SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 24. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-convict vehemently submitted that: a. The courts below committed a serious error in recording a finding that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the convict beyond reasonable doubt. b. The entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence and none of the circumstances, relied upon by the courts below to hold the appellantconvict guilty of the charges, could be termed as incriminating circumstances. c. The two dying declarations; one of Irshad and the other of Islamuddin could not have been relied upon, as they do not inspire any confidence and are in conflict with the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses. d. The manner in which, the dying declarations came to be recorded, speaks for itself. He would submit that the dying declaration should ordinarily be recorded in a question-answer form. The Investigating Officer did not even deem fit to call the Executive Magistrate to record the dying declarations. It was also argued that there is nothing to indicate as regards the condition of the injured persons, while they are said to have made the dying declarations before the Investigating Officer. To put it in other words, whether Irshad and Islamuddin were in a fit condition to speak so as to give dying declarations? It was pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that all the three Medico Legal Case (MLC) reports, which were prepared noted “No BP readable”. Irshad and Naushad had suffered 95 % burns, whereas, Islamuddin had suffered 80-90 % burns. 10