JUDGMENT - S.P. Kurdukar J.:---The appellant-accused has filed this Criminal Appeal to this Court challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona in Sessions Case No. 281 of 1974. 2. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows : "The appellant-original accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is the wife of Rajaram Godse. Rajaram Godse is a painter and at the relevant time he was residing in one room tenement at Chinchwad District Poona, with his aged mother and the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed the murder of her mother-in-law i.e. Radhabai Godse who was aged about 60 years. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused is remarried with Rajaram after the death of her first husband. The marriage of the accused with Rajaram took place some few months prior to the date of incident. This marriage was, however, not approved by Radhabai. There also used to be frequent bickerings between the accused and her mother-in-law. Because of these quarrels it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused developed an ill feeling against her mother-in-law. It is alleged by the prosecution that this ill feeling of the accused against her mother-in-law is the motive to commit the murder of her mother-in-law, Radhabai." 3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on June 14, 1974 there was a quarrel between the deceased Radhabai on one hand and the accused, her husband on the other. Rajaram also beat his mother. This incident took place at about 9.30 a.m. Rajaram thereafter left her house. It is alleged by the prosecution that the relevant time, deceased Radhabai and the accused were the only persons in the house. The accused sprinkled kerosene oil on the clothes and body of Radhabai and set fire to her clothes. Deceased Radhabai came out of the house and started shouting loudly. 4. Anjanabai (P.W. 8) is the neighbour of the accused and she was residing in a room which is just adjacent to the room of the accused. In front of the room of Anjanabai there is a padvi and in that padvi she had kept a bucker (Article 15) filled with water. Anjanabai saw Radhabi coming out of her room with her clothes burning and lifting the bucket and pouring the water on her person to extinguish the fire. In front of the room of Anjanabai there is a padvi and in that padvi she had kept a bucker (Article 15) filled with water. Anjanabai saw Radhabi coming out of her room with her clothes burning and lifting the bucket and pouring the water on her person to extinguish the fire. Since Radhabai had sustained serious burn injuries she fell down in front of the room of the accused. On hearing her shouts many neighbours collected there. There was a big crowd around Radhabai where she was lying on the ground. 5. Pandit Kulkarni (P.W. 1) is the son-in-law of the deceased Radhabai. At about 11-00 a.m. on that day Pandit Kulkarni happened to pass over the house of the accused. He saw several persons collected in front of the house of the accused. Out of curiosity he went near the crowd and saw that Radhabai had sustained burn injuries. Pandit Kulkarni accordingly went inside the room of the accused and brought a sari and spread it over the person of the deceased. He thereafter went to the Police Station and gave a oral report of the incident. After giving this information to the P.S.I. at Pimpri, Pandit Kulkarni returned to the house of the accused. On the way he saw an ambulance in which Radhabai was being taken to Sasoon Hospital. He stopped the ambulance and accompanied Radhabai to the Sasoon Hospital. 6. It is alleged by the prosecution that Dr. Rajendra Chengade (P.W. 15), House-Surgeon attached to the ward where Radhabai was admitted examined the patient, Radhabai. Dr. Chengade noticed that the burns on the person of Radhabai were 97%. Dr. Chengade thereafter asked Radhabai about the cause, as to how it happened. Radhabai, in reply told the doctor : "I was cooking in the house. I had a quarrel with my son and daughter-in-law. My son beat me with fist blows and a broom stick. He went away. My daughter-in-law Nanda poured kerosene on me. She set me on fire by lighting a matchstick". Dr. Chengade noted the history on the case-paper at Exhibit 32 given by the deceased Radhabai. 7. Head Constable Baburao Gujar (P.W. 19), who was attached to the Pimpri Police Station at the relevant time, received instructions from the Police Station Officer to go to Chinchwad and to find out about the occurrence. Dr. Chengade noted the history on the case-paper at Exhibit 32 given by the deceased Radhabai. 7. Head Constable Baburao Gujar (P.W. 19), who was attached to the Pimpri Police Station at the relevant time, received instructions from the Police Station Officer to go to Chinchwad and to find out about the occurrence. He accordingly went to the house of the accused and on coming to know that Radhabai was removed to Sasoon Hospital, he went to the Sasoon Hospital and contacted doctor and prepared a Yadi (Exhibit 29) in the name of Sub-Divisional Magistrate requesting him to record the dying declaration of Radhabai. Ramchandra Upasani, (P.W. 14), the Executive Magistrate, on receipt of the Yadi (Exhibit 29) visited the Sasoon Hospital. He contacted the doctor and accompanied him to the ward where Radhabai was lying. Ramchandra Upasani recorded the statement (dying declaration) (Exh. 390) of Radhabai. In the said statement, Radhabai has clearly stated that her daughter-in-law i.e. the accused poured kerosene oil on her person and set fire. A copy of the said statement was obtained by Head Constable, Gujar, sent that copy along with his report (Exhibit 37) to the Police Station Pimpri to register the necessary offence. 