JUDGMENT T. R Handa, J.—The appellants before us were all charged and tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Sirmur and Solan districts at Nahan. The common charge against the appellants was founded on the allegations that on 20-8-1982 they had all in furtherance of their common intention intentionally caused the death of Mrs. Kiran Chopra wife of appellant No. 1 Anil Chopra by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body. 2. The learned Sessions Judge who conducted the trial found all the three appellants guilty of the offence aforesaid. He, therefore, vide his judgment dated 24-3-1983 convicted them all under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. The appellants have now appealed this Court in appeal. 3. The main facts of this case are not in dispute and may be briefly narrated thus. Appellant No. 2 Shri R.K. Chopra is the father and appellant No. 3 Mrs. Santosh Chopra is the mother of appellant No.1 Anil Chopra. The deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra was married to appellant No.1 in February 1981. Appellant No. 1 at that time was employed as Administrative-cum-Personnel Officer with the Cement Corporation of India, Rajban which job he, continued to hold till his arrest in this case. After marriage, appellant No.1 and his wife Mrs. Kiran Chopra (deceased) lived by themselves in their flat at Rajban In July 1981 appellant No. 2 Shri R.K. Chopra retired from service and thereafter he and his wife appellant No. 3 Mrs. Santosh Chopra also joined appellant No. 1 and the deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra at Rajban and continued to live there. In December, 1981 the deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra gave birth to a son. The family living at Rajban at the time of occurrence thus comprised of the three appellants, the deceased Kiran Chopra and the infant child. 4. Appellant No. 1 it appears used to come home for lunch on working days. On 20-8-1982 also as usual he came home for lunch at about 1 p. m. After lunch he returned to his office at about 2 p. m. A few minutes thereafter an alarm was heard from the house of the appellant "JAL GAI JAL GAI BACHAO BACHAO". Attracted by this alarm several persons from the neighbourhood collected at the house of the appellant Dr. Attracted by this alarm several persons from the neighbourhood collected at the house of the appellant Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2), Ashok Bhatia (PW 13) and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) were amongst the persons who reached there soon after the alarm was heard. These PWs found the deceased lying flat on the floor of the gallery outside the kitchen with her face upwards. She was then having extensive burns all over the body. The extent of the burns was estimated at 90% to 95%. Water was found flushed in the gallery emitting smell of kerosene oil. 5. In the meanwhile appellant No. 2 rang up the office of his son appellant No. 1 to convey the news of this unfortunate incident. On getting the news appellant No. 1 rushed home on his motor cycle. On seeing the deceased he got perplexed and sought advice from Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) as to what should be done. As advised by Dr. Sadiqi appellant No. 1 took the deceased to civil hospital Paonta Sahib, the nearest medical centre, in his own car. Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) who is employed as Nurse in the Health Centre of Cement Corporation of India, Rajban also accompanied the deceased in the same car. She was in fact supporting the deceased in the car by sitting with her on the back seat. Dr. Sadiqi and appellant No. 2 R.K. Chopra followed in a separate vehicle. They reached civil hospital Paonta Sahib at about 2.30 p.m. Dr. Surender Gandhi (PW 1) the then incharge civil hospital Paonta Sahib was summoned from his quarter. He examined the deceased and after rendering her "some urgent medical aid, advised the appellants to take her to some better hospital. At about 3 p.m. the deceased was removed in the same car from civil hospital Paonta Sahib and taken to Harbertpur Mission Hospital. This hospital is at a distance of about 9 kilometres from Paonta Sahib and is well equipped. It, however, falls within the jurisdiction of police station Sahaspur of district Dehra Dun (U. P.) 6. The deceased reached Harbertpur Mission Hospital at about 3.30 p.m. The appellants as also Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) were with the deceased at that time. She was admitted in that hospital at 3.45 p.m. by Dr. Claudius (PW 5), the then acting Medical Superintendent of the hospital. The deceased reached Harbertpur Mission Hospital at about 3.30 p.m. The appellants as also Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) were with the deceased at that time. She was admitted in that hospital at 3.45 p.m. by Dr. Claudius (PW 5), the then acting Medical Superintendent of the hospital. This witness who holds the degree of Master of Surgery, examined the deceased at the time of admission. He found burns all over her body except scalp, right inguinal region in front of the waist below umbilicus and fore-head and eyes. The deceased was then restless and crying with pain. She was given pathedine injection 100 miligram intra muscularly under advice of this doctor. Second pathedine injection 50 miligram was repeated at 5 p.m. 7. At 4 p.m. Dr. Claudius prepared the Patient Chart Ex PC/20 where he recorded the history of the deceased on the basis of her own version. The deceased at that time was, according to Dr. Claudius, fully conscious. The history recorded on the patient chart Ex. PC/20 by Dr. Claudius reads : "History given by patient herself that she got burnt while boiling milk due to bursting of stove kerosene stove with wicks). Her child was sleeping there and her parents-in-law were sleeping in another room. When she shouted they came to save her. Then they took her to Paonta hospital." Dr. Claudius informed about the admission of the deceased to the concerned police, namely, police station Sahaspur. He then got the deceased prepared for the necessary operation. After the deceased was so prepared, Dr. Claudius did femoral cut down in her right inguinal region. He finished this operation by about 5.20 p.m. In the meanwhile S. I. Shiv Kumar (PW 20) of police station Sahaspur also arrived at the hospital in response to the information sent by Dr. Claudius. At 5.30 p.m. Dr. Claudius recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the presence of S. I. Shiv Kumar and one Paul East, Administrator of the hospital. These were the only persons present when the dying declaration was recorded and they also attested the same. Before recording the dying declaration Dr. Claudius had sent all other persons out of the room which was bolted from inside. This dying declaration is found at Ex. Pt E. After it was recorded Dr. These were the only persons present when the dying declaration was recorded and they also attested the same. Before recording the dying declaration Dr. Claudius had sent all other persons out of the room which was bolted from inside. This dying declaration is found at Ex. Pt E. After it was recorded Dr. Claudius despatched it in a sealed cover to the Superintendent of Police Dehra Dun the same day. It is in Hindi and its English translation reads thus ; "Statement given by Kiran Chopra on 20-8-82 at 5.30 p. m. when she was fully conscious and in her full senses. While boiling the milk the servant had put excess oil in the stove, and there was a hole in it, therefore the stove had burst. It was all alone in the room in which the stove had burst, and my eight months old baby was sleeping. My mother-in-law and father-in-law were sleeping in another room. At that time my husband had gone to his office. At the time when caught fire, had made a call and immediately my Mama and Papa came there and wrapped blankets around my body. My parents love me too much. At the same moment Dr. Siddiqui, who is a doctor at Rajban came there and was taken to Paonta Hospital along with him. There was administered I/V Glucose. Thereafter, Dr. advised to shift me to Harbertpur Christian Hospital and then was brought here in a car. Statement taken by Witness :— Dr. P.K. Claudius Sd/-(In English) M.S. Acting M/s HCH, Herbertpur. (1) Shiv Kumar, SI 20-8-1982. (2) Sd/-(in English) (illegible) 20-8-1982. Administrator, Ch. Hospital, Herbertpur." 8. The deceased received her medical treatment throughout at Herbertpur Mission Hospital where she ultimately expired on 25-8-1982 at about 7.00 a. m. During this period she initially showed some improvement upto 23-8-1982 but from 24-8-1982 her condition started deteriorating. At 12.30 p.m. on 24-8-1982 she had cardio respiratory arrest from which attack she never came out and then ultimately expired the next morning. She, however, remained conscious upto 23-8-1982 and was fit to make statement though in a feeble tone. 9. Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12) is the father of the deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra. He was then living at Bareilly. His brother Dr. Inder Chadah was, however, residing at Dehra Dun. Soon after reaching Herbertpur hospital, appellant No. 1 Anil Chopra gave the address of Dr. 9. Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12) is the father of the deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra. He was then living at Bareilly. His brother Dr. Inder Chadah was, however, residing at Dehra Dun. Soon after reaching Herbertpur hospital, appellant No. 1 Anil Chopra gave the address of Dr. Inder Chadah of Dehra Dun and the telephone number of Shri M.L. Chadah of Bareilly to Dr. Sadiqi (PW. 2) with the request to convey the necessary information to them. Dr. Sadiqi accompanied by the Security Supervisor of the Cement Corporation of India then went to Dehra Dun to do the needful and from there Shri M.L. Chadah was contacted on telephone. He was informed that his daughter had met with a serious accident and that he should immediately reach Herbertpur Mission Hospital. On receiving that telephonic message, Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12) accompanied by his wife and son reached Herbertpur Mission Hospital in the after-noon of 21-8-1982. All the three of them, namely, Shri M.L. Chadah, his wife and son then remained in attendance on the deceased day and night from the time of their arrival in the hospital till her death. 10. On the morning of 25-8-1982 the information with respect to the death of the deceased was sent by Dr. Claudius (PW. 5) to police station Sahaspur. S. I, Shiv Kumar (PW. 20) then came to the hospital with two constables. He took charge of the dead body and removed it. to Dehra Dun hospital for postmortem examination. Before doing so he conducted inquest under Section 174 Cr. P.C. at Herbertpur Mission Hospital. In that inquest he joined Shri M.L. Chadah (PM. 12), his brother Dr. Inder Chadah, Anil Chopra appellant No. 1, R.K. Chopra appellant No. 2 and one D. P. Sahni. Ex. P.N. is the Inquest Report prepared by this witness which is attested by all the above named persons. 11. After the postmortem was conducted at Dehra Dun, the dead body was delivered to Shri M. L. Chadah (PW. 12) and cremated the same evening. The relations of the deceased from both sides, that is, from her parents side as also from the side of her in-laws attended the cremation ceremony. 12. A few more facts which emerge from the prosecution evidence and are not disputed on behalf of the defence are as under : 13. 12) and cremated the same evening. The relations of the deceased from both sides, that is, from her parents side as also from the side of her in-laws attended the cremation ceremony. 12. A few more facts which emerge from the prosecution evidence and are not disputed on behalf of the defence are as under : 13. The marriage between the deceased and appellant No. 1 was an arranged marriage. It was arranged by their parents through correspondence. Before the solemnization of this marriage, however, the parties had met each other and enlighted themselves regarding the status, way of living, conditions in life etc. of each other. But for this self introduction, the two families were then quite strangers. No demand of dowry was made by any of the appellants at the time of or before the marriage. Even thereafter whenever any gifts were presented by the parents of the deceased to the appellants, the same were gladly accepted. The appellants never protested against the inadequacy or otherwise of such gifts. In fact as per statement of the father of the deceased, she was very happy with her marriage atleast for the first four months. 14. The marriage of the brother of the deceased was celebrated at Barielly in February 1982, All the appellants along with the deceased riot only attended that marriage but they stayed with the parents of the deceased on that occasion for about a week. Appellant No. 1 used to visit his in-laws quite often. 15. Just about a month prior to this tragedy in July 1982 the deceased had visited her parents at Bareilly. During this visit which was a short one, the deceased wrote two letters to her husband, appellant No. 1. The same are Ex. D.C. and Ex. D.D. The first of these letters, she wrote the very day she reached Bareilly and the other followed a few days later. Since these letters appear to have an important bearing on the mutual relations of the deceased and appellant No. 1, we would reproduce them in extenso. Ex. D.C. Bareilly "My dear Saniya Gandu Charansparsh. I am very angry with you. It is too much. This is my second letter and you did not bother to reply my letter. If you could not write to me, then at least you should have dropped a letter to your son, who remembers you by saying Papa-Papa. Ex. D.C. Bareilly "My dear Saniya Gandu Charansparsh. I am very angry with you. It is too much. This is my second letter and you did not bother to reply my letter. If you could not write to me, then at least you should have dropped a letter to your son, who remembers you by saying Papa-Papa. What does he know that his papa is enjoying his life by sitting alone and has not time to write even one or two lines. What is the reason Bubbu ? I believed that immediately on my arrival you will write me a letter. Sonu ! now you must reach here by 18th. I will book seats only when you will arrive here because nothing is clear about your arrival. Please write a letter soon as to when you are coming. Mummy is stressing me to stay here for some days more, but Bubbu it is impossible for me to live any more without you. I miss you very much, especially during night time, thinking on what I should keep my legs. How do you sleep now-a-days ? At this time your son is sleeping. He has become very naughty. He rambles all the time. How are Mummy and Papa ? What about their programme of Delhi. Babbu 1 you come soon. Sonu ! when you will come here you must bring rice with you. I had asked Sohta to see me on his departure, but he let without seeing me. I had also a letter for you. Baljinder also did not make any telephonic call. O. Kay, no space is left in the letter. Now you must come soon. Yours Babba , Sd/-Kiran (in English)" "Ex. D. D. Bareilly My dear Sonia Moniya, Charansparsh or Puppy. Sonu ! I have arrived here only today and started writing to you. I have reached here safely along with your son, but it was too hot in the train and our fan was also out of order. On our arrival here Sunny caused a little trouble but now he is alright. He has adjusted himself with ail particularly with Papa. In the evening he starts repeating Papa-Papa. Sonu ! in order to take me you should reach here by 18th or 19th. What is Mummys programme ? Is she going Delhi or not ? Baba ! What are you doing now a days ? He has adjusted himself with ail particularly with Papa. In the evening he starts repeating Papa-Papa. Sonu ! in order to take me you should reach here by 18th or 19th. What is Mummys programme ? Is she going Delhi or not ? Baba ! What are you doing now a days ? Do you renumber me or not ? Sonu ! in fact I felt like bewailing by seeing your drawn face at that time when you were I going back after bidding good-bye to us in the train. Is it not I you love me too much ? Today in the evening I shall go to "beautjk Parlour" and have to see a movie tomorrow. Which movie you I have to seen ? Lo ! Just now your son has waked up and is I weeping. So I stop writing. You should reply me early. When you are coming ? I will reserve the seats only then. I will write second detailed letter in leisure. Sunny is sending lot of kisses to you. On behalf of Sunnys mummy, one kiss on papas cheeks, another kiss at spot where mummy sleeps and one kiss....................? ! Understood where to kiss ? Pay my regards to mummy and papa. ! You should reply very early. O.K. Yours Sd/-Babba (in English)" 16. On the day of occurrence when appellant No. 1 reached home for lunch at about 1 p.m. he blew the horn of his motor cycle on which he had come. On hearing that horn, the deceased came out with her baby. She along with the baby then sat on the pinion of the motor cycle and appellant No. l took them for a joy ride. 17. PW. 2 Dr. Sadiqi was the first doctor who reached the spot and saw the deceased after the occurrence at about 2.15 p. m. Appellant No. 1 had not yet arrived from his office. The deceased told this doctor that she was feeling severe pain which shows that she could talk. It was thereafter that she was removed to the hospital. On the way from Paonta Sahib to Herbertpur hospital the deceased uttered the following words to her husband in the car.— "Sonny ka Dhyan Rakhna Aur Doosri Shaadi Nahin Kama" (Look after Sonny and do not perform second marriage). This utterance was made by the deceased in the presence of Mrs. On the way from Paonta Sahib to Herbertpur hospital the deceased uttered the following words to her husband in the car.