispensary with burn injuries. As no doctor was available in the Dispensary at Sarwadi, she was taken to Government Hospital Losal where she was admitted as indoor patient P.W. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh was posted there as Medical Officer. He was requested by the Head Constable to record dying declaration of Smt. Om Kanwar as her condition was precarious. Head Constable Mahaveer Singh also recorded Parcha Bayan of Smt. Om Kanwar in the hospital itself at 2.40 p.m. which is Ex.P/1 on the record. Ratan Singh was posted there as Medical Officer. He was requested by the Head Constable to record dying declaration of Smt. Om Kanwar as her condition was precarious. Head Constable Mahaveer Singh also recorded Parcha Bayan of Smt. Om Kanwar in the hospital itself at 2.40 p.m. which is Ex.P/1 on the record. In her statement, she narrated the incident as under:- " ipkZ c;ku Jherh vksedaoj iRuh Jh Hkaoj flag tkfr&jktiwr] mez 25 o"kZ fuoklh&ljcM+h] gky jk0fp0 yksly us nj;kQ~r ij c;ku fn;k fd vkt fnukad 30-9-91 lqcg djhc 10 cts fnu dh ckr gS eSa ?kj esa pkSd ds vUnj cSBh Fkh esjk ifr MkcM+h x;k gqvk Fkk ihNs ls eq>s esjh lkl o llqj fjNikyflag o nsoj nyhiflag us ekjihV dh fQj ,d cksry dsjksflu rsy dh esjh lkl ysdj vkbZ tks fd esjs mij diM+ksa esa lHkh us idM+ dj Mky nh fQj esjs nsoj us ekfpl ls vkx yxk nh ftlls esjs iwjs diM+s ty x;s eSaus ckjxksMk fd;k rks iM+kSl dh vkSjrsa vkbZ ftUgksaus vkx cq>kdj eq>s nwljs diM+s iguk;sA esjh 'kknh gq, djhc pkj lky gks x;s gSa esjs dksbZ lUrku Hkh ugha gqbZ gSA esjk ifr Hkaojflag Hkh eq>ls ekjihV djrk Fkk vkt og ?kj ij ugha FkkA vkx ls esjk iwjk 'kjhj ty x;k gS vkt lqcg eq>s [kkus ds fy, Hkh dqN ugha fn;k vc eSa iqfyl ds lkFk yksly vLirky esa vkbZ gwaA egkohjflag " Dr. Ratan Singh attested the above statement. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, Crime No. 99/1991 was registered at Police Station Losal under Sections 307 and 498A IPC vide FIR Ex.P/9.4. P.W. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh Ola, then recorded dying declaration of Smt. Om Kanwar, from 3 to 3.15 p.m. on 30th September. The said dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Dr. Somendra Mohan (P.W. 15) and Compounder Bhagirath Mal (P.W. 2). P.W. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh Ola, then recorded dying declaration of Smt. Om Kanwar, from 3 to 3.15 p.m. on 30th September. The said dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Dr. Somendra Mohan (P.W. 15) and Compounder Bhagirath Mal (P.W. 2). It is Ex.P/2 on the record which reads as under " esjk uke vksedaoj gSA mez 25 o"kZ gSA ifr dk uke Hkaoj flag gSA xkao ljcM+h gSA vkt lqcg 10 cts esjh lkl us ,d cksry dsjkslhu rsy esjs flj ij Mkydj nsoj us ekfpl yxk nhA llqj ?kj ij pkSd esa FkkA vkSj fQj ifr ?kj ij ugha Fkk blls igys Hkh esjs lkFk dbZ ckj lkl] llwj vkSj ifr us ekjihV dh FkhA eq>s fdlh us NqM+k;k ughaA dqN nsj ckn iM+kSl dh efgykvksa us nwljk ?kk?kjk iguk;kA " 5. Injuries of Smt. Om Kanwar were examined at 2.50 p.m. by Dr. Ratan Singh Ola vide injury report Ex.P/4 and he found the following injuries on her body:- "(i) II and III Degree burns present all over body except (i) face, (ii) forehead, eyes (iii) fronts of lower extranties (iv) perineum and pubes. Burns are associated with blisters, vesicles charring and blackening of skin. Skin peeled off at various places and under it erythema present. Hair hanging posteriorly singed from sides, burns affected about 70% of body surface. Burns were caused by flame and are likely to be dangerous to life. (ii) Hair over occipital area of head about 6 x 51/2 cm cut off about 1/2 x 3/4 cm above root in roughly simple sharp circular fashion. Remaining hair on sides of this path not singed." 6. Smt. Om Kanwar died at 3.25 p.m. on the same day and after preparing inquest report (Ex.P 8), autopsy on her dead body was conducted by a Medical Board consisting of Dr. Ratan Singh Ola, Dr. Somendra Mohan and Dr. Brij Mohan Jhaker vide post mortem report Ex.P. 3. At the time of post mortem examination, the above noted injuries were noted and in the opinion of doctors, her cause of death was shock and syncope resulting from burns present all over her body. The burns were ante mortem. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on 9th December, 1991 against the appellants and co-accused Richpal Singh and Bhanwar Singh, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The burns were ante mortem. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on 9th December, 1991 against the appellants and co-accused Richpal Singh and Bhanwar Singh, in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. As the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Sikar vide order dated 19th December, 1991.7. Charges were framed against the accused persons on 2nd January, 1992. Against appellant Dalip Singh charges were framed under Sec. 302 IPC, in alternative under Section 302/34 IPC or 302/120B IPC and 498A IPC while, against appellant Smt. Magan Kanwar charges were framed under Section 302/34, 302/120B and 498A IPC. Similar charges were framed against other co-accused. During trial prosecution examined 15 witnesses to seek conviction of the accused persons. The plea of the accused was of denial and alibi. In defence two witnesses, namely, Bhanwar Lal (D.W. 1) and Mool Chand (D.W. 2) were examined. The trial court, after completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants Dilip Singh and Mst. Magan Kanwar but acquitted the other two-accused from all the charges as stated earlier.8. At the outset we may state that there is no direct evidence in the case and the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence, mainly on two dying declarations of the deceased, i.e. Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 made by deceased to the police and the Medical Officer.9. The law on dying declaration is well settled by various judgments of Apex Court and High Courts of the country. The general rule of Evidence Act is that hear-say evidence is not admissible and it has to be excluded from consideration. Another rule is that before an evidence is read or acted against a party, he/she should have an opportunity for cross-examination. However, Section 32 of the Evidence Act contains exceptions to the general rule of hear-say evidence. Under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, statements made by a person, who is dead, as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of his death comes into question, is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. Under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, statements made by a person, who is dead, as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of his death comes into question, is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. The Section further makes clear that such statement is relevant whether the person who made it was or was not, at the time when it was made, under expectation of death and whatever may be the nature of proceedings in which the case of death comes into question. However, the reliability of such statement should be subjected to a closest scrutiny, considering that it was made in absence of the accused who has no opportunity to test its veracity by cross-examination. If there are more than one dying declaration, then, the court has to scrutinises all the dying declarations to find out if each one of them passes the test of being trustworthy. The court must further find out whether different dying declarations are consistent with each other in material particulars before accepting and relying upon the same. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witness or witnesses testifying to the same is found reliable on careful scrutiny, it becomes very important and reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment, such a dying declaration by itself can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration (see Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1958 SC 22 ) , Lalubhai Devechand Shah v. State of Gujrat ( AIR 1972 SC 1776 ) and State of Assam v. Mafijuddin Ahmed ( AIR 1983 SC 274 ) .10. The statement (Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1) of the deceased Smt. Om Kanwar was recorded by Head Constable Mahaveer Singh (PW. 1) in the hospital at 2.40 p.m. on the very day of incident in order to know as to how extensive burns were sustained by her. As per statement of Mahaveer Singh, he was in-charge of Police Station, Losal on 30th September, 1991, as the Station House Officer (for short SHO) had gone to Sikar on that day. 1) in the hospital at 2.40 p.m. on the very day of incident in order to know as to how extensive burns were sustained by her. As per statement of Mahaveer Singh, he was in-charge of Police Station, Losal on 30th September, 1991, as the Station House Officer (for short SHO) had gone to Sikar on that day. At 12.45 p.m. on that day, one Bhanwar Singh son of Ajeet Singh, Rajput of village Sarwadi came to the police station and informed that Smt. Om Kanwar wife of Bhanwar Singh was lying with burn injuries and, thereafter, he came to village Sarwadi where he found Smt. Om Kanwar in Government Dispensary. He shifted her to the Hospital at Losal where he recorded her `Parcha Bayan' Ex.P 1 in the presence of doctor. This witness, then, proved; `Parcha Bayan' and stated that at portion A to B on it were signatures of Dr. Ratan Singh Ola and it was written by him and contained thumb impression of the deponent Smt. Om Kanwar. In cross-examination, he further stated that condition of Smt. Om Kanwar was serious. The witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but his evidence has not been shattered at all. Nothing is there on the record to suggest even that the witness was having any enmity or malice against the appellants to falsely implicate them by concocting a false statement of Smt. Om Kanwar. There is no evidence also that there was any one to prompt or influence Smt. Om Kanwar to make a false statement against the appellants. In absence of any motive to falsely implicate the appellants in such a serious offence, we find it difficult to disbelieve the stater rent of Shri Mahaveer Singh, Head Constable. On critically examining the statement we find it state forward, firm and convincing. