N. C. Jain, J.- The appellant has been found guilty for murdering his wife Lili Boro. After recording the verdict of guilt against the appellant and after convicting him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for rife and to pay a fine of Rs. Rs.2,000/- in default. of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the said judgment dated 3.11.94. 2. The prosecution story, as has been unfolded in the First Information Report recorded at the instance of Gunindra Mohan Gogoi, Sub Inspector of Police of Fatasil Ambari Police Station (PW 9), is that the accused was married with the victim about 2 months back. The family members of the appellant were against the marriage and that on 13th of December, 1991 at about 12 noon the appellant was wanting to leave for his home by packing up his luggage when the victim protested and obstructed him for leaving. The appellant thereupon poured kerosine oil on the body of Lili Boro and set her on fire with a View to killing and as a result of which the victim suffered burn injuries on her whole body. The case was initially registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was mentioned by the aforesaid Sub Inspector to the Officer In-charge in the First Information Report that he had already taken up the investigation of the case. After the death of the victim the case was converted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant after trial has been found guilty. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced PW 1 Dr. HK Mahanta, PW 2 Smti Urmila Patowary - a nurse of the hospital, PW 3 Amrit Kalita - a witness of Inquest Report, PW 4 Bhabani Das, PW 5 Soneswar Kumar, PW 6 Dhruba Boro, PW 7 Smti Niru Kumari, PW 8 Pradip Boro, the brother of the deceased and PW 9 Gunindra Mohan Gogoi at whose instance the First Information Report was recorded. In addition thereto Ext 1 - Dying Declaration, Ext 2 - Inquest Report and Ext 3 - Seizure List were produced, 4. PW 1, Dr. In addition thereto Ext 1 - Dying Declaration, Ext 2 - Inquest Report and Ext 3 - Seizure List were produced, 4. PW 1, Dr. HK Mahanta performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he stated that the burn wounds were dermo-epidermal to deep burn in character and covered about 90% of the body surface. Death in his opinion was caused due to shock on account of burning of 90% of the body surface. He further stated that 90% burn injuries are invariably fatal. In cross-examination he stated that he did not mention the percentage of burn on the face and that the woman was in a position to talk. 5. PW 2, Smti Urmila Patowary stated that on 13.12.91 she was in the operation theatre of Chatribari Christian Hospital when a burnt female patient was brought by police accompanied by other persons. She further stated that the patient told before the police that her husband by pouring kerosine oil set her in flames and that the police recorded the statement of the patient in her presence. The hands and fingers of the patient were burnt. This witness further stated that she signed as an witness on the statement given by the victim as was written by the police and that the said statement was Ext 1 and Ext 1 (1) was her signature. In cross-examination the nurse stated that the patient was in the emergency room when statement was recorded and that attendants could come up to the emergency room but outsiders were not allowed to enter the operation theatre. She did not remember the time when the patient was brought to the hospital. On further cross-examination, she stated that she might have been brought between 1.20 PM to 2 PM and that dressing was done at about 2 PM. No outsider was present when dressing was done. Police came when the dressing was being done. No doctor was present and that the patient was under her care. The fingers, according to her, were burnt but the same were intact. It was further stated by this witness that the victim received 90% burn injuries and that she permitted the police to record the statement and that at that time 3 other patients were present. No doctor was present and that the patient was under her care. The fingers, according to her, were burnt but the same were intact. It was further stated by this witness that the victim received 90% burn injuries and that she permitted the police to record the statement and that at that time 3 other patients were present. It was further stated by this witness that she, another person and the police personnel were present at the time of recording the statement, but she did not know the name of the other persons and that after reading Ext 1 she put her signature. The witness denied the suggestion that she was not present when Ext 1 was written/recorded. In the end the witness stated that the doctor was summoned but before he could arrive, the statement of the victim was recorded by the police. 6. PW 3, Amrit 'Kalita is a formal witness to the Inquest Report - Ext 2 which bears his signature as Ext 2 (1). No significant question was put to him in the cross-examination. 7. PW 4, Smti Bhabani Das stated that the house of the deceased Lili Boro was situated at the top of the hill. She came out running from her house after hearing the hue and cry and witnessed certain people bringing Lili Boro from the top. She saw burn injuries over the body of the victim and her wearing apparels were also burnt. This witness and one Soneswar Kumar took the victim to Chatribari Hospital and that she was in a condition to speak. The victim told the nurse that Kapil Kalita had burnt her and that the witness was present when the statement was made before the nurse and that the police personnel were also present. She stated in clear terms that the police recorded the statement of Lili Boro who died the next day. In cross-examination it has been admitted by this witness that before the marriage the appellant used to stay as a tenant in the house of Lili Boro the deceased and that the statement of the deceased was recorded as soon as they arrived at the hospital. Doctor was not present at that time but the nurse was present. She did not know if the doctor arrived later on. According to her some 20/25 persons brought