— "Sonny ka Dhyan Rakhna Aur Doosri Shaadi Nahin Kama" (Look after Sonny and do not perform second marriage). This utterance was made by the deceased in the presence of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW. 15) who had accompanied her to the hospital in the same car. 18. We may now advert to the story which the prosecution endeavoured to prove at the trial and which ultimately prevailed with the trial Court in holding the appellants guilty for the commission of the offence charged against them As per this story the appellants were not happy with the dowry brought by the deceased at the time of her marriage. On that account they used to harass her off and on. The deceased had in fact complained about such harassment at the hands of her in-laws to her father Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 2). When the latter offered to intervene the deceased advised him not to do so as she hoped to settle the matter at her own level. The grievance of the appellants with respect to the insufficiency of dowry brought by the deceased, however, persisted. All the appellants, therefore, conspired together to put an end to the life of the deceased presumably to enable appellant No. 1 to marry once again. It was in pursuance of such conspiracy that all the three appellants joined together on 20-8-1982 to burn the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her. 19. According to this version the deceased was set on fire some time between 1.30 and 2.00 p.m. when appellant No. 1 was still at home and had not returned to his office after lunch. The alarm raised by appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and the telephone call latter made by appellant No. 2 to appellant No. 1 in his office were only a part of the drama enacted by the appellants to show it a case of accidental fire. 20. As regards the dying declaration Ex, PE referred to earlier, the prosecution case was that this declaration was a false document. The deceased was in fact, according to this version, not in a fit condition to make any statement at the hour when this declaration purports to have been made, la any case this declaration was false and involuntary. 20. As regards the dying declaration Ex, PE referred to earlier, the prosecution case was that this declaration was a false document. The deceased was in fact, according to this version, not in a fit condition to make any statement at the hour when this declaration purports to have been made, la any case this declaration was false and involuntary. The stove which as per this declaration Ex. PE had burst resulting in injuries had neither actually burst nor was capable of so bursting. The true declaration with respect to the cause of her death, according to the prosecution, was made by the deceased only on 23-8-1982 at about 4 p.m. This was an oral declaration made by the deceased to her father in the presence of Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW. 14). As per this declaration the deceased had been burnt by the appellants by pouring kerosene oil on her person as they had grievance against for not bringing adequate dowry. The very next day, that is, on 24-8-1982 Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12), the father of the deceased mentioned about this oral declaration to Dr. Claudius (PW. 5) who then made a note thereof in the patient chart Ex. PC/20. The same evening, that is, 24-8-1982 Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12) lodged report Ex. P.J. at police station Paonta Sahib where again a reference was made to this dying declaration. It was on the basis of this report Ex. P. J. that the First Information Report Ex. PQ was registered against the appellants under Section 307/34 I.P.C. 21. Obviously the case against the appellants rests purely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the learned Sessions Judge founded his verdict of conviction against the appellants and which according to him had been proved on the record may be enumerated : 1. The deceased made a dying declaration on 23-8-82 at 4 p.m. before her father Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12) in the presence of Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW. 14) to the effect that the appellants had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body and that is how she suffered the burn injuries which ultimately proved fatal. 2. The appellants were unhappy with the dowry brought by the deceased at the time of her marriage. 12) in the presence of Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW. 14) to the effect that the appellants had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body and that is how she suffered the burn injuries which ultimately proved fatal. 2. The appellants were unhappy with the dowry brought by the deceased at the time of her marriage. On that account they had been causing a lot of harassment to the deceased who made a complaint thereof to her father also. Since the grievance of the appellants with respect to the inadequacy of the dowry persisted, they had a motive to put an end to the life of the deceased. 3. Conduct of the appellants in not reporting the matter to the police. 4. Appellant No.3 Mrs. Santosh Chopra soon after the occurrence washed the floor where the deceased fell after receiving the burn injuries and thereby destroyed vital evidence of the offence. 5. Existence of burn injuries and contusions on the person of Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No. 2 which suggested that this appellant had a scuffle with the deceased at the time she had been set on fire. 6. Stove Ex. P.1 recovered from the house of the appellants and which as per defence version had burst resulting in burn injuries to the deceased had neither been found burst nor was it capable of bursting. This belied the story of accidental fire propounded by the appellants. 7. There was a gas stove as also an electric heater present in the house of the deceased and in the presence thereof it was rather improbable that the deceased would use kerosene oill stove for boiling milk for the baby. 8. Presence of all the appellants in the house at the time of and just before the occurrence. 9. The deceased was last seen with the appellants. 10. Denial of various proved facts by the appellants which conduct on their part reflected their guilt. 22. The short and simple argument advanced before us on behalf of the appellants is that the judgment delivered in this case by the Sessions Judge is totally perverse and only reflects his bias and prejudice against the appellants. 10. Denial of various proved facts by the appellants which conduct on their part reflected their guilt. 22. The short and simple argument advanced before us on behalf of the appellants is that the judgment delivered in this case by the Sessions Judge is totally perverse and only reflects his bias and prejudice against the appellants. The prosecution evidence itself if appreciated with an impartial and unbiased mind, proceeds the argument, would not only point towards the failure on the part of the prosecution to connect the appellants with the crime but on the other hand would prove the innocence of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. According to the appellants, natural, cogent and convincing evidence furnished at the trial by independent and reliable witnesses produced by the prosecution itself was either rejected by the Sessions Judge on flimsy and whimsical grounds or ignored altogether simply because the same was favourable to the appellants. On the other hand the learned Sessions Judge relied upon unnatural and contradictory evidence in order to convict the appellants. 23. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State had nothing more to argue than adopt the reasoning advanced by the trial Court in its judgment. 24. As pointed out earlier there is no direct evidence of eye-witness available in this case and the fate of the case, therefore, hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. The law on this subject is well settled by now. In a recent decision reported in Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1157], the Supreme Court reiterated this law in the following terms :— "When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused ; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be-complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be-complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." We would in this connection like to add that in drawing its conclusion in a case of this nature, the Court must take into consideration all the circumstances found established on the record regardless of the fact whether they tend to inculpate or exculpate the accused. The Court just cannot restrict its consideration to only such of the circumstances which the prosecution chooses to rely upon in support of the charge and ignore other proved circumstances which reflect innocence of the accused. We may further observe that where the evidence on record is capable of leading to equally plausible conclusions, though mutually exclusive and contradictory to each other, the Court must prefer the conclusion which is more favourable to the accused. 25. It is in the light of this legal position about the circumstantial evidence that the evidence on record need be scrutinized in order to appreciate (1) whether the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court stand established, (2) if there are any other circumstances proved on the record which are favourable to the accused and have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court and (3) whether all the proved circumstances considered cumulatively would unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants and are inconsistent with their innocence. 