ORDER : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal is before us to question correctness of the judgment dated 22nd July, 1983 passed by learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1982. 2. By the judgment impugned, learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded conviction of the accused-appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and awarded life term imprisonment. 3. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal is that in the intervening night of 5/6th April, 1982 deceased Barnam Singh was sleeping at his agriculture field. In night at about 11.00 pm accused Rajveer @ Tinna and Brijesh @ Pappu came to Barnam Singh and poured petrol upon him. The deceased then set ablaze. Hearing the screams of Barnam Singh, Shyam Bahadur Singh who was sleeping close to his tube well rushed to the place where Barnam Singh was sleeping and on transit he saw Rajveer and Brijesh fleeing from the spot of occurrence. On arriving at the place of occurrence, Shayam Bahadur Singh noticed that a cot, lathi and a jerry can of petrol were lying there. Barnam Singh was screaming in high pitch, he was repeating that Rajveer and Pappu put him in flames. Balveer Singh and Bhagwan Singh also came to the place of occurrence and tried to save Barnam Singh by pouring sand on him. Barnam Singh then was taken to the hospital where the doctor on duty advised them to first get a police report registered. A report (Ex. ka-3) then was submitted at Police Station Bah, District Agra at 1.15 am. On basis of that, a case was registered for commission of an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Dr. B.P. Singh, Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Bah also submitted a written report (Ex. B-1) to do the needful. The Medical Officer also called the Sub-Divisional Officer/Magistrate to the hospital to get a dying declaration recorded. The dying declaration was recorded by Sri R.K.L. Chaudhary, Tehsildar Bah at 2.00 am, 6th April, 1982. The Medical Officer also prepared an injury report at 2.15 am and as per that Barnam Singh was having 100% burn injuries and he was in semi conscious condition. The dying declaration was recorded by Sri R.K.L. Chaudhary, Tehsildar Bah at 2.00 am, 6th April, 1982. The Medical Officer also prepared an injury report at 2.15 am and as per that Barnam Singh was having 100% burn injuries and he was in semi conscious condition. Looking to the serious condition of Barnam Singh, he was referred for further treatment to Government Hospital, Agra but in transit he died. On receiving information about death of Barnam Singh, investigation was initiated by the investigating agency for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, an autopsy was conducted on the person of deceased Barnam Singh and as per that the deceased was having the burns all over his body except the pelvis area just above the thighs. The report of autopsy is available on record as Ex. ka-5. During course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of relevant persons as per provisions of Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also prepared several documents including a report of inquest. 4. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court and the case being sessions triable was committed to the court of sessions. Learned sessions court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons framed a charge against them for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the charge, trial commenced as desired. 5. The prosecution supported its case with ocular evidence (PW1 to PW10) and by getting all the documents prepared during the course of investigation including the dying declaration exhibited. An opportunity was given to accused Rajveer @ Tinna and Brijesh @ Pappu to explain all the adverse and incriminating circumstances against them available in prosecution evidence. The accused termed the entire evidence concocted and false with explanation that they had not committed the crime in question but had been falsely implicated due to animosity with Shyam Bahadur, Balbir Bahadur and Babu Singh. The accused got the testimony of Virendra Kumar Sharma (DW2) and Natthu Singh (DW2) in defence and also got certain documents exhibited. The trial court after examining the entire evidence held the accused-appellants guilty for commission of crime as alleged and recorded conviction. 6. The accused got the testimony of Virendra Kumar Sharma (DW2) and Natthu Singh (DW2) in defence and also got certain documents exhibited. The trial court after examining the entire evidence held the accused-appellants guilty for commission of crime as alleged and recorded conviction. 6. In appeal, Sri A.C. Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside as there is no evidence to record conviction of the accused-appellants. It is asserted that:- 1. The dying declaration on which the trial court relied upon is apparently bad as no certification of the treating Doctor was availed about fitness of the deceased before recording the dying declaration. The dying declaration as per learned counsel is further bad being taken in presence of close relatives of the deceased who were with the deceased for several hours. 2. The trial court further erred while relying upon the dying declaration without appreciating the fact that Barnam Singh was having 100% burn injuries and as such he was not in condition to utter even a single word. The treating Doctor as per learned counsel while getting his testimony examined stated that Barnam Singh was not in position to say anything with clarity. 3. The trial court committed a serious error while relying upon the statement made by Shyam Bahadur Singh and Balbir Singh who were apparently planted witnesses. 4. The trial court also erred while not taking into consideration the fact that some other persons too were present at the spot of occurrence including close relatives of the deceased but they were intentionally not called in witness box. 7. Per contra, as per learned Additional Government Advocate, no error has been committed by the trial court in recording conviction of the accused-appellants. It is stated that the dying declaration was recorded by a competent officer. The other witness including Shyam Bahadur Singh and Balbir Singh made definite statements about presence of the accused persons at the place where the crime was committed and further their positive involvement in the entire incident. 8. As per learned counsel, there is no just reason to disbelieve the testimony of Shyam Bahadur and Balbir Singh. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced and also scanned the entire record. 10. 