down Lili Boro from her house. Doctor was not present at that time but the nurse was present. She did not know if the doctor arrived later on. According to her some 20/25 persons brought down Lili Boro from her house. On further cross-examination she stated that when the statement was being recorded, she, Soneswar, nurse and police were present there. She did not know as to how much time the police took in recording the statement as she was not aware of time and watches. According to her there were no burn injuries on the hand of Lili Boro. The statement of the deceased was not read over to her. The witness denied the suggestion that Lili Boro did not make any statement and that it was not a fact that she had put her thumb impression later on. 8. PW 5, Soneswar Kumar is another witness who went to the hospital is a witness to the dying declaration. He stated that he knew the accused and his wife and that Lili Boro's house was situated near his house. At about 12 noon he came out of the house after hearing hue and cry and saw some women bringing down Lili Boro in half burnt condition. On their request he along with Smti Bhabani Das took the victim to Chatribari Hospital. Thereafter some time the police came and asked Lili Boro as to what happened to her upon which she stated that Kapil Kalita by pouring kerosine oil set her on fire. The police asked this witness to sign the statement and he put his signature as Ext 1 (2). On the next day Smti Lili Boro died in the hospital. He further stated that the police seized one gallon, one mosquito net and one Air bag from the house of Kapil Kalita and that Ext 3 was the Seizure List which was signed by him as Ext 3 (1). In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he was related to Lili Boro. He stated that he did not see how Lili Boro caught fire. He further stated that he did not visit the police station and he did not know as to who informed the police. However, he stated that when the statement of Lili Boro was being recorded, he alongwith PW 4 was present. He did hot notice as to whether Lili received burns injuries on her hands. Lili had no parents. He further stated that he did not visit the police station and he did not know as to who informed the police. However, he stated that when the statement of Lili Boro was being recorded, he alongwith PW 4 was present. He did hot notice as to whether Lili received burns injuries on her hands. Lili had no parents. No doctor was present when Lili was brought to hospital but only nurse was present. He further stated that he was present in the hospital for 3 hours and that the police was also present for about 2 1/2 hours. According to him, the police recorded the statement of Lili Boro as soon as they brought her in the hospital and that during that time no doctor visited the patient. He denied the suggestion that Lili did not make any statement. He stated that he left the hospital at about 4 PM and that Lili was brought to the hospital at 1 PM. 9. PW 6, Dhruba Boro was a tenant in the house of Lili Boro. His statement is not much relevant. However, he stated that the accused-appellant is the husband of the deceased Lili Boro. No cross-examination was leveled against him. 10. PW 7, Niru Kumari - a house wife and a neighbour stated that she used to draw water from the house of Lili Boro and that when she came to draw water, cries of Lili Boro were heard and she went inside the house and saw Lili Boro lying on the floor with burn injuries. Kapil was stated to be present standing on the door step. This witness poured water on the body of Lili Boro. She did not know when Kapil left that place. Some people came and brought down Lili Boro from her house. In cross-examination she stated that her house was situated at some distance on the top of Loli Boro's house and that there was no provision of well at her place and that Lili Boro had a well. On her shouting 20/25 persons assembled mere. She did not know the names of those persons. She stated that she had not seen how Lili Boro caught fire. She further stated in cross-examination that Lili Boro and Kapil got married two months before the date of occurrence. On her shouting 20/25 persons assembled mere. She did not know the names of those persons. She stated that she had not seen how Lili Boro caught fire. She further stated in cross-examination that Lili Boro and Kapil got married two months before the date of occurrence. She stated that it was not a fact that Kapil did not stay there and that she was deposing falsely. 11. Statement of PW 8, Pradip Boro the brother of the deceased is not much relevant as on receipt of the information at his house he went to the hospital and found his sister dead. He is only a witness to the inquest report and, therefore, it appears that even the defence counsel did not think it necessary to cross-examine him. 12. PW 9, Gunindra Mohan Gogoi, Sub Inspector, of Police stated that at about 12.40 PM on 13th of December, 1991, Constable No.2521 informed him on telephone that Kapil Kalita (appellant) a Home Gaurd has informed him that his wife Lili Boro by pouring kerosine oil upon her body set fire and that the on receipt of the information oh telephone made GD Entry No. 406 and left for the place of occurrence. He further stated that he found that the house was under lock and key and learnt that the victim had been taken to the hospital and, therefore, he also went there. He went on to state that he recorded the statement of Lili Boro in the hospital which was Ext 1. He proved signature Ext 1(3). He went on to state further that Ext 4 written ejahar was lodged by him and that the Officer In-charge Shri Girin Medhi after registering the case gave the charge of investigation to him. He gave minute details regarding the investigation done by him including preparation of inquest report, seizure, etc. and collection of post mortem report. In cross-examination he stated that he recorded the dying declaration at 1.50 PM and thereafter he went to the police station. He further stated that he learnt that the lady expired on 14th of December, 1991.He further stated in cross-examination that he searched for doctors before