Rakesh Tiwari, J. We have heard Sri Pravin Kumar Srivastava, amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Ram Yash Pandey, learned A.G.A. alongwith Sri S. All Murtuza. Brief Holder for the State, and perused the record. 2. This appeal challenges the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 6.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T. Court No. 1, Jalaun at Oral in S.T. No. 38 of 2007, State v. Smt. Bhuri Devi and others. 3. The facts briefly narrated are that a written report dated 6.6.2006 was submitted by Arvind Singh son of Sri Sopat Singh, r/o Village-Vijhauna, P.S.-Satti, District-Kanpur Dehat to the effect that he had married his sister Reena Devi about 12 years ago with Anurudha Singh altos Munna son of Sri Om Singh, r/o Village-Mangraul, P.S.-Kalpi, District-Jalaun in which he had given dowry to his capacity, but his sister's in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and were pressurising her since immediately after marriage to bring more dowry, and for which she was being physically and mentally tortured. It is averred in the written report that whenever his sister came to her maika ( mother's house), she was asked by her in-laws and devar to bring Rs. 50,000 as dowry. They not only used to beat her but also threatened with dire consequences ; that on 1.6.2006 he came to know that in-laws ( father and mother) and devar of his sister had burnt her for not fulfilling the demand of Rs. 50,000 and that Anurudha Singh alias Munna husband had suffered burn injury on his hand while saving her. It was also averred therein that treatment of his sister was going on at the residence of Dr. Jaiswal ; that after great effort his sister has been sent for medical treatment on 2.6.2006 to Halet Hospital, Kanpur where her sister gave her statement that she has been burnt by her in-laws and devar. However, during treatment she died on 8.6.2006 in the hospital. It is averred in the written report that her post-mortem had already been conducted on 9.6.2006 as such legal action may be taken against the accused persons. 4. On the basis of averments made in the written report, G.D. entry was made and chick report was prepared registering Case Crime No. 607 of 2006 under Section 306, I.P.C., P.S.-Kalpi, District-Jalaun on 16.6.2006 at 18.10 hours against the appellant. 4. On the basis of averments made in the written report, G.D. entry was made and chick report was prepared registering Case Crime No. 607 of 2006 under Section 306, I.P.C., P.S.-Kalpi, District-Jalaun on 16.6.2006 at 18.10 hours against the appellant. After lodging of the F.I.R., the investigation was taken up by S.I. Radhey Shyam Tiwari of P.S. Kalpi, District-Jaluan. It appears that vide Ex. Ka-7 is the dying declaration of Reena Devi ( since deceased) before the Medical Officer, P.H.C.-Kalpi. District-Jaluan. Her dying declaration recorded by Medical Officer, P.H.C.-Kalpi, District-Jalaun, reads thus : @ Hindi @ 5. The cadaver of deceased Reena was sent for post-mortem to the District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar where post-mortem was conducted on 9.6.2006 at 4.00 p.m. The external examination of dead body shows that deceased was aged about 30 years and was of average muscularity, rigor mortis was present on both extremities, D/M was found on the back, deceased had died by over burn injuries. In internal examination, doctor reported the following ante-mortem injuries : 1. Superficial to deep burn present all over the body except face from part of both upper limbs front and back, buttocks, portion below both mammary gland. Both of lower leg front and back and sole, unhealthy tissue with pus present. According to the doctor death was caused due to septicaemia as a result of ante-mortem burn injury. After completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted against appellant, husband- Om Singh and devar-Ragvendra. After committal of the case to the Court of Session for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 , I.P.C., charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced Arvind Singh-P.W. 1 ( complainant) and Naresh Chandra-P.W. 2 ( brother of complainant) both sons of Sri Sopati Singh, r/o Village-Vijhauna, P.S.-Satti, District-Kanpur Dehat, Vinod Kumar Sachan-P.W. 3, Dr. Ratan Kumar Jaiswal-P.W. 4, Narendra Kumar Srivastava-P.W. 5, Dr. A.K. Singhal-P.W. 6, R. S. Tiwari-P.W. 7, Balak Ram-P.W. 8 and R. K. Shukla-P.W. 9 in support of its case. 6. Dr. Ratan Kumar Jaiswal-P.W. 4, Narendra Kumar Srivastava-P.W. 5, Dr. A.K. Singhal-P.W. 6, R. S. Tiwari-P.W. 7, Balak Ram-P.W. 8 and R. K. Shukla-P.W. 9 in support of its case. 6. Dr. Ratan Kumar Jaiswal-P.W. 4 posted at P.H.C.-Kalpi, District-Jaluan at Orai as Medical Officer proved the injury report showing that deceased was burnt to the extent of 82% when she was admitted on 2.2.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. Narendra Kumar Srivastava-P.W. 5, posted as Naib Tehsildar-Kalpi, District-Jalaun stated that he had gone to take statement of Rina Devi wife of Anurudha Singh alias Munna pursuant to oral direction of S.D.M., Kalpi on 2.6.2006. He had heard the statement of the deceased and dictated the same to the stenographer which was also read over to Rina Devi ( since deceased). Dr. A. K. Singhal-P.W. 6 posted as Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar alongwith Dr. V. P. Chaturvedi who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased proved the autopsy report. S.I. Radhey Shyam Tiwari-P.W. 7 of P.S. Kalpi, District-Jalaun, stated in his statement that the injury caused in the hands of Anurudha Singh was to save his wife. Inspector Balak Ram-P.W. 8, G.R.P., Agra also stated that he being Inspector Incharge of P.S.-Kalpi, District Jalaun, took up the investigation of the case on 27.7.2006 and he had converted the case under Section 306, I.P.C. to 302, I.P.C. and after . completing investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 7. Lastly R. K. Shukla-P.W. 9, O.S.D., Kanpur Development Authority stated that on 9.6.2006 he was posted as A.C.M. I, Kanpur Nagar and on receipt of information about the deceased he had gone to L.L.R. Halet Hospital. He also stated about the manner in which inquest was prepared and proved the inquest report. Subsequently, the accused were also examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 8. The defence witnesses D.W. 1 was examined by the accused persons in support of their case. Anurudha Singh-D.W. 1 son of Om Singh, r/o Village-Magraul, P.S.