ORDER

1. This appeal, at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh, arises out of the following facts:

2. The first wife of the Respondent (hereinafter called "the accused"), had died of tuberculosis and several years prior to the date of occurrence (19th October 2003) he had started living with Leelawati Bai deceased as a second wife. Out of this arrangement, 4 daughters, namely, Sandhya about 6 years, Lovely 3 years, Madhu 1 year and Jyoti 10 or 11 years had been born. As Leelawati Bai had abandoned her previous husband and belonged to a community different from that of the accused, she had not been accepted as a member of his family and even otherwise there was suspicion that she was not of good character. On the evening of 18th October 2003 the accused went to see a dance performance at Chandiya. He, however, returned home at about 1.00 a.m. i.e. in the early morning hours of 19th October 2003 before the performance had ended and after picking up a plastic can which contained kerosene oil, he poured the oil on his wife and four daughters. Jyoti who was the eldest, woke up and tried to escape but the accused got hold of her and in that process, he too sustained burn injuries on his body. As a consequence of the serious burn injuries, Leelawati Bai, Sandhya, Lovely and Madhu died almost instanteously and house was completely burnt down. Jyoti, who had sustained severe injuries, was removed to the Primary Health Centre by her uncle and brother of the accused, Nandi Kol PW-7 where she was examined by Doctor Ashish Pandey, PW-1. The Doctor also informed the police on which Sub-Inspector S.K. Mishra, PW-10 reached the hospital and after ascertaining from Dr. Ashish Pandey as to Jyoti's fitness to make a statement, recorded the same between 1.40 and 2.15 a.m. In this dying declaration, she gave the story as already given above. The accused was accordingly brought to trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC on the completion of the investigation. The trial court relying on the dying declaration and partly on the evidence of Nandi Kol PW-7 and Jognibai PW-8, the mother of the accused, held that the fact that the accused and Leelawati Bai were living as a man and wife had been proved on record. The court, however, held that the story as to the motive for the burning of Leelawati Bai and particularly her daughters could not be entirely accepted as the witnesses aforesaid had resiled from their police statements in an attempt to help the accused who was a very close relative and accordingly the primary evidence against the accused was the dying declaration made by Jyoti. The court observed that this was the main link in the chain of circumstances against the accused. It was pointed out that the dying declaration had been recorded by PW-10 after the Doctor had opined that Jyoti was fit to make a statement. Support for the dying declaration was also found from the evidence of PW-4 Balwant, a medical assistant, who too had been present in the Primary Health Centre. PW-10 also deposed that no Executive Magistrate was posted at Chandiya and as Jyoti was in a very serious condition it had not been feasible to secure the services of an Executive Magistrate from Umariya which was about one hour distant and that in any case the wireless set at the Headquarters had been shut down at midnight and the telephone too was not in working order. PW-10 also explained that soon after the recording of the dying declaration Jyoti too had died. The trial court observed that a dying declaration to be more reliable and plausible ought to be recorded by a Magistrate but if the circumstances did not make that possible and a dying declaration was recorded by a police officer and was found to be credible, there was no law or practice that it could not be relied upon. The trial court also noted that in the light of the fact that P Ws.7 and 8, the brother and the mother of the accused, had resiled from their statements though admittedly PW-7 ha