8. P.S.I. Chavan (P.W. 21) thereafter took the charge of investigation. He visited the scene of offence and drew the spot-panchanama (Exh. 9). Under the panchanama (Exh. 9) articles 1 to 11 were seized. P.S.I. Chavan thereafter made inquires about the accused and arrested her at the house of Dr. Athawale who is the father of the accused. P.S.I. Chavan thereafter seized the clothes on the person of the accused. The clothes on the person of Radhabai were also seized and they are Articles 16 to 18. The clothes of the accused and of the deceased Radhabai were sent to the chemical analyser. In the mean time P.S.I. also recorded the statements of various witnesses on 15th June, 1974. On coming to know that Radhabai died, P.S.I. Chavan drew the inquest panchanama at 1.30 p.m. and dead body was sent for post-mortem. 9. Dr. Ferwani (P.W. 13) carried the autopsy over the dead body of Radhabai between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m. The notes of post-mortem are at Exhibit 27. 10. On coming to know that Radhabai died, P.S.I. Chavan drew the inquest panchanama at 1.30 p.m. and dead body was sent for post-mortem. 9. Dr. Ferwani (P.W. 13) carried the autopsy over the dead body of Radhabai between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m. The notes of post-mortem are at Exhibit 27. 10. After completing the necessary investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence of murder of Radhabai, punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The defence of the accused is that of total denial. According to the accused on the date of incident i.e. on 14th June, 1974, in the morning her husband asked her to prepare oil paint and after preparing this paint she used kerosene for washing hands. Her husband thereafter went out of the house. She accompanied her husband up to the road and saw him off. As she had not taken bath till then she, on her return went to take bath. When she came out of the bathroom, she saw her mother-in-law shouting. Her clothes had caught fire. She (Radhabai herself) took a bucket containing water and poured on her person to extinguish the fire. By that time people collected there, and an ambulance was brought and in that ambulance Rabhabai was taken to the hospital. It is the case of the accused that she thereafter went to call her husband but he was not found in his office or company. In the mean while she came to know that her mother-in-law was removed to the Sasoon Hospital and she accordingly rushed to the Sasoon Hospital. She made inquiries about her husband with the persons, who had gathered in the hospital. She tried to see her mother-in-law but, however, she was not allowed to enter in the ward. According to the accused, she thereafter went to the house of her father. Her husband was not there. Thereafter she went to the Police Station where she was arrested by P.S.I. Chavan. Thus, the defence of the accused is that she is innocent and she can be acquitted. 12. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied upon the evidence of two dying declarations at Exhibits 30 and 32. In order to prove these two dying declarations the prosecution examined Dr. Rajendra Chengade and Mr. Ramachandra Upasani. Thus, the defence of the accused is that she is innocent and she can be acquitted. 12. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied upon the evidence of two dying declarations at Exhibits 30 and 32. In order to prove these two dying declarations the prosecution examined Dr. Rajendra Chengade and Mr. Ramachandra Upasani. In order to prove the burn injuries on the body of deceased Radhabai the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Dr. Ferwani (P.W. 13) who performed the post-mortem. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of panch witnesses and the various panchanama. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of P.S.I. Kadam (P.W. 20) and other police constable. 12. The accused, however, did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of her case. 13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, who tried the Sessions Case No. 281 of 1974, by his judgment and order found the accused guilty of the offence of murder of Radhabai, punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her suffer imprisonment for life. Against this order of conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed by the accused to this Court. 14. At the outset it may be mentioned that the prosecution case solely rests upon the two dying declarations recorded by Dr. Rajendra Chengade and Dr. Ramachandra Upasani. 