“25. The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are the ratio of the aforesaid decision, which is binding to all courts in India as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, although in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court held that the investigating officers are naturally interested in the success of investigation and the practice of the investigating officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation, are not to be encouraged but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded a finding of guilt against the present appellants holding in his judgment that PW-11 Manikant Head-constable is a policeman and he should not be believed to have any grudge against the present appellants, therefore, he is an independent witness and his testimony should be treated as of an independent witness without any bias and ill-will. In fact, the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge recording conviction and sentence, which is being impugned before us, if allowed to stand, it will encourage recording of dying declaration by the investigating officers. From the judgment cited before us of our own High Court, we found as a matter of fact, that invariably the investigating officers had, recorded a dying declaration, upon which, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judges were passed and after challenged before this Court, all such dying declarations were put to strict scrutiny of this Court and after analytical discussion, almost the conviction solely based on the dying declaration recorded by the investigating officer were set aside except in two cases. There are catena of judgments of this Court reported and unreported, where the veracity of such dying declaration recorded by the investigating officer, are brought to the notice of this Court in order to check such practice of recording the dying declaration by the