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the statement Ex.P 1 is a voluntary disclosure by Smt. Om Kanwar soon after the incident. In her statement, she has categorically stated that her mother-in-law, the appellant Smt. Magan Kanwar brought a bottle containing kerosene and sprinkled kerosene on her clothes while the appellant Dilip Singh, her `Dewar', set fire on her clothes. She also stated that her clothes were burnt and she cried for help and neighbouring women came there who extinguished the fire and provided her clothes to wear. She also stated that her clothes were burnt and she cried for help and neighbouring women came there who extinguished the fire and provided her clothes to wear. She also stated that her marriage had taken place four years ago and she was having no issue. For her husband, she stated that he, too, be used to beat her but on the day of incident, he was not in the house and that she was not even given food since morning of the incident.11. We find no merit in the argument of Shri Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that such a dying declaration recorded by a police officer should not be accepted for recording conviction. It is true that recording of a dying declaration during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer should not be encouraged as he may be interested in the success of the prosecution but such was not the situation in the present case. Here, the statement of Smt. Om Kanwar was not recorded as a dying declaration but to elicit facts from her about the incident as to how she had sustained burn injuries. As already stated, P.W. 12 Bhanwar Singh conveyed a vague information to the police, and pursuant to that Mahaveer Singh, H.C. came to the village and recorded statement of Smt. Om Kanwar after getting her admitted. In the Hospital at Losal, as she was left unattended by her in-laws. Her statement was recorded as First Information Report (FIR). After her death, this statement was admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as a dying declaration. This legal position is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the appellants. The statement of P.W. 1 Mahaveer Singh gets corroboration from the statement of P.W. 12 Bhanwar Singh. A dying declaration made by the deceased cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was made to a Police Officer. The law is clear that a dying declaration made to a police officer, containing full account of an occurrence, can be made basis for conviction if the same is found reliable and trustworthy. (See Surendra Kumar v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, 1987 Cr.LR (SC) 567 .12. Another important piece of evidence in the case is a second dying declaration, Ex.P 2 recorded by PW. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh Ola, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Losal at 3.15 p.m. On the same day. (See Surendra Kumar v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, 1987 Cr.LR (SC) 567 .12. Another important piece of evidence in the case is a second dying declaration, Ex.P 2 recorded by PW. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh Ola, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Losal at 3.15 p.m. On the same day. We have extracted dying declaration Ex.P/2 in earlier part of the judgment. A perusal of the said dying declaration makes it clear that it contains full account of the incident and the part of each of the appellants in setting her fire. She has categorically stated that at 10.00 a.m. In the morning her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene on her clothes and her Dewar, Dilip Singh lit a match box and set fire to her clothes. She also stated that her father-in-law was in chowk of the house while her husband was not there. That earlier also she was given beating by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband and nobody tried to rescue her. That after some time the neighbouring women provided her Ghaghra to wear. PW. