DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These two appeals have their matrix in a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposing of three criminal appeals preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC), against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Sessions case nO.65 of 1994 dated 13.5.1997. Five persons had faced trial for alleged commission of murder of one Arunbharathi @ Jynarab (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). They were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short •IPC). So far as A 1, A2 and A5 are concerned, each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A 1, A2 and A5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 348 IPC and sentenced to one year RI each. A1 was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and A2 and A5 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo RI for life.

2. A 1 was Head Constable, while A2 was a Constable A3 was a Writer, and A4 was a Pere Constable. All of them were attached to Ammapet Police Station, and they were on duty on 14.12.1992 and 15.12.1992. A5 was a native of Udaiyur Kovil.

3. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions charges were framed since the• accused persons pleaded innocence they were put to trial. In order to substantiate the charges 14 witnesses were examined. On consideration of the material on record the Trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed sentences as aforesaid.

4. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the deceased had put himself on fire and in fact, all the accused persons immediately quenched the fire and had taken him to the Government Primary Health Hospital. Ammapet, where PW3 doctor was available. The deceased made a voluntary statement to PW3 wherein he categorically stated that he had poured petrol on himself and set himself on fire. Thereafter the deceased with the burn injuries was taken to the Medical College Hospital where also he made a similar statement to PW4 the doctor. Subsequently, another doctor PW6 examined him where also he made a similar statement. Therefore it was submitted that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting them relying on the purported dying declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to the Revenue• Divisional Officer (PW14) on 16.12.1992 i.e, four days prior to his death, The same was nothing but a tutored one, The High Court held that the so called statements made before the doctors cannot be accepted in view of the dying declaration recorded by PW14 the RDO, The High Court did not attach any importance to the statements purportedly given before PWs, 3, 4 and 6 and also relied on the dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased before the PW14. The High Court found that the allegations against A2, A3 were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the appeals filed by these accused persons were allowed and those filed by the appellants in these two appeals were dismissed.

5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court proceeded on presumptions that because the statements of the deceased to PWs, 3, 4 and 6 were made in the presence of a Constable, therefore, they were not voluntary. On the contrary at the time when the statements were made, the relatives of the deceased were present is evident from the evidence of PW1 who took the deceased to the hospital. He had categorically admitted that he was accompanied by several persons when the deceased was taken to and was at the hospital. PW1 and others were there with him. PW1 has categorically admitted that this was the situation in the Ammapet hospital and Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. He has categorically stated that several persons were present at the