15. Mr. B.B. Panse the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-accuses strongly urged that both the dying declarations should be discarded on the ground that they are not truthful. According to Mr. Panse both these dying declarations were not recorded in accordance with law and there are these dying declarations suffer from serious infirmities. He next urged that there are certain improbabilities in both these dying declarations. He alternatively criticised these dying declarations on the ground that the deceased must have made such dying by way of revenge against the accused and cannot be termed as truthful declarations. It is also urged by Mr. Panse that the evidence of Pandit Kulkarni (P.W. 11) has been totally brushed aside by the learned trial Judge while appreciating the two dying declarations. Relying upon the evidence of Pandit Kulkarni, it is urged by Mr. Panse that the deceased Radhabai was in the habit of casting false accusations against others. It is also urged by Mr. Panse that the evidence of Pandit Kulkarni (P.W. 11) has been totally brushed aside by the learned trial Judge while appreciating the two dying declarations. Relying upon the evidence of Pandit Kulkarni, it is urged by Mr. Panse that the deceased Radhabai was in the habit of casting false accusations against others. He also submitted that deceased Radhabai was not in a fit state of mind when her two statements i.e. the dying declarations were recorded having regard to the degree of percentage of burn injuries on her person. According to Mr. Panse, in all probabilities, out of rancour against the accused, the deceased Radhabai must have implicated the accused while making the two dying declarations. He also urged that the prosecution story as putforth in the Court is highly improbable in as much as it is too difficult to believe that deceased Radhabai would wait in the room even after the accused poured the kerosene oil on her person and clothes and until the accused set fire to her clothes. Immediately on pouring kerosene oil on her person i.e. Radhabai, who would make hue and cry and would try to come out of the room. It is, therefore, urged that the very incident, as alleged by the prosecution, appears to be highly improbable. It is also urged by Mr. Panse that the subsequent conduct of the accused going to the hospital is also very much consistent with her innocence when her presence in the hospital is also admitted by one of the prosecution witnesses. It is, therefore, urged by Mr. Panse that having regard to all these circumstances the accused deserves to be acquitted. 16. This is a very peculiar case in which we do not have any evidence prior to the incident and immediately after the incident on the record. The three eye-witnesses viz., Anjanabai (P.W. 8), Laxmibai (P.W. 9) and Chandrabhaga (P.W. 10) who are neighbours could have threw some light on the prosecution story but however they turned hostile and their evidence does not support the prosecution. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in ignoring the evidence to these three eye-witnesses. The three eye-witnesses viz., Anjanabai (P.W. 8), Laxmibai (P.W. 9) and Chandrabhaga (P.W. 10) who are neighbours could have threw some light on the prosecution story but however they turned hostile and their evidence does not support the prosecution. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in ignoring the evidence to these three eye-witnesses. No serious argument is also advanced before us by the learned Public Prosecutor asking us to consider the evidence of these three eye-witnesses partly so far as consistent with the prosecuted care we, therefore, propose to ignore the evidence of these three eye-witnesses altogether. Thus, having ignored the evidence of these three eye-witnesses, thee is no evidence on record to show as to what proceeded the incident and what were the movements of deceased Radhabai immediately after the incident. 17. So far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has sought to rely upon the two dying declarations only. There is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution on record to show that at the relevant time the accused and the deceased Radhabai were not keeping cordial and good relations. We have, therefore, to consider as to whether the two dying declarations can be said to be sufficient in the present case to sustain the conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. It is well settled that a dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act, although not being a statement on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closest circumspection to the statement before acting upon it. While great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person, yet the Court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination. The Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after the deceased had a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancour. The Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after the deceased had a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancour. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can be sufficient to found the conviction even without any further corroboration. 19. A dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the making of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character. In order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light when the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control; the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. (K. Ramchandra v. Public Prosecutor)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1994. 20. Thus, bearing in mind this principle laid down by the Supreme Court, we will proceed to consider the evidence of both these dying declarations. 