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh Ola has deposed that he was Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Losal on 30th September, 1991 and on that day one woman by name Smt. Om Kanwar, aged 25 years, wife of Bhanwar Singh resident of village Sarwadi was admitted in hospital at 2.30 p.m. with burn injuries. He gave treatment to her and seeing her precarious condition he recorded her dying declaration in the presence of Dr. Somendra Mohan Sharma and Compounder Bhagirath Mal. After going through minutely, we find no reason to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Ratan Singh. In his cross-examination also nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants to disbelieve his testimony. Dr. Ola had no animosity against the appellants or any other motive to fabricate this evidence to falsely implicate them. We find that the dying declaration given by Smt. Om Kanwar is a voluntary disclosure and a true account of the Incident. The very fact that she did not implicate her husband or her father-in-law indicates that no attempt was made by her to falsely implicate any person though she was having grievance against both of them.13. The statement of Dr. Ratan Singh Ola is corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Somendra Mohan Sharma (P.W. 15) and Compounder Bhagirath Mal (P.W. 2) Dr. The statement of Dr. Ratan Singh Ola is corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Somendra Mohan Sharma (P.W. 15) and Compounder Bhagirath Mal (P.W. 2) Dr. Somendra Mohan has deposed that Smt. Om Kanwar was admitted in the Hospital with burn injuries and her dying declaration, Ex.P 2, was recorded in his presence and it contains his signature at portion `E to F'. That Smt. Om Kanwal died some time after giving her statement. Similar is the statement of PW. 2 Compounder Bhagirath Mal.Their evidence is not shattered in any manner in their cross-examination and we find no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Both Dr. Ratan Singh Ola and Dr. Somendra Mohan Sharma are responsible Medical Officers knowing their duties well. We find that they acted wisely in recording dying declaration of the deceased looking to her precarious condition. The fact that Smt. Om Kanwar died after few minutes of recording of her statement shows the imminent necessity of recording her dying declaration. If Dr. Ratan Singh had not taken timely steps in recording her statement a very important piece of evidence may have been left out in the case.14. Mr. Biri Singh assailed the second dying declaration on two counts. Firstly, that there was no necessity to record it when Head Constable Mahavir Singh had already recorded her Parcha Bayan. In our view, this argument has no substance. The Head Constable did not record her statement as a dying declaration but for the purposes of the registration of case as a FIR. Even otherwise, a dying declaration recorded by a doctor stands on a better footing than one recorded by a police officer. The second criticism was that the deceased had 70% burns all over her body and she died after few minutes of recording her second dying declaration as such, she could not be in a fit mental condition to make a statement. This argument is without any basis as nothing has been brought in cross-examination of the two doctors to elucidate that the deponent was not in a fit mental condition to make a statement. In Suresh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCC 32 ) the victim had sustained 100% burns of second degree and her dying declaration was recorded by Dr. Bhargava in the hospital. The evidence on record also disclosed that while Dr. In Suresh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCC 32 ) the victim had sustained 100% burns of second degree and her dying declaration was recorded by Dr. Bhargava in the hospital. The evidence on record also disclosed that while Dr. Bhargava was recording her statement, the victim had started going into coma, yet, the Apex Court accepted the dying declaration made by the victim to Dr. Bhargava. In Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (1993) 2 SCC 684 ] the dying declaration was acted upon in a case where the victim had intensive burns to the extent of 90%.15. After going through the statements of P.W. 3 Dr. Ratan Singh Ola, P.W. 15 Dr. Somendra Mohan Sharma and Compounder Bhagirath Mal, we are satisfied that dying declaration Ex.P/2 was made by Smt. Om Kanwar in a fit mental condition. We are also satisfied that her statement was voluntary and contained true account of the incident. In our view, the learned trial court committed no error in convicting and sentencing the appellants relying upon the two dying declarations, namely, Ex.P/1 recorded by the Head Constable Mahaveer Singh and Ex.P/2 recorded by Dr. Ratan Singh Ola. The conduct of the appellants leaving the victim un-attended with burn injuries is also serious one.Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and It is, hereby dismissed. *******