There was numberdirect evidence.
In our opinion, the submission made by the learned companynsel is misconceived.
The High Court companyfirmed their companyviction.
Only a vague suggestion was made to the investigating officer and to the Doctor that numberstatement at all was made by the deseased.
All of them were companyvicted by the trial companyrt under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
It was urged by the learned companynsel for the appellant that numberreliance whatsoever should have been placed upon the said dying declaration as it was recorded on 7.10.90 numberfurther attempt was made to get her regular dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate.
This suggestion was denied by both of them.
Whether police companyld have recorded a regular dying declaration or number was a matter for cross examination of the Investigating Officer.
The police after going there, recorded the statement of Sushma.
The High Court also on reappreciation of the evidence accepted the dying declaration as genuine and true and thought it safe to companyfirm their companyvection on the basis thereof.
It was then in the nature of a companyplaint and was later treated as a dying declaration because she died.
J U D G E M E N T Nanavati.
What has been held proved against the appellant is that in view of a dispute regarding their share in the land belonging to the family, they caused the death of Sushma, their brothers wife, by calling her at their house and after pouring kerosene over her head body and setting her abalze.
The prosecution had relied upon direct evidence.
P.J to prove its case.
in Criminal appeal No.
The prosecution had relied upon the dying declaration Ex.
The trial companyrt accepted the dying declaration as genuine and true and companyvicted all the four appellant.
242 DB of 1994.
As Sushma was taken to the hospital with burns, the hospitals authorities informed the police.
J. The four appellant are challenging in this appeal the judgement and order passed by the High companyrt of Punjab and Haryana.