-Kalpi, District-Jalaun stated that his wife Rina Devi ( since deceased) wanted to give some land to her brother which was cause of tension in the family ; that on refusal to give land to her brother on previous occasion also she had threatened to commit suicide on this issue ; and that on the fateful night he with his wife Reena and children went to sleep on the roof. The main door was bolted from inside, outside of which his parents were sleeping. Hearing cries of his daughter, he woke up and saw his wife was burning. He ( tried to save her in which his hands were also burnt. He has also stated that after he had put out the fire, opened the main door. Thereafter, he took his wife to the District Hospital-Kalpi for treatment and admitted her for treatment. He also denied that ( there was any dowry demand from her its rather stated that his wife had gone to her maika as she wanted to force him to transfer a piece of land to her brother. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties, and on perusal of record, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 6.6.2008 convicted and Sentenced the appellant under Section ( 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34 , I.P.C. life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 6,000 and in default of payment of fine with 6 months additional R.I. and acquitted the other two accused. 10. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is against the evidence on record and not sustainable in law and that the sentence awarded is too severe. He has further contended that plain reading of F.I.R. shows that the appellant had been demanding dowry from Rina Devi ( since deceased) that she was being tortured physically and mentally by her in-laws who had threatened her on number of occasions, and this fact had been told by the deceased to her brother, father, mother and family members. It is urged that since 12 years of marriage has passed and there are two daughters from the wed lock with Anurudha Singh, there was no occasion for her in-laws to demand dowry as it is evident from record that her husband was of very caring nature. He has also contended that the court below has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case before convicting and sentencing the appellant only on the basis of dying declaration which had no evidentiary value in this regard. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the objection of counsel for the accused in the court below that dying declaration taken on oral directions of S.D.M. Kalpi, is legally not admissible. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the objection of counsel for the accused in the court below that dying declaration taken on oral directions of S.D.M. Kalpi, is legally not admissible. He has further stated that when the deceased and her husband were sleeping on the first floor of his house where she is alleged to have burnt pouring kerosene, therefore, it was not possible for her in-laws or devar to have come inside the room where Rina Devi and her husband were sleeping. No other point has been argued by counsel for the appellant. 12. Rebutting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. submits that before her death Reena Devi had given her dying declaration to Naib Tehsildar-Kalpi who has taken it on the instructions of S.D.M-Kalpi on 2.6.2006 as she was not in a good condition having received 82% burn injuries, therefore, the S.D.M. directed Tehsildar to take statement of Rina Devi on an information being received from the doctor about her condition. He has further stated that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. She had named the accused persons, as person, responsible for pouring kerosene oil and setting her ablaze and the possibility cannot be ruled but that Anurudha Singh is trying to save his brother and parents who are accused-appellant in this case. 13. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we are of the opinion that the complainant and his family members did not lodge the F.I.R. until 16.6.2006 even though she was cremated on 9.6.2006. However, we find that the deceased had suffered burn injuries 2-3 days prior to her dying declaration. No information was given to the police by her in-laws as to how she had received burn injuries in the house of the appellant. Suffice it to say that there is no statement of any witnesses except statement of Anurudha Singh that his wife received burn injuries inside the room. This statement is in contrast with the dying declaration wherein the deceased has stated before her death that she was burnt by her in-laws and deuar pouring kerosene oil. 14. There is no requirement of law that there should be an order of S.D.M. in writing before taking of dying declaration of a person on information of the doctor. This statement is in contrast with the dying declaration wherein the deceased has stated before her death that she was burnt by her in-laws and deuar pouring kerosene oil. 14. There is no requirement of law that there should be an order of S.D.M. in writing before taking of dying declaration of a person on information of the doctor. The dying declaration should be taken at the earliest without any technicalities attached as death is unpredictable. Some time in emergency, such as in the present case written order may not be insisted upon before taking of dying declaration. A person may be deprived of justice by reason of his/her statement not recorded before he/she dies, though in the instant case deceased survived for six days, but it cannot be said that she was in a good health when she had given her dying declaration rather it proved to the contrary. 15. On perusal of record, it appears that admitted facts of the case are that; 1. Reena Devi had submitted complaint to her parents immediately after marriage that her in-laws were demanding dowry and were torturing physically and mentally ; 2. Due to strained relation with her in-laws, she has been living for four years in her maika. just before the incident when she had gone back to live with her husband ; 3. Her husband was a caring person in spite of four years of strained relation. He not only tried to extinguish fire by which deceased burnt 82%, but also got medically treated, firstly at the house of Dr. Jaiswal and thereafter at L.L.R. Halet Hospital, Kanpur where she died. 16. For the reasons stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we affirm the view taken by the court below in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence by the court below is upheld. In result, the appeal stands dismissed. 17. Sri Pravin Kumar Srivastava advocate, appointed as amicus curiae, would get Rs. 2,100 as his remuneration fee within two months. 18. Let a copy of this order be certified to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for immediate compliance.