Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts : 2. Accused Randhir had borrowed 15 stone pieces from Daya Nand (since deceased) some three years earlier and though he had undertaken to return the stones or to make payment in lieu thereof, he had not done so. About a week prior to the incident, Daya Nand had again demanded the money from accused Randhir and his brothers Jit Singh, Ranbir and Daya Kishan but they threatened him with dire consequences. At about 9/9.30 P.M. on August 28, 1994 when Daya Nand was standing in the street in front of his house, accused Randhir carrying a plastic `Can containing kerosene oil in his hands and the other three accused came to the spot. Accused Ranbir raised a Lalkara that Daya Nand should not be allowed to escape. On this, At Singh and Daya Kishan caught hold of him and Randhir accused poured kerosene oil on him and Ranbir set him on fire. The alarm raised by Daya Nand attracted PW-2 Mukhtiar Singh and one Rohtash and after their arrival, all the accused ran away from the spot taking with them the plastic `Can. Rohtash and Mukhtiar Singh extinguished the flames and thereafter removed Daya Nand to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Rajiv Sharma at 0.35 A.M. on August 29, 1994 and intimation to this effect was also sent to the police post in the medical college itself at 1.00 A.M. vide ruqa, EX. PJ. Intimation was also flashed to Police Station, Kharkhoda on which PW-8 ASI Ram Avtar reached the hospital and moved an application, Ex. PI, for ascertaining as to whether Daya Nand was fit to make a statement. Dr. Rajiv Sharma rendered his opinion in the affirmative vide Ex. P11 at 10.00 A.M. on August 29, 1994. ASI Ram Avtar thereafter recorded his statement, Ex. PH, in the presence of PW-7 Dr. Ish Chadha and on its basis, the formal F.I.R. was registered at 12.20 P.M. on August 29, 1994 for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Daya Nand died of his injuries on September 3, 1994 at 5.40 P.M. and his statement, Ex. PH, has accordingly been read as a dying declaration. Ish Chadha and on its basis, the formal F.I.R. was registered at 12.20 P.M. on August 29, 1994 for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Daya Nand died of his injuries on September 3, 1994 at 5.40 P.M. and his statement, Ex. PH, has accordingly been read as a dying declaration. On the completion of the investigation, all the accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Poonam Malhotra, who had carried out the post-mortem examination and had opined that the deceased had suffered 100% burns, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; PWs. 2, 3 and 4 Mukhtiar Singh, Nafe Singh and Rajo, respectively, the three eye-witnesses to the incident; PW-7 Dr. Ish Chadha, in whose presence the deceased had made his dying declaration and PW-8 ASI Ram Avtar, the primary Investigating Officer, who had recorded the dying declaration. The prosecution, however, gave up Rohtash, who had been cited as one of the eye witnesses, as having been won over. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied their involvement and stated that they had been implicated in a false case. They further took the plea that a few years earlier, the wife of Satbir, the brother of Daya Nand, had been burnt alive and in that incident, Daya Nand, his wife Rajo and others had been convicted and as Randhir accused had been helping the opposite party, they had been involved in this case falsely. They also stated that PW-9 Nafe Singh, the brother of Daya Nand, had illicit relations with Rajo and it appeared that the deceased had been humiliated in the village and, on that account, had committed suicide. 5. The trial Court observed that Nafe Singh and Rajo, who were the brother and wife of the deceased, were unreliable witnesses as they had not been named in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses and that they had been projected at a later stage to strengthen the prosecution case. 5. The trial Court observed that Nafe Singh and Rajo, who were the brother and wife of the deceased, were unreliable witnesses as they had not been named in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses and that they had been projected at a later stage to strengthen the prosecution case. It was also held that the fact that even the statements of both these witnesses had not figured in the inquest report, was another circumstance to show that they had not been present. The trial Court further held that PW-2 Mukhtiar Singh, who was stated to be an eye-witness and whose name figured in the dying declaration, had been declared hostile and Rohtash had not been produced by the prosecution. The trial Court, however, held that in view of the fact that the dying declaration recorded by ASI Ram Avtar in the presence of PW-7 Dr. Ish Chadha inspired full confidence, the conviction could be recorded solely on its basis. The trial Court further observed that though the police officer had himself recorded the dying declaration and had made no effect to secure the services of some judicial officer, was no ground to disbelieve it. The Court accordingly convicted the accused for the offence for which they stood charged and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Court also directed that in case the amount of fine was recovered, the same would be paid to Rajo, the wife of the deceased. 