21. The first dying declaration in point of time is at Exhibit 30. This dying declaration is in the form of history narrated by the patient i.e. deceased Radhabai at the time of her admission in the hospital. In order to prove this dying declaration at Exhibit 30 the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Dr. Rajendra Chengade (P.W. 15). According to Dr. Chengade, Radhabai was brought in the hospital at about 12-00 noon. He examined her. She was fully conscious but, however, he condition was serious. She had burn injuries on various part of her body. The degree of burns was 96%. Rajendra Chengade (P.W. 15). According to Dr. Chengade, Radhabai was brought in the hospital at about 12-00 noon. He examined her. She was fully conscious but, however, he condition was serious. She had burn injuries on various part of her body. The degree of burns was 96%. According to the doctor, he asked Radhabai the history and she accordingly told "I was cooking in the house. I had a quarrel with my son and daughter-in-law. My son bet me with first blows and broom stick. He went away. My daughter-in-law Nanda poured kerosene on me. She set fire by lighting a match stick." According to the doctor, he has written this history on the case-paper Radhabai narrated the entire history in her own vernacular language but he however, translated this in English. The case papers (Exhibit 30) were shown to the witness and he admits that this is the same statement which he had recorded at the time of admission of Radhabai in the hospital. The witness had been cross-examined on behalf of the defence and he admitted that after the admission he prescribed ¼ grain of morphia to Radhabai. He admits that Radhabi was in shock and, therefore, he gave haemaccel. Upto 1.00 p.m. haemaccel was infused. This drug is given when the patient is under a shock and serious condition. She was in neurogenis shock but not hemorrhagic shock. This witness denied the suggestion that Radhabai was not mentally fit to tell the story of past events. The witness, however, admits that Morphia drug depresses the sensory centre and the patient becomes drowsy when sensory centres are affected. 22. So far as dying statement is concerned, it is urged by Mr. Panse that this dying declaration should be wholly rejected on the ground that Dr. Chengade has not recorded the same in verbation in the language in which Radhabai had narrated. Mr. Panse also criticised the evidence of Dr. Chengade on the ground that he has not recorded the dying declaration in the form of question and answer form. He next submitted that admittedly 1/4th grain of morphia was administered to Radhabai and which depresses the sensory centre. The doctor has also admitted that the patient becomes drowsy when sensory centres are affected. Relying upon this cross-examination it is urged by Mr. He next submitted that admittedly 1/4th grain of morphia was administered to Radhabai and which depresses the sensory centre. The doctor has also admitted that the patient becomes drowsy when sensory centres are affected. Relying upon this cross-examination it is urged by Mr. Panse that Radhabai could not be said to be in fit mental condition to make any statement much less truthful and, therefore, the alleged dying declaration recorded by Dr. Chengade should be totally rejected being not truthful and also suffer from several infirmities. 23. The next dying declaration is recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shri Ramchandra Upasani (P.W. 14). This dying declaration was recorded at about 2-30 p.m. According to Upasani he was accompanied by the doctor to the ward where Radhabai was admitted in the hospital. The doctor opined that Radhabai was in a fit mental condition to make statement as well as she is conscious. According to Upasani, he asked Radhabai as to whether she was able to talk. He asked Radhabai her name. He also then asked Radhabai as to how she received the burn injuries. Radhabai accordingly narrated the incident. The witness further stated that he has recorded the statement of Radhabai as far as possible in her own words. 24. According to the dying declaration recorded by Upasani, Radhabai states that her daughter-in-law Nanda poured kerosene on her person and thereafter set fire with a match stick. This happened at about 10-00 a.m. Her son was not in the house. In the morning there was quarrel between herself and her daughter-in-law. There used to be quarrel every day. After the sari caught fire she came out and the neighbours collected. But, however, daughter-in-law ran away thereafter and others took her to the hospital. 25. The Executive Magistrate Shri Upasani further states that he took the impression of the left toe of Radhabai on the dying declaration. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence and he has asserted that he had recorded the dying declaration truthfully. He states that there are no instructions that dying declarations hold be recorded in the question and answer form only. He also admits that he has not written that the statement was read over to Radhabai. He also further admits that he has not put his certificate that Radhabai was physically fit to make a statement. He states that there are no instructions that dying declarations hold be recorded in the question and answer form only. He also admits that he has not written that the statement was read over to Radhabai. He also further admits that he has not put his certificate that Radhabai was physically fit to make a statement. He further asserts that the doctor was all along present until the statement was completed. The witness denies that he wrote the statement in his own words. 26. It is truth that there are no infirmities in the evidence of Upasani (P.W. 14) and Dr. Chengade (P.W. 15). But, however, merely because there are no infirmities in the evidence of these two witnesses, it does not necessarily mean that the dying declarations are truthful. We will have, therefore, to see the various attending circumstances to find out as to whether these dying declarations can be said to be truthful and can be safely accepted to convict the accused for the offence of murder. 