8. As per learned counsel, there is no just reason to disbelieve the testimony of Shyam Bahadur and Balbir Singh. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced and also scanned the entire record. 10. At the threshold, we would like to state that the dying declaration said to be recorded by the Tehsildar Sri R.K.L. Chaudhary (PW4) is not a sufficient piece of evidence to be relied upon in view of the fact that no certificate was obtained by the treating doctor who was present in the hospital just before recording dying declaration of deceased Barnam Singh. 11. It is also pertinent to notice that the dying declaration was admittedly recorded at the time when Barnam Singh was surrounded by his close relatives and who were there even prior to that. A dying declaration is always required to be absolutely independent and in normal course only after having the proper certification about condition of the person making such declaration by the treating doctor. 12. In the case in hand, learned trial court ignored this aspect of the matter and therefore erred while relying upon the dying declaration. 13. Precisely, the issue now before us is that whether adequate circumstantial evidence other than the dying declaration is available on record to hold the accused-appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 14. The prosecution besides the evidence relating to dying declaration also relied upon the evidence adduced by Shyam Bahadur Singh (PW2), Balbir Singh (PW3), Dr. B.P. Singh (PW1) who at the first instance treated Barnam Singh, Dr. D.N. Tripathi (PW6) who conducted autopsy on the corpus of deceased Barnam Singh, Sukhnandan Pandey (PW8) the Investigating Officer and also relied upon certain documents exhibited by the prosecution. PW2 Shyam Bahadur Singh in quite specific terms stated that on the fateful night he was at his tube well where he heard screams of Barnam Singh. On hearing, he rushed towards the spot of occurrence and in transit he saw the accused persons fleeing thereof. This witness on reaching at the spot of occurrence noticed that Barnam Singh was raising alarm to save him and further he was in flames. A jerry can of petrol too was lying there. This witness with the aid of other persons who too arrived at the spot of occurrence carried the deceased to the Primary Health Centre for first aid and further treatment. A jerry can of petrol too was lying there. This witness with the aid of other persons who too arrived at the spot of occurrence carried the deceased to the Primary Health Centre for first aid and further treatment. This witness also carried Barnam Singh to Agra being referred by the treating doctor at the Primary Health Centre, Bah. An effort is made to connect this witness with certain earlier vengeance with the accused persons and to create a doubt about his independent testimony but we do not find any force in that. There may be certain reasons for having some dispute between the accused and this witness but that in no manner reflects on the very plain, straight forward and definite description of facts given by this witness. As a matter of fact, this witness was subjected to cross examination, wherein too he maintained his version and that does not suffer from any discrepancy. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellants with all vehemence stated that the testimony of this witness is not reliable on the count that he failed to give several other necessary details regarding his arrival on the spot of occurrence and also about the presence of other persons. On minute examination of statements given by this witness, we do not find any merit in this argument too. 16. Pertinent to notice that the fateful night was only three dates prior to the full moon night and as such adequate light was there. The accused persons were already known to the witness and, therefore, he could have recognized them quite easily. The distance of the tube well where this witness was present too was only about 150 steps. There was nothing unusual in hearing screams of a person at such distance and further to rush to the spot of occurrence. The statements made by this witness thus are absolutely reliable. 17. The version of facts given by Shyam Bahadur Singh (PW2) receives adequate strength from the evidence adduced by Balbir Singh (PW3). As per this witness, he was at the distance of 40-50 steps from the spot of occurrence. On hearing screams of Barnam Singh he rushed towards him where he found that Barnam Singh was in flames and while raising alarm he also loudly said that Pappu and Tinna had put him in flames by pouring petrol. As per this witness, he was at the distance of 40-50 steps from the spot of occurrence. On hearing screams of Barnam Singh he rushed towards him where he found that Barnam Singh was in flames and while raising alarm he also loudly said that Pappu and Tinna had put him in flames by pouring petrol. This witness in very definite terms narrated all the facts noticed by him at the spot of occurrence. This witness also disclosed presence of some family members of the deceased Barnam Singh and on basis of that the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the prosecution intentionally did not produce those persons in evidence. 18. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, PW2, Shyam Bahadur Singh and PW3, Balbir Singh are planted witness and the actual witnesses who are family members of the deceased were not been called in witness box just to keep veil on the truth. The argument advanced by the learned counsel in our considered opinion lacks merit. 19. It would have been better to produce other persons too in evidence but it is well settled that mere non-production of those persons does not fail a prosecution if other adequate evidence is available to establish the prosecution story. 20. In the case in hand, the evidence adduced by Shyam Bahadur Singh (PW2) and Balbir Singh (PW3) in addition to recovery of inflammable material from spot and further the medical evidence adduced by Dr. B.P. Singh (PW1) is adequate to made a complete chain of circumstances indicating involvement of the accused persons in the crime in question. 21. It would also be relevant to state that the only explanation extended by the accused persons while explaining the circumstances as per provisions of Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that Shyam Bahadur Singh (PW2) was keeping vengeance with them. Nothing more is said by them in that regard. 22. In entirety, even by ignoring the dying declaration there is no escape for the accused-appellants from the charge for which they were tried. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction recorded and the sentence awarded under the judgment impugned is affirmed.