6. The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. 8. From what has been noted above, it is clear that the prosecution case now rests solely on the dying declaration, Ex. PH, made by Daya Nand to ASI Ram Avtar in the presence of Dr. Ish Chadha. Mr. R.S. Ghai, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants, has accordingly raised serious objections to the dying declaration and has urged that the deceased had not been in a fit condition to make a statement and that the dying declaration had been forged by the police officer in connivance with Dr. Chadha. Ish Chadha. Mr. R.S. Ghai, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants, has accordingly raised serious objections to the dying declaration and has urged that the deceased had not been in a fit condition to make a statement and that the dying declaration had been forged by the police officer in connivance with Dr. Chadha. He has referred to the evidence of Dr. Poonam Malhotra, to contend that as there were 100% burns on the deceased, his condition was precarious and as such he had not been in a position to give a statement, which gave very minute details about the incident. He has pointed out that Dr. Sharma, who had made an endorsement at 10.00 A.M. on August 29, 1994 that Daya Nand was in a fit condition to make a statement had not been examined by the prosecution and as such a serious lacuna existed in the prosecution story. He has finally urged that the incident had taken place on August 28, 1994 and though Daya Nand had died several days later on September 3, 1994, the police officer had admitted that he had made no efforts to secure the services of a judicial officer to record the dying declaration and this too was an additional circumstance against the prosecution. In this connection, he had relied upon Shabnam v. State of Delhi, 2000 (4) Cri. L.R. 207; Paprambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Crl.) 104 : [1999(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 279 (SC)] and Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., 1999 (3) RCR (CrI.) 764 : [1999(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 100 (SC)]. 9. As against this, Mr. Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has pointed out that the dying declaration had been attested by PW-7 Dr. Ish Chadha, who had clearly stated that the dying declaration had been recorded in his presence by ASI Ram Avtar and in this view of the matter, the mere fact that Dr. Rajiv Sharma had not been produced by the prosecution, would be of little consequence. 10. As the fact of the appeal would hinge on the veracity or otherwise of the dying declaration, we have chosen to examine this aspect very carefully. Daya Nand had been admitted in the hospital on August 28, 1994 and a ruqa sent to the police post had brought ASI Ram Avtar to the hospital. 10. As the fact of the appeal would hinge on the veracity or otherwise of the dying declaration, we have chosen to examine this aspect very carefully. Daya Nand had been admitted in the hospital on August 28, 1994 and a ruqa sent to the police post had brought ASI Ram Avtar to the hospital. This officer had recorded Daya Nands statement in the presence of Dr. Ish Chadha after getting a certificate from Dr. Rajiv Sharma that he was fit to make a statement. Dr. Chadha has stated that Daya Nand was in a fit condition to speak and that he had been present when the statement had been recorded. We are of the opinion that in the background of this evidence, no doubt remains that the dying declaration made by Daya Nand had been validly recorded by ASI Ram Avtar while he had been in a fit condition to make it and that the mere fact that the police officer had omitted to summon some judicial officer would not for this reason alone detract from its value. 11. It is true, as has been contended by Mr. Ghai, that the dying declaration contains minute details about what had transpired but in the light of the fact that the deceased had died 5 days after the incident, Daya Nand had apparently remained in a lucid state of mind for sometime after the incident so as to make it possible for him to give even minute details. 12. We have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and find that they lay down the broad principles by which the evidence, in the form of a dying declaration has to be evaluated. We find that the observations that a dying declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate is a matter of prudence and not an inflexible rule of law. In view of the fact that we have found that Daya Nand had been in a fit condition to make a statement, no doubt is left with regard to the fact that he did in fact make it. 13. For the reasons recorded above we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.