27. Before, we consider the truthfulness or otherwise of both the dying declarations, it would be relevant to refer to the evidence of P.D. Kulkarni (P.W. 11). This witnesses P.D. Kulkarni is the son-in-law of deceased Radhabai. P.D. Kulkarni states that at about 11.00 a.m. he reached the house of his mother-in-law and there he saw a big crowd. Later on he learned that his mother-in-law was lying on the ground due to burn injuries. He brought a sari from the house of the accused and spread it over on Radhabai. Thereafter he went to the police station at Pimpri. While returning he saw an ambulance in which Radhabai was being carried to the hospital. He stopped the ambulance and went along with Radhabai to the Sasoon Hospital. In the cross-examination this witness admits that Radhabai was a quarrelsome and obdurate lady. She was revengeful in nature. She had a habit of casting false accusations against others. He was in the hospital till 8.00 p.m. His wife came in the hospital and then both of them met Radhabai in the hospital. The evidence of this witness is clear that Radhabai was a quarrelsome and obdurate lady. She had a habit of casting false accusations against others and she was revengeful in nature. He was in the hospital till 8.00 p.m. His wife came in the hospital and then both of them met Radhabai in the hospital. The evidence of this witness is clear that Radhabai was a quarrelsome and obdurate lady. She had a habit of casting false accusations against others and she was revengeful in nature. Bearing in mind this evidence of this witness, P.D. Kulkarni, who is the son-in-law of Radhabai, we may consider the truthfulness of the dying declarations. 28. According to Dr. Chengade, when Radhabai was brought to the hospital at 12.00 noon she was conscious and she could talk. The fact that Radhabai was conscious and could talk is also corroborated from the dying declarations itself. In the dying declaration, Radhabai states that after her sari was caught fire she came out of the room and thereafter neighbours came there but, however, he daughter-in-law, Nanda, ran away. Others who had gathered there brought her to the hospital. It suggests that Radhabai had witnessed the entire incident and she was conscious till she was brought to the hospital. In view of this fact, therefore, we can safely assume that Radhabai was conscious and could understand things and she could also talk at the time when she was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Admittedly, in the ambulance, her son-in-law, P.D. Kulkarni (P.W. 11) had accompanied. Along with P.D. Kulkarni, Pramod Deshmukh (P.W. 18), one Thipse and Head Constable Gujar (P.W. 19) were also sitting in the ambulance. It is surprising that to none of these inmates of the ambulance, Radhabai over stated about the incident implicating the accused as a person who poured kerosene and set fire to her clothes and responsible for the injuries. We are told that the distance between Chinch was and Sasoon hospital is 15 miles. During the journey of this 15 miles, therefore, there was every opportunity for deceased Radhabai to disclose the name of the accused. This circumstance of non-disclosure of the name of the accused at the earliest opportunity itself is a very important circumstance which goes against the prosecution. Relying upon this circumstance, it is, therefore, rightly urged by Mr. Panse that both the dying declarations which are alleged to have been recorded by the doctor and Executive Magistrate, would not be truthful version of the deceased Radhabai about the cause of her death. Mr. Relying upon this circumstance, it is, therefore, rightly urged by Mr. Panse that both the dying declarations which are alleged to have been recorded by the doctor and Executive Magistrate, would not be truthful version of the deceased Radhabai about the cause of her death. Mr. Panse strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. page 1994, and submitted that the two dying declarations recorded in the hospital should be looked at with great suspicion. 29. The evidence of P.D. Kulkarni (P.W. 11) shows that deceased Radhabai was a quarrelsome and obdurate lady and she had a habit of casting false accusations against others. Relying upon this evidence it is urged by Mr. Panse that deceased Radhabai must have implicated the accused to take a revenge as she had married with Rajaram against her will. This probability of involving the accused falsely having regard to the nature of Radhabai cannot be ruled out. As stated earlier, the prosecution has noted the evidence of Rajaram who would be the material witness to throw some light on the nature of deceased Radhabai. Form the evidence on record, as it stands, we are satisfied that having regard to the nature of Radhabai and having regard to the fact that she was in the habit of casting false accusations against others, it is quite likely that she should implicate the accuse in the present case. 30. There is yet another important circumstance which shows the improbability of the prosecution case. At the relevant time, according to the prosecution case, accused and deceased were in the room. There was a quarrel between the accused and the decease in the morning. There was also a quarrel with the son of Radhabai who bet her with a broom stick. Thereafter when the deceased Radhabai was cooking, accused came and poured kerosene and lit fire with a match stick to