JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 3.5.1989 learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner acquitted respondents Smt. Ladhudi and Smt. Hemli from the charges pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. This Court by order dated 30.11.1989 granted leave to appeal the judgment aforesaid by treating the leave application itself as a memo of appeal. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that on 16.8.1988, one Shri Dungar Ram Kumhar lodged an FIR at Police Station Napasar with allegation that in morning of 16.8.1988 when he returned his house after attending the call of nature, he found his wife Mrs. Lichhma seriously burnt. On making inquiry he came to know that Smt. Ladhudi wife of Narsaram and Smt. Hemli wife of Bheraram poured kerosene on his wife and ignited with match stick. A reference of previous enmity between Smt. Lichhma and accused persons was also made. After three days of the incident Smt. Lichhma succumbed to the burn injuries and died. A case, thus, was lodged for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of investigation a police report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the competent court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned trial court framed the charges for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code and on denial of the same trial commenced as desired. 4. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 12 witnesses and the documents prepared during the investigation. The accused respondents availed opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidence. In defence, statements of DW-1 Chokharam were recorded. Suffice to mention that DW-1 Chokharam is a neighbour of complainant Madharam. 5. The trial court after examining the entire evidence available on record and after hearing arguments advanced by counsel for the respondents and learned Public Prosecutor passed the judgment impugned. 6. In appeal, though the only argument advanced is that the trial court failed to appreciate the dying declaration made by deceased Smt. Lichhma before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.8.1988 at 01:30 PM, but we have examined the entire evidence available on record. 7. 6. In appeal, though the only argument advanced is that the trial court failed to appreciate the dying declaration made by deceased Smt. Lichhma before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.8.1988 at 01:30 PM, but we have examined the entire evidence available on record. 7. As per the prosecution the first informant Madharam informed under FIR dated 16.8.1988 (Ex.P/1) that his wife Smt. Lichhma was ablaze by wives of Narsaram and Bheraram by pouring kerosene on her. As per the contents of the first information report, this fact was stated by Smt. Lichhma before Madharam. However, Madharam (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution while deposing before the court, though he stated that his wife informed that Ladhudi and Hemli burnt her. In cross examination he changed even his this version by stating that when he reached at home he found his wife burnt and she was lying in a Jonga Jeep and nothing was uttered by her, till death. 8. The other prosecution witnesses PW-2 Revantram, PW-3 Lunaram, PW-4 Govindram, PW-5 Saraswati and PW-6 Dungarram also not supported the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. As such, the circumstance relating to narration of the incident by deceased to the witnesses above mentioned was not found established. 9. The sole evidence now survives is of dying declaration said to be made before Shri Omprakash (PW-8), the then Sub Divisional Magistrate (North), Bikaner. This witness stated that the Station House Officer, Police Station Napasar called him to record statements of a burned girl. He recorded statements of the girl after getting necessary certificate from the doctor. This witness accepted that as a matter of fact he was asking questions to burned girl Lichhma who was answering in Rajasthani and his Reader was reducing the same in writing. This witness further stated that the entire statement was read before the deceased and then her thumb impression was obtained. 10. PW-7 Dr. Sajjan Kumar Sharma stated that the Station House Officer of Police Station Napasar sought a certificate from him about physical condition of Smt. Lichhma and necessary certification was made by him. This witness also stated that Smt. Lichhma was suffering from serious burns, therefore, she was injected with a pain reliever "Fortwin". 11. PW-11 Dr. Prem Narain Mathur stated that deceased Smt. Lichhma suffered 90% burns and she was suffering from acute pain and her condition was deteriorating quite rapidly. 12. This witness also stated that Smt. Lichhma was suffering from serious burns, therefore, she was injected with a pain reliever "Fortwin". 11. PW-11 Dr. Prem Narain Mathur stated that deceased Smt. Lichhma suffered 90% burns and she was suffering from acute pain and her condition was deteriorating quite rapidly. 12. Learned trial court after examining the statements of PW-8 Omprakash, PW-7 Dr. Sajjan Kumar Sharma and PW-11 Dr. Prem Narain Mathur arrived at the conclusion that the dying declaration said to be made was not trustworthy. The trial court noticed that though Shri Omprakash (PW-8) stated that the statements of Smt. Lichhma were recorded by asking questions, but as a matter of fact the declaration so made (Ex.P/19) is narrative. The court also found that though Smt. Lichhma as per the prosecution witnesses made her statements in Rajasthani but the dying declaration is recorded in Hindi. Nothing is available on record that who made translation of the statement given by Smt. Lichhma and under what authority such translation was made. The court also found that the statement was not drawn by Shri Omprakash (PW-8) in his own handwriting, but by some other person, who has not been brought before the court in evidence. Learned trial court also examined serious condition of Smt. Lichhma and effect of the injection "Fort win" given to her. 13. Having considered all these aspects, we are also of the view that the dying declaration said to be made by Smt. Lichhma said to be recorded by PW-8 Shri Omprakash, is not trustworthy enough to settle conviction. As already noticed, Smt. Lichhma suffered 90% burns and she was having acute pain. A pain relieving drug was injected to her and as per medical evidence her condition was continuously deteriorating. The dying declaration is made in narrative form though Shri Omprakash (PW-8) stated that he put questions to Smt. Lichhma and she answered the same. It is not in dispute that the statements were not reduced in writing by Shri Omprakash (PW-8) but by someone else, who has not been produced in witness box. The Investigating Officer PW-12 Shri Fakruddin while narrating all the events taken place during the course of investigation too has not disclosed the name of the person who under instructions of Shri Omprakash noted down the dying declaration. The Investigating Officer PW-12 Shri Fakruddin while narrating all the events taken place during the course of investigation too has not disclosed the name of the person who under instructions of Shri Omprakash noted down the dying declaration. The facts stated speaks in volumes about casual attitude adopted by the investigating agency while recording dying declaration. In totality, we are having no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the dying declaration on which the prosecution is heavily relying upon is not trustworthy enough to settle conviction, thus, no interference is required with the judgment in appeal.The appeal is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******