26. Now the first circumstance which appears to have weighed with the trial Court most heavily is that the deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra while in Herbertpur hospital made an oral statement before her father Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) on 23-8-1982 at about 4 p.m. to the effect that the appellants had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her person. On a consideration of the relevant evidence on record we feel no hesitation in saying that the story of this oral dying declaration is a pure concoction and was invented for the first time after the death of the deceased. In the first place there is no consistent version of this statement found on the record. On a consideration of the relevant evidence on record we feel no hesitation in saying that the story of this oral dying declaration is a pure concoction and was invented for the first time after the death of the deceased. In the first place there is no consistent version of this statement found on the record. As per Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) he along with his friend Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW 14) entered the room of the deceased in Herbertpur hospital at about 4 p.m. on 23-8-1982 when he found Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No. 2, sitting by her side. Soon after Shri R.K. Chopra went outside the room which provided him an opportunity to talk to the deceased. It was at that time that this witness enquired of the deceased about the true cause of the incident. The reply which the witness claims to have obtained from the deceased may better be stated in his own words ; "Thereupon she blurted that she was being harassed by the accused since long and that I knew this fact. She further told me that now the accused persons have attempted to burn me by throwing kerosene oil upon her today." There is thereafter an observation of the Court reading : "The witness firstly stated DONO NE and then stated ENHONE in relation to the information given by the deceased. After this observation the statement of the witness continues like this : "The deceased had in fact named that her ‘Mumi and ‘Papa referring to Shri R.K. Chopra accused and Smt. Santosh Chopra accused, had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and taken burnt. I enquired about the whereabouts of Anil accused at that time. She said that he was also accompanying them and he had also a hand in it. In the mean time Mr. Chopra also entered the room just after the above-said talk and my daughter closed her eyes and stopped speaking." In his cross examination this witness contradicted himself when in answer to a question he stated ; "It is correct to suggest that Kiran Chopra did not tell me on my enquiry that Mr. In the mean time Mr. Chopra also entered the room just after the above-said talk and my daughter closed her eyes and stopped speaking." In his cross examination this witness contradicted himself when in answer to a question he stated ; "It is correct to suggest that Kiran Chopra did not tell me on my enquiry that Mr. Anil Chopra also threw kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire or he was present there." The other witness, namely Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW 14) who is stated to be present at the time when the aforesaid declaration was made by the deceased deposed on this subject in the following terms : "PW 12 then while consoling her affectionately asked her regarding the cause of burn injuries sustained by her. Thereupon the deceased told him in the following words : "PAPA AAP KO TO PAT A HI.HAI KE DAHEJ KE LIYE MUJHE YEH LOG PRESHAN KARTE THE IN LOGON NE MERE UPAR DAS LITTER MITI KA TEL DAAL KAR ZALA DIYA." These two versions the one given by Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) and the other given by Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW 14) just cannot be reconciled. The claim of Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) that he made a further enquiry from the deceased regarding the whereabouts of Anil Chopra, appellant No.1, would suggest that in her initial statement the deceased- had made no reference to appellant No.1 or else there was no occasion for the witness to have made his enquiry with respect to the whereabouts of Anil Chopra at the time of occurrence. According to Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW 14), however, the deceased and made only one statement reproduced above and there was no further enquiry made by her father from her thereafter. Again as per Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) the deceased had told that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 only had sprinkled kerosene oil on her and then put her on fire. On the other hand as per Shri Lalit Mohan Suri (PW 14) all the appellants had joined in pouring ten litres of kerosene oil on the deceased and then setting here on fire. 27. Now apart from these discrepancies in the oral version of these two witnesses, there are other important factors which would expose the concocted nature of this oral declaration. 27. Now apart from these discrepancies in the oral version of these two witnesses, there are other important factors which would expose the concocted nature of this oral declaration. According to Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) he mentioned about this oral declaration of the deceased to Dr. Claudius (PW 5) on the following day, that is, 24-8-1982 and that Dr. Claudius made a note thereof in the patient chart Ex. PC/20. On a reference to the relevant portion of this chart Ex. PC/20 where Dr. Claudius made a note of this dying declaration we found several words scored off and others squeezed in which raised our suspicion. After examining this writing, which we have enclosed in red and marked ‘C’ on this document, with the help of a magnifying glass we were of the opinion that the scored off language could be deciphered. We accordingly secured the services of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for getting this language deciphered. Shri B. Lal, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents was examined by us as a Court witness on 3-1-1984. This witness subjected this document to examination with the help of various scientific aids like lenses, microscopes, infra-red image converter, ultra violet rays lamp etc. and using different light arrangements and after undertaking specialised photography was in a position to decipher all the words of this document which had been obliterated. According to the opinion of this Expert the writing mark ‘C’ on Ex. PC/20 before it was tampered with read like this ; "On 24-8-1982 at 12.30 p.m. her father said that she committed suicide as she told him by pouring kerosene oil and setting fire due to harrasment of her mother in law." 28. Dr. Claudius the author of this writing was also summoned by us to clarify and explain the circumstances under which he had obliterated the various words in his writing and squeezed in others. Unfortunately he could not be examined as he was reported to have left for United States. We are, however, constrained to remark that no effort was made at the trial either by the defence counsel or by the Court to obtain clarification in respect of this document which to a naked eye looked suspicious. In any case the fact remains that the original writing as it appeared on this document was in the language reproduced above. We are, however, constrained to remark that no effort was made at the trial either by the defence counsel or by the Court to obtain clarification in respect of this document which to a naked eye looked suspicious. In any case the fact remains that the original writing as it appeared on this document was in the language reproduced above. We are unable to appreciate as to how this story of suicide could be recorded on 24-8-1982 when the deceased was still alive. We are inclined to conclude that this writing was obtained some time after the death of the deceased and firstly it contained the version of suicide which was later converted into its existing form. 29. In this connection we may further refer to the report which Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) claims to have lodged at police station Paonta Sahib in the evening of 24-8-1982 and on the basis of which F.I.R. Ex. P.Q. was registered against the appellants. This report in found at Ex. P.J. This report is in the hand of Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) and is dated 24-8-1982. Time is mentioned as 20.15 hours. The relevant portion reads : "During the treatment when we were attending her in the Hospital and whenever she was in senses and in a position to speak we enquired from her as to how she was burnt, she told me that she was burnt by pouring about ten litres of kerosene oil by her mother-in-law, father-in-law in connivance with their son." This is yet a third version of the same dying declaration made by Shri M.L. Chadah (PW. 12). We may observe in this connection that on the basis of this report Ex. P.J. the case registered at police station Paonta Sahib against the appellants was under Section 302/34 I.P.C. as is obvious from a mere look at the copy of the F.I.R. Ex. P.Q. which was forwarded to the Magistrate in the form of a Special Report. Otherwise also the language of this report Ex. P. J. extracted above shows that this report was made when the deceased was no more under treatment in the hospital. P.Q. which was forwarded to the Magistrate in the form of a Special Report. Otherwise also the language of this report Ex. P. J. extracted above shows that this report was made when the deceased was no more under treatment in the hospital. It is true that later on the concerned police officers substituted Section 307/34 for Section 302/34 on the other copies of the F.I.R. as also in the relevant reports recorded regarding this F.I.R. in the Daily Diary Register of the police station. There was, however, no satisfactory explanation as to why, when and how this change of the penal provision from Section 302 to Section 307 was made in the concerned police record. In order to get clarification on this point we recalled the S. H.O. of the police station Shri Brij Lal (PW. 22). He stated that initially the F.I.R. was recorded under Section 302 I.P.C. as Shri M.L. Ahadah (P. W. 12) who had produced this report Ex. P.J. had at that time used the words MAR GAI MAR GAL The witness then added that he had on firmed from Mr. Chadah the same night that the lady had not died till then. He, however, still recorded the F.I.R. under Section 302 I. P. C. and did not make any correction therein even after he was apprised that the lady had not died. The F.I.R. Ex. P.Q. it may be observed was sent to the Magistrate on the next day i.e. 25-8-1982 without any correction in the offence. This justifies the conclusion that the correction in the F.I.R. and other relevant record was made some time after the despatch of the Special Report Ex. P.Q. on 25-8-1982. There is, however, no explanation as to why it was so done. In any case the S.H.O. admits that he did not make any note anywhere for making this correction. 