recording the dying declaration but could not find any one and that requisition was issued for presence of the doctor. He could not, however, produce the copy of the requisition in the Court. He further stated that he learnt that the lady expired on 14th of December, 1991.He further stated in cross-examination that he searched for doctors before recording the dying declaration but could not find any one and that requisition was issued for presence of the doctor. He could not, however, produce the copy of the requisition in the Court. He further stated that he did not try to procure the attendance of a Magistrate as the condition of the patient was serious. He further stated that as the hands of the victim were burnt she could not sign the statement; He denied the suggestion that Lili Boro was not in a position to make any statement on account of receipt of the burn injuries. He further stated that it was not a fact that the victim did not give any dying declaration (Ext 1). 13. On the basis of the evidence as has been discussed above, the Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the order of conviction after finding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. The counsel for the appellant has valiantly argued that non-mentioning about the dying declaration in the first information report casts a grave doubt upon the entire prosecution story. It has further been argued that there is no corroboration by Urmila (PW 2) as regards the details of dying declaration. It has further been argued that the statement of PW 4 Smti Bhabani Das cannot be said to be one of corroboration of substantive dying declaration inasmuch as the allegation of the appellant's pouring kerosine oil is not mentioned by the witness in her statement. In support of his contentions Mr. Choudhury has cited the following rulings : (i) State of Assam vs. Ram Deo Singh @ Prabhu Singh, 1990 (2) GLJ NOC15; (ii) Dalip Singh & others vs. State of Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 332 ; (iii) Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 815 . Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the State counsel has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing PWs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9. Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the State counsel has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing PWs 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9. He has further submitted that the case law cited by the counsel for the appellant does not have even the slightest application to the facts of the present case and that the ratio laid down in the case of Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC164 is applicable. 15. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and on re-appraisal of the entire prosecution evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. The omission on the part of PW 9 to mention about the dying declaration in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be fatal. He in his wisdom might have thought it appropriate not to disclose the factum of dying declaration as it was a solid piece of evidence. In view of the proposition of law being clear as has been held in several judicial pronouncements that First Information Report is not encyclopedia and need not contain minute details of the prosecution case, the Sub-Inspector of Police might not have thought it appropriate that he must refer to recording of dying declaration in the First Information Report. It is pertinent to note that the witness was not asked even a single question in cross-examination by the defence counsel as to why he did not mention about the dying declaration in the First Information Report. Had he been cross-examined on this point he might have given a valid explanation. In any case he cannot be disbelieved when he stated that he did search for doctors before recording the dying declaration and he did not try to procure the attendants of a Magistrate as the condition of the patient was serious. Once the witness felt satisfied that there was imminent danger to the life of the victim, he was perfectly justified in recording her dying declaration who was in a position to speak has been duly proved by independent witness like Soneswar Kumar (PW 5), Urmila Patowary (PW 2) - a nurse of the hospital and Smti Bhabani Das another independent witness. All these witnesses were not even remotely related to the deceased and had no enmity with the accused. Nothing could be elicited hi their cross-examination which would make them unworthy of reliance. In our considered view the Court can safely rely on their sworn testimony for upholding the conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. Even if Urmila (PW 2) has not given the details of the facts mentioned in the dying declaration while appearing as a witness or even if Smti Bhabani Das (PW 4) has not corroborated the statement in the dying declaration regarding pouring of kerosine oil, it would not make any difference in the eye of law as they must have thought that they need not repeat as to what was contained in the dying declaration. For all these reasons we do not find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the defence. 16. Apart from the dying declaration the recording of which has been duly proved by the prosecution, the commission of the crime by the accused has been proved by the statement of PW 7, Niru Kumari who was a house wife living in the neighbourhood of the deceased was natural as she had gone to the house of the deceased to fetch water having no well in her own house. She has clearly stated in the her statement that after hearing the cries of Lili Boro she went inside the house and saw her lying on the floor with burn injuries. This witness poured water on the body of Lili Boro whereas the appellant remained standing. The conduct of the appellant in not pouring even water is quite abnormal. If the deceased had tried to commit suicide, the natural conduct of the husband would be to save her life by atleast pouring water. Further conduct of the accused in vanishing from the place of occurrence and his non-availability till he was arrested on 18th December, 1991 as is clear from the forwarding report of the Invocating Officer also casts doubt against his bona fides. PW 7 being an independent and natural witness, her statement, in our considered view, proves the guilt of the accused independent of dying declaration. 17. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to deal with the case law cited by Mr, Choudhury, counsel for the appellant. PW 7 being an independent and natural witness, her statement, in our considered view, proves the guilt of the accused independent of dying declaration. 17. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to deal with the case law cited by Mr, Choudhury, counsel for the appellant. The dictum of law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Assam vs. Ramdeo Singh (supra) is inapplicable in the facts of this case as this Court declined to attach any importance to the dying declaration in that case on the ground that there was no explanation forthcoming as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or a doctor. In the present case, PW 9 has explained that the doctor was sent for but he was not available and he did not try for the attendance of Magistrate as he thought that the condition of the patient was serious. We are completely satisfied with the statement of PW 9. Dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer as such is admissible under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The dictum of law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh's case (supra) that the practice of Investigating Officer recording a dying declaration ought not to be encouraged, would also be of no help to the counsel for the appellant in the present case as it has been held by the Apex Court in that very judgment that the dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer should be ruled out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the Court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a doctor. On the facts of the present case and in view of the statement of the Police Officer (PW 9) coupled with other prosecution evidence we are of the view that the Investigating Officer thought that better recourse was not available to him in view of the condition of the injured. The position of law as has been laid down in Ram Kumar Pandey's case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that Joginder Singh's name to whom the alleged dying declaration was made by the deceased was mentioned as" an eye-witness only and not proving a dying declaration. The position of law as has been laid down in Ram Kumar Pandey's case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that Joginder Singh's name to whom the alleged dying declaration was made by the deceased was mentioned as" an eye-witness only and not proving a dying declaration. Moreover, the Apex Court while finding the accused not guilty in Ram Kumar Pandey's case found several infirmities in the First Information Report which was filed after 4 hours by the father of the deceased. The FIR which was found suffering from various infirmities including non-mentioning of important facts did affect the probabilities of the prosecution case in the decided case before the Apex Court. It was in the light of several infirmities that non-mentioning of the dying declaration was also taken as a circumstances for holding the accused persons innocent. On the other hand, as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, the prosecution has been able to prove its case not only by dying declaration alone, but it has been able to prove its case in the light of the statement made by an independent and natural witness like PW 7, Niru Kumari. 18. While no judicial pronouncement cited by the counsel for the defence is applicable to the facts of the instant case as has been discussed above, the ratio as has laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme. Court in Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar (supra) can safely by applied to the facts of the instant case. It has been held in Ramawati's case (supra) that in a proper case it is permissible to convict a person only on the basis of dying declaration in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the decided case before the Apex Court, dying declaration recorded by an Assistant Inspector of Police was relied upon to uphold the conviction of the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The following observation of the Apex Court in Ramawati's case (supra) can be reproduced: 'There 'is no requirement of law that dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The following observation of the Apex Court in Ramawati's case (supra) can be reproduced: 'There 'is no requirement of law that dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying declaration in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, dying declaration was recorded by an Assistant Inspector of Police, in his cross-examination no questions were put to him as to the state of health of the deceased and no suggestion was made that the deceased was not in a fit state of health to make any such statement. The Doctor's evidence also clearly indicated that it was possible for the deceased to make the statement attributed to her in the dying declaration in which her thumb impression had also been affixed. The statement found corroboration in the testimony of other witnesses, None of the witnesses including the Police Officer could be attributed with any kind of ill-feeling against the accused." In the present case also no question was put to the Investigating Officer that the deceased was not in a fit state of health to make dying declaration. The nurse as well as other witnesses clearly stated that the deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement. The decision in Ramawati's case (supra) in our considered view is near to the facts of the instant case and while relying upon the same in view of the discussion of the evidence in the earlier part of the judgment, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case. 19. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him is hereby upheld.