the clothes of the deceased. If there was really any quarrel in the morning between the accused and deceased Radhabai, then the deceased Radhabai would have been more cautions, at any rate in that morning. It is highly improbable that deceased Radhabai would keep quiet even after pouring kerosene oil on her person. If there was really any quarrel in the morning between the accused and deceased Radhabai, then the deceased Radhabai would have been more cautions, at any rate in that morning. It is highly improbable that deceased Radhabai would keep quiet even after pouring kerosene oil on her person. It would take at least a minute to lit a match stick after pouring kerosene on her person and during this period the deceased would have tried to run away from the room or raised hue and cry to escape from that place. But the evidence shows that she was sitting quietly until the accused lit fire to her clothes with the match stick and thereafter she started running outside her room. This prosecution case which finds place on the evidence of the dying declaration at Exh. 32 appears to us to be highly improbable. The story of the prosecution as disclosed in the dying declaration at Exhibit 32 does not appear to us to be truthful and the accused is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 31. The last circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is the absence of the accused from her house as well as in the hospital. According to the prosecution the conduct of the accused is consistent with her guilt and, therefore, she was all along absent from the house as well as from the hospital. In order to prove this circumstances, the prosecution strongly relied upon the evidence of P.D. Kulkarni (P.W. 11). This witness in his evidence states that he was in the hospital from 12-00 noon till evening. During that time accused had not come to the hospital at all. From the evidence of the investigating Officer, it is found that the accused came to be arrested at the place of her parents at about 7-25 p.m. According to the prosecution, this conduct of the accused clearly proves the guilty mind. It is urged by Mr. Panse that the evidence of P.D. Kulkarni (P.W. 11) is totally negatived by the evidence of Pramod Deshmukh (P.W. 18) who was admittedly at the hospital between 12.00 noon and 2.30 p.m. Pramod Deshmukh in his evidence states that when he was in the hospital the accused had come to see her mother-in-law in the hospital. Panse that the evidence of P.D. Kulkarni (P.W. 11) is totally negatived by the evidence of Pramod Deshmukh (P.W. 18) who was admittedly at the hospital between 12.00 noon and 2.30 p.m. Pramod Deshmukh in his evidence states that when he was in the hospital the accused had come to see her mother-in-law in the hospital. In view of this evidence of Pramod Deshmukh, we will have to hold that the accused was present in the hospital some time between 12-00 and 2-30 p.m. If that is so, then it cannot be said that the conduct of the accused is that of guilty mind. It may also be noted that according to the prosecution, by 12-00 noon, first dying declaration of deceased Radhabai was recorded by the doctor and thereafter by 2-15 p.m. the Executive Magistrate also recorded the second dying declaration. In both these dying declarations Radhabai tried to involve the accused. On the face of this evidence, it appears to us that it is quite probable that the accused would be justified in going to the place of her parents. Therefore, the mere fact that the accused was arrested at the house of her parents at 7-25 p.m. would not, in our opinion, prove the guilt of the accused. This circumstance, in our opinion, is completely consistent with the innocence of the accused. 32. Mr. Panse then commented upon the conduct of the Investigating Officer who has failed to produce the first information report during the trial. It is true that P.D. Kulkarni lodged the oral complaint with the police Station Officer and on that complaint the investigation machinery was set into motion. It is surprising that none of the police officers who are examined in this case could name the person who lodged the oral complaint. Relying upon this circumstances, it is urged by Mr. Panse that non production of this document must lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution and he, therefore, strongly urged that adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution viz. that the complaint lodged by P.D. Kulkarni was that of suicidal death and not of homicidal death of Radhabai. In view of our foregoing discussions with reference to the two dying declarations, we do not find it necessary to deal with this argument of the learned Counsel for the accused. 33. that the complaint lodged by P.D. Kulkarni was that of suicidal death and not of homicidal death of Radhabai. In view of our foregoing discussions with reference to the two dying declarations, we do not find it necessary to deal with this argument of the learned Counsel for the accused. 33. Thus having regard to the temperament and nature of deceased Radhabai, we are of the opinion that the accused at any rate is entitled for benefit of doubt and she needs to be acquitted of the charge levelled against her for the offence of murder of her mother-in-law, Radhabai, punishable under section 302 of the India Penal Code. 34. In the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, against the appellant-accused is set aside the appellant-accused is directed to be released forthwith is not required in any other case. ------