30. In order to probe further in the matter we called for the Daily Diary Register of the police station Paonta Sahib containing the relevant entries of this F.I.R. The relevant entry is found at S. No. 22 of the Register pertaining to 20-8-1982. In this entry also the case was initially shown as registered under Section 302/34 I.P.C. This figure had been erased with rubber and then the figure 307/34 I.P.C. had been superimposed. In this entry also the case was initially shown as registered under Section 302/34 I.P.C. This figure had been erased with rubber and then the figure 307/34 I.P.C. had been superimposed. Another interesting factum which we noticed in this report is that it mentioned the name of Anil Chopra, appellant No. 1, only as the perpetrator of the crime. Neither the name of Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No .2 nor that of Smt. Santosh Chopra, appellant No. 3, figures in this report. This clearly indicates that this report in the Daily Diary Register was not recorded on the basis of the report Ex. P.J. or the F.I.R. Ex. P.Q. Before showing this report of the Daily Diary to the S.H.O. Brij Lal (PW-22) we asked this witness to prepare an extract from the report Ex P.J. which in ordinary course was required to be entered in the Daily Diary Register of the police station. The witness then prepared such specimen extract in his own hand-writing. The same is found as Ex. C.A. on the record. A copy of the report No. 22 of the Daily Diary Register pertaining to the F.I.R. in question is found at Ex. C.B. Shri Brij Lal (PW.22) straightaway admitted that this report Ex. C.B. was not in accordance with the report Ex. P. J. as there was no mention in this report of the Daily Diary Register of the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the girl. Obviously, therefore, initially some other report had been lodged at the police station on the basis of which entry at No. 22 of the Daily Diary Register (copy Ex. C. B.) was recorded and that report was under Section 302 I.P.C. Inasmuch as the deceased was admittedly alive on 24-8-1982, no such report under Section 302 I.P.C. could be made on that day. In the absence of any other explanation the only inference is that the entire police record concerning this case was fabricated after the death of the deceased. Inasmuch as an effort was made to introduce the story of oral declaration in the police record as well so as to supply corroboration to the oral evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 14 by showing that it had been reported to the police on 24-8-1982, it strengthens our belief that the so-called oral declaration is a concoction and fabrication. 31. 12 and 14 by showing that it had been reported to the police on 24-8-1982, it strengthens our belief that the so-called oral declaration is a concoction and fabrication. 31. We may now advert to the recorded dying declaration of the deceased found at Ex. P.E. and which has been rejected by the learned trial Court as false and involuntary. Dr. Claudius (PW 5) the then acting Medical Superintendent of Christian Hospital, Herbertpur under whose treatment the deceased remained throughout is the author of this dying declaration. The evidence of this witness shows that soon after the deceased was brought to his hospital with burn injuries, he sent a report to the concerned police station of his area. Thereafter he performed some operation on the deceased. By the time he completed the operation S.I. Shiv Kumar (PW 20) o" the concerned police station, namely, Shaspur reached the hospital. It was thereafter in the presence of this Sub Inspector that Dr. Claudius recorded the declaration Ex. P.E. at about 5.30 p.m. The only other person besides Dr. Claudius and S.I. Shiv Kumar who was present at the time of recording of this dying declaration was one Mr. Paul East, the then Administrator of the Mission Hospital. All other persons had been turned out of the room before recording the statement presumably to ensure that the statement was made voluntarily. Dr. Claudius further certified that the deceased was in a fit condition to make her statement. He was frank enough to state that he did not know whether Mrs. Kiran Chopra deceased had made that statement of her own accord or otherwise. He, however, did testify that he recorded the statement as made by the deceased faithfully. After the statement was recorded it was attested by PW, 20 Shiv Kumar S.I. as also by Mr. Paul East. Then on the same day Dr. Claudius sent this declaration Ex. P.E. in a sealed cover to the Superintendent of Police, Debra Dun through Mr. Paul East, the Administrator of the hospital. S. I. Shiv Kumar (PW. 20) has fully supported Dr. Claudius on this point, The prosecution nowhere challenged the veracity of these witnesses or the correctness of the dying declaration Ex. P.E. either by throwing any such suggestion to these P. Ws or praying to the Court that they be declared hostile. Paul East, the Administrator of the hospital. S. I. Shiv Kumar (PW. 20) has fully supported Dr. Claudius on this point, The prosecution nowhere challenged the veracity of these witnesses or the correctness of the dying declaration Ex. P.E. either by throwing any such suggestion to these P. Ws or praying to the Court that they be declared hostile. The manner in which this declaration was recorded and the fact that soon thereafter it was despatched to the Superintendent of Police Dehra Dun in a sealed cover only show that these P. Ws in recording this declaration acted only in an up-right and straightforward manner. There is not even the slightest reason for us to doubt the veracity of either of these two witnesses with regard to the recording of this dying declaration which to us undoubtedly appears to be genuine. 32. The learned Sessions Judge found this declaration as false for the f reason that at the time when it purports to have been recorded, the deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra was not in a fit condition to make a statement. In support of this conclusion he has placed reliance on the medical evidence on record. On a careful scrutiny of such evidence we find that this conclusion is totally "founded. Dr. Claudius (PW. 5) under whose treatment the deceased remained throughout had repeatedly and emphatically stated that the deceased was in a fit condition to make her statement and that he had satisfied himself in that regard before recording the declaration Ex. P.E.P.W. 1 Dr. Surender Gandhi of the civil hospital Paonta Sahib had examined the deceased only at 2.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence and his observations are found in the Bed Head Ticket Ex. P.A. The relevant part of this document reads : "The patient was brought to hospital at about 2,3 (p.m. with the complaints of getting burnt accidentally by stove burst some time back. On examination ; the patient was drowsy, at times she complained of severe pain and cries, the patient was in shock, she did not reply to the questions being asked, only at times by murmuring she replied." 33. These observations also show that the deceased was conscious though in grave pain. Admittedly thereafter she was administered pain killers. There is every reason to assume that her pain subsided to some extent with the administration of pain killers. These observations also show that the deceased was conscious though in grave pain. Admittedly thereafter she was administered pain killers. There is every reason to assume that her pain subsided to some extent with the administration of pain killers. It being so she could certainly be in a position to make a statement at 5.30 p.m. when Ex. P. E. purports to have been recorded. 34. It was urged that Dr. Gandhi had issued a positive certificate in the form of Ex. P. A/2/A to the effect that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make a statement. We entertain no doubt that this certificate as also the application Ex. P.A./2 on which it purports to have been issued, are both fake documents. Application Ex. PA/ 2 is in the hand of A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh (PW. 4) the then incharge of Police Post Rajban. This witness states to have visited civil hospital Paonta Sahib between 4 and 4.30 p.m. on 20-8-1982 and stayed there for about half an hour. It was during this period that he made his application Ex. PA/2 before Dr. Gandhi (PW. 1) and obtained the above mentioned certificate. Inasmuch as the deceased had, according to the prosecution version itself, been removed from civil hospital Paonta Sahib to Mission . Hospital Herbertpur by 3 p.m. we can not appreciate as to why A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh should visit civil hospital Paonta Sahib and make application Ex. PA/2 after 4 p.m. In order to seek clarification on this point we re-called A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh also for his further examination. He deposed that on 208-1982 he received a telephonic message from police station Paonta Sahib that a lady had been burnt and he should reach there. He recorded report No. 6 in the Daily Diary Register of his Police Post to that effect and then straightaway proceeded to Paonta Sahib. This report No. 6 in the Daily Diary Register of which a photostat copy is Ex. C.C./l, appears to have been recorded at 1.05 p.m. Admittedly the deceased was hale and hearty at 1,05 p.m. and there was thus no question of any telephonic message being conveyed to the witness with regard to the burns of the deceased at that time. The witness has obviously relied upon this report to show his visit to Paonta Sahib. C.C./l, appears to have been recorded at 1.05 p.m. Admittedly the deceased was hale and hearty at 1,05 p.m. and there was thus no question of any telephonic message being conveyed to the witness with regard to the burns of the deceased at that time. The witness has obviously relied upon this report to show his visit to Paonta Sahib. On a close examination of the Daily Diary Register of Police Post Rajban in I which the aforesaid report was made we find that the sheet containing the entry Ex. C.C./l had been replaced. All the sheets in this Register except the sheet containing the entry Ex. C.C./l were found stitched and also of the same length, namely, 43.8 cm. The sheet containing the aforesaid entry was, however, found pasted on the margin of another sheet which appeared to have been torn. This sheet was shorter in length and measured only 40.3 cm. This only shows that it was replaced later on. On a comparison of this sheet with its copy which had been sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police and which had been shown to us by the learned Deputy Advocate General in Court, we found that the both did not tally. The witness was confronted with this situation and he admitted that in column No. 1 of report No. 8 of the Daily Diary Register dated 20-8-1982 retained in the Police Post was mentioned "Bakhshish Singh A. S.I." and in the next column No. 2 was mentioned "Wapsi Khud”. In the copy of this very sheet sent to the S.P. office, the relevant columns mentioned "Mata Ram” and "Ginti Sham" respectively. We have every reason to believe that the Daily Diary Register of Police Post Rajban pertaining to 20-8-1982 was fabricated in order to show the visit of A. S.I. Bakhshish Singh to Paonta Sahib. The showing of this visit was considered necessary to give support to the application Ex. PA/2 which in its turn was considered necessary to give support to the opinion found at Ex. PA/2/A of Dr. Gandhi (PW 1) to the effect that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make her statement. The showing of this visit was considered necessary to give support to the application Ex. PA/2 which in its turn was considered necessary to give support to the opinion found at Ex. PA/2/A of Dr. Gandhi (PW 1) to the effect that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make her statement. All these efforts made in this direction would only suggest that the deceased was actually in a fit condition to make her statement and it was to prove otherwise that efforts had to be made to fabricate evidence. 35. Dr. O.P. Malik (PW 19) the then Chief Medical Officer Nahan was examined as an Expert to opine on the basis of the medical record of the deceased that she was not in a fit condition to make her statement at 5,30 p.m. on 20-8-1982. This witness in the first instance gave opinion in the following language ;— "Taking into consideration the doses of medicines given in spell of J to 3 hours and in the light of condition of the patient at civil hospital Paonta Sahib at 2.30 p.m. I am of the opinion that the patient shall be very much drowsy and not very fit to give a statement at 5.30 p.m." Later in answer to a Court question the witness improved upon his opinion by stating that by the term ‘not very fit he meant that ‘she would not be absolutely fit to give statement in the above said condition. It may be observed that still his reply is in a guarded language. This doctor is no expert in the subject. He is a simple medical graduate. Though he tried he could not qualify even for his M.D. The defence on the other hand examined Dr. Inderjit Dewan (DW 1) Professor of Anatomy and Forensic Medicines, Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh This witness holds the Degrees of M.B.B.S. and Master of Surgery from the Punjab University and Degree of Ph. D. from the University of London. He is also a fellow of National Academy of Medical Sciences. He has been working as Head of Department of Anatomy in the P.G.I. Chandigarh since 1970 and previously since 1962-1970 he was the Principal of Medical College Rohtak. In P.G.I. alone he claims to have conducted about 1150 postmortems put of which about 150 were those pertaining to cases of burnings. He has been working as Head of Department of Anatomy in the P.G.I. Chandigarh since 1970 and previously since 1962-1970 he was the Principal of Medical College Rohtak. In P.G.I. alone he claims to have conducted about 1150 postmortems put of which about 150 were those pertaining to cases of burnings. After examining the history of the deceased as mentioned in civil hospital Paonta Sahib as also in the Mission Hospital Herbertpur and also considering the effect of the various medicines administered to the deceased this witness gave a positive opinion that the deceased could be in a fit condition to make her statement at 5.30 p.m. on 20-8-1982. According to this doctor even if the deceased was in a shock and not in position to make her statement at 2.30 P.M. she could be fit to make her statement at 5.30. p.m. on account of the effect of administration of path dine injection which works as pain killer and helps the patient to regain strength. In view of the medical evidence,, therefore, there is no reason whatever to reject the positive evidence of Dr Claudius (PW 5) and S I. Shiv Kumar (PW 20) that the deceased was in a fit condition to make "her statement and did make her statement Ex. P. E. We thus conclude that the dying declaration made by the deceased is the one found recorded in Ex. P.E, and that the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made before Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) is a concoction. 36. An argument was advanced on behalf of the prosecution that the dying declaration Ex. P. E. was not the voluntary statement of the deceased. In this connection we have only to observe that right from the time the deceased suffered the burn injuries and till she was taken to Mission Hospital Herbertpur, Dr. Sadiqi PW 2) and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) remained with her. These witnesses nowhere state nor were they questioned if the deceased was ever tutored by any of the appellants or any other person to make a particular kind of statement. In these circumstances we have no reason to doubt the voluntary nature of the statement found recorded in Ex. P. E. 37. The dying declaration of the deceased was the main link in the chain of circumstances on which the fate of this case depends. In these circumstances we have no reason to doubt the voluntary nature of the statement found recorded in Ex. P. E. 37. The dying declaration of the deceased was the main link in the chain of circumstances on which the fate of this case depends. The main link having been broken, the other links cannot stand by themselves and must also fall. We may, however, make a brief reference to the other circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in finding the appellants guilty as also other circumstances proved on the record which in our opinion are relevant. 38. The second circumstance taken into consideration by the trial Court is with respect to the motive on the part of the appellants to commit the crime. After discussing the evidence of Shri M. L, Chadah (PW 12) the learned Sessions Judge concluded as under in para No. 14 of his judgment in this matter : "The demand of dowry may not have been made from the deceased openly but the factum of her being found distressed on account of attitude of her in-laws by her parents and their attempt to intervene resulting into refraining from adopting that course at the behest of the deceased, shows some occasional incident in between the deceased and her in-laws. The relationship may be outwardly cordial and not so bitter but then it is too much to say that it could not possibly form motive for the occurrence." We are totally unable to appreciate the logic being this reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. There is absolutely no material on the record except the bald and self contradictory statement of Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) which could suggest if the deceased was ever unhappy at her marital home 39. The third circumstance considered by the trial Court against the appellants is their conduct in not reporting the matter to the police. Here again we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. The natural anxiety of the appellants and for that matter any person in their position would be to render immediate medical aid to the deceased in order to save her life, The appellants wasted no time in taking the deceased to civil hospital Paonta Sahib which was the nearest medical centre. The natural anxiety of the appellants and for that matter any person in their position would be to render immediate medical aid to the deceased in order to save her life, The appellants wasted no time in taking the deceased to civil hospital Paonta Sahib which was the nearest medical centre. When so advised by the Medical Officer in charge of that hospital, they rushed to Mission Hospital Herbertpur and got her admitted there. Soon after their arrival at Mission Hospital Herbertpur a report of this incident was sent to the concerned police station by Dr. Claudius (PW 5) and in fact a Sub Inspector of Police actually reached there. After it was done it was no more required on the part of the appellants to send any further information to the police. 40. The fourth circumstance considered by the learned Sessions Judge is the conduct of Mrs. Santosh Chopra, appellant No, 3, in getting washed the floor where the deceased fell after the burns and thereby destroying vital evidence of the offence. In the first place we find no evidence on record to show if appellant No. 3 washed or got washed the floor of the house as concluded by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge in this connection has referred to the statement of Chain Singh (PW 17) who was employed as a part-time domestic servant with the appellants. This witness did state that he also cleaned the floor of the place wherefrom smell of kerosene oil was coming. Ho, however, nowhere stated if he did so under the instructions of appellant No. 3. It is not, therefore, justified to conclude that appellant No. 3 got the floor washed or cleaned. Otherwise also we are unable to appreciate as to what evidence of the offence was washed of by the cleaning of the floor. The appellants had themselves raised an alarm for attracting persons from the neighbourhood. All those persons had seen the place of occurrence in its original form. If at ail some evidence had to be destroyed the same should have been done before inviting the neighbourers. The washing of the floor after all the neighbourers had seen the spot would not in our view amount to destruction of evidence of the offence. 41. All those persons had seen the place of occurrence in its original form. If at ail some evidence had to be destroyed the same should have been done before inviting the neighbourers. The washing of the floor after all the neighbourers had seen the spot would not in our view amount to destruction of evidence of the offence. 41. The learned Sessions Judge then considered the burn injuries and contusions found on the person of Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No. 2 and concluded that the same suggested of a scuffle between this appellant and the deceased before the latter was set on fire. The explanation of Shri R. K. Chopra, appellant No. 2, is that he received these burn injuries in his attempt to extinguish the fire on the person of the deceased. With respect to the contusions which are found on the right side of his body, his explanation is that he received the same as a result of fail on the floor after he had poured buckets of water on the deceased and the floor had become slippery. We see no sound reason to reject this explanation of Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No. 2, and to accept the surmise of the learned Sessions Judge. 42. The next circumstance considered by the Sessions Judge is that the stove Ex, P. 1 recovered from the house of the appellants and which as per defence version had burst resulting in burn injuries to the deceased, had neither been found burst nor was it capable of bursting. In this connection we have to observe in the first instance that stove Ex. P. 1 is not the same stove which was recovered from the house of the appellants. The stove was recovered from the house of the appellants in the presence of Shri Tarsem Lai (PW 8) and one Shri C. Patial who has not been examined. The relevant recovery memo is found at Ex. P.H. As per Shri Tarsem Lai (PW 8) the filling cap of the stove was missing at the time of its recovery. The same fact finds mentioned in the recovery memo Ex. P.H. also which reads "its oil tank is without lid". As per Tarsem Lal (PW 8) as also the recovery memo Ex. P.H. the stove was made into a sealed parcel immediately on its recovery on the spot itself. The same fact finds mentioned in the recovery memo Ex. P.H. also which reads "its oil tank is without lid". As per Tarsem Lal (PW 8) as also the recovery memo Ex. P.H. the stove was made into a sealed parcel immediately on its recovery on the spot itself. That sealed parcel was opened only in Court at the time when Tarsem Lal (PW 8) was examined. When opened the stove was found with the filling cap i.e. lid. There is no explanation as to how this filling cap was fitted in the stove after it was sealed. 43. It was then reasoned by the learned Sessions Judge that a stove with I wicks like the one Ex. P. I was not capable of bursting. It is in evidence that I the stove in use in the house of the appellants had a hole which fact also finds I mention in the dying declaration Ex. P E. Now if a stove is filled up upto that I hole and somehow or the other the flame touches that hole, the possibility of the I stove bursting would not be ruled out. 44. The next circumstance which the learned Sessions Judge considered is that there was a gas stove as also an electric heater available to the deceased for boiling the milk for the baby and as such it was improbable that she would have used the kerosene oil stove. The learned Sessions Judge ignored the fact that the kerosene oil stove was very much in use in the house and in case the lady chose to use the same for boiling milk it could not be said to be improbable. She might have considered it desirable to preserve the gas for some more urgent work especially when the gas was not locally available, a fact of which judicial notice can be taken. 45. The next two circumstances considered by the Sessions Judge are that the appellants were present in the house at the time of and just before the occurrence and that the deceased was last seen with the appellants. The importance of these circumstances is beyond our comprehension. On facts we would only say that appellant No. 1 though he was present in the house just before the occurrence was not present at the time of the occurrence. The importance of these circumstances is beyond our comprehension. On facts we would only say that appellant No. 1 though he was present in the house just before the occurrence was not present at the time of the occurrence. He reached there only after the occurrence on being informed on telephone about the fire. There is no evidence on record to show if the appellant had left the house after the occurrence. This conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, not justified. Except for this the presence of the appellants or their being seen with the deceased was only natural. 46. Lastly the learned Sessions Judge has condemned the appellants on account of their conduct in denying certain facts which are otherwise proved on the record. This circumstance has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in para No. 35 of his judgment. Referring to the various facts which according to him were denied by the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge states that whereas Shri R. K. Chopra, appellant No. 2, admitted the presence of Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) at the spot just after the incident, the other two appellants denied the presence of these witnesses. On a reference to the statement made by appellants No. 1 and 3 in their examinations under Section 313 Cr. P.C. we find that this conclusion is not justified. All that appellant No. 3 had stated was that many persons had collected at the spot and she being extremely nervous could not state with respect to the presence of the said PWs Shri Anil Chopra, appellant No. 1, on the other hand specifically stated in answer to Question No. 23 that on his arrival home he got perplexed and consulted Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) as to what should be done. He thus clearly admitted the presence of Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) on the spot. Again in answer to Question No. 33 he admitted having shifted the deceased in his car with the help of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15). We wonder how the Sessions Judge concluded that appellant No 1 had denied the presence of these witnesses on the spot. Otherwise also this was not a fact the denial of which could have made any material difference. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15). We wonder how the Sessions Judge concluded that appellant No 1 had denied the presence of these witnesses on the spot. Otherwise also this was not a fact the denial of which could have made any material difference. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that all the appellants had denied the application of fluorine and burnoose ointment by Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) on the body of the deceased before she was shifted from the spot. A reference to the statements made by the appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. would show that none of them had denied this fact. All that they had stated was that they did not know of it or did not notice it. It may be that on account of nervousness or being busy in thinking of the arrangements to be made, they did not notice the application of ointment etc. by Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15). In any case the applicants were certainly riot interested in denying such an innocuous fact. The next proved fact which, according to the learned Sessions Judge, was denied by appellant No. 1 alone, is of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) having accompanied the deceased in his car to Paonta Sahib hospital and then to Herbertpur hospital. This fact is the subject matter of Question Nos. 33 and 35 put to this appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. we would rather reproduce these questions and the answers given to them by appellant No. 1— "Q. No. 33. That after your arrival at your residence, you immediately shifted your wife Mrs. Kiran Chopra in your Car with the help of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) and your driver apart from your peon Jigri to Paonta Sahib Civil Hospital at about 2.30 p. m. on 20-8-82 ? Answer It is correct, Q. No. 35. That Late Mrs. Kiran Chopra was put on the back seat of the Car and you and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) sat by her side while she was being shifted to Paonta Civil Hospital ? Answer It is incorrect. I was sitting in front seat of the Car alongwith Jagiri Ram besides the driver.” It is obvious that in answer to question No. 33, appellant No. 1 had straightaway admitted the fact of shifting the deceased in his car with the help of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15). Answer It is incorrect. I was sitting in front seat of the Car alongwith Jagiri Ram besides the driver.” It is obvious that in answer to question No. 33, appellant No. 1 had straightaway admitted the fact of shifting the deceased in his car with the help of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15). In answer to Question No. 35 all that this appellant should be deemed to have said was that he was sitting in the front seat and not on the back seat. Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15), it may be observed, was sitting on the back seat along with the deceased. Here again, it may be observed, that as to why the appellant should deny the fact that Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) accompanied the deceased in the car. The only other fact which the appellants are alleged to have denied is with respect to the clothes which the deceased was wearing on the day of occurrence. On going through the statements made by the appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on this point, we again do not find if the appellants denied any proved fact. All that appellant No. 1 stated was that the deceased was wearing Churidar Paijama and shirt (long Kurta). Kurta, according to this appellant, was of Rubbia but he could not state about the material of the Churidar paijama. To the same effect was the statement made by appellant No.3 Smt Santosh Chopra. The other appellant Shri R.K. Chopra had stated that the deceased was wearing Ghurtdar paijama and a long Kurta but he was not in a position to say whether these clothes were of cotton or of some other material. We wonder how these innocuous answers could in any manner point towards the guilt of the appellants. 47. Now we would refer to some other circumstances which are borne out from the record and which would unerringly point towards the innocence of the appellants. 48. It is not disputed that the deceased caught the fire from the bottom. Her upper half was safe and the burns that she sustained remained up to her navel. It is also not disputed that the fire was extinguished by pouring water on her. This fact clearly shows that but for the pouring of water buckets the deceased must have been totally engulfed in fire. Her upper half was safe and the burns that she sustained remained up to her navel. It is also not disputed that the fire was extinguished by pouring water on her. This fact clearly shows that but for the pouring of water buckets the deceased must have been totally engulfed in fire. Now the fire was extinguished by pouring water by none else than Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No. 2. In case there was any intention on the part of the appellants to burn the deceased to death, Shri R.K. Chopra, appellant No. 2, could not have extinguished the fire in the manner he did at the risk of his own life. 49. Again, immediately after the occurrence the appellants did whatever best could be done in the circumstances of the case to save the life of the deceased. They immediately transported her to the nearest medical centre i.e. civil hospital Paonta Sahib as advised by Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2). At Paonta Sahib also as per advice of the doctor in charge they shifted the deceased to Mission Hospital Herbertpur which is undisputedly a much better hospital and where the services of the medical expert like Dr. Cladius who holds a Master of Surgery Degree from Punjab University, were available. The fact that the deceased received the best possible treatment was admitted by her father Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12). This all shows how anxious were the appellants to save the life of the deceased. 50. Again, immediately after the deceased was admitted in Herbertpur hospital, Shri Anil Chopra, appellant No. 1, gave the telephone number of the deceaseds father (Shri M.L. Chadah) of Bareilly as also the residential address of Dr. Chadah, the brother of Shri M.L. Chadah, who was living at Dehra Dan to Dr. Sadiqi (PW 2) and deputed him to inform these persons. This information was admittedly conveyed to Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) as also his brother promptly. This conduct of appellant No. 1 is also consistent only with his innocence. 51. The deceased, it may be observed, remained conscious throughout right from the time she received the burn injuries till her admission in the Mission Hospital Herbertpur. Of course she was under a great agony and on that account was finding difficult to speak. The fact, however, remains that she had been uttering a few words here and there. 51. The deceased, it may be observed, remained conscious throughout right from the time she received the burn injuries till her admission in the Mission Hospital Herbertpur. Of course she was under a great agony and on that account was finding difficult to speak. The fact, however, remains that she had been uttering a few words here and there. She, however, never raised an accusing finger against any of the appellants. Even while in the Herbertpur hospital she never accused the appellants. 52. We find from the evidence of Mrs. Kanan Sarkar (PW 15) that while going from civil hospital Paonta Sahib to Herbertpur the deceased uttered the following words in the car where besides this witness was also sitting Shri Anil Chopra, appellant No. 1 : "SONNY KA DHYAN RAKHNA AUR DUSRI SHAD1 NAHIN KARNA" (Look after sonny and do not perform a second marriage). Now in case an attempt had been made on her life by the appellants the same would have been done only with the object of enabling appellant No. 1 to remarry. In that event the deceased would not have requested appellant No. 1 not to remarry. This fact only reflects that the deceased had faith in appellant No. 1 and made the request on that account . 53. Again, the relations between the deceased and the appellants were very cordial as is inflected by the letters Ex. D.C. and Ex. D.D. reproduce earlier. These letters, it may be observed, were written only a month before this unfortunate occurrence. On the day of occurrence itself at 1 p, m. when appellant No. 1 came home for lunch, the deceased along with her infant child had a joy ride on his motor cycle. In view of these cordial relations between the husband and wife it is difficult to comprehend if the appellants could have any motive to burn the deceased to death. 54. After the death of the deceased information to that effect was sent by Dr. Claudius (PW 5) to police station Sahaspur. S.I. Shiv Kumar (PW 20) then conducted the statutory enquiry under Section 174 Cr. P.C. Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) as also his brother Dr. Indar Lal Chadah joined in that enquiry. Panchnama Ex. P.N. was prepared in that respect which was signed by Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) and his brother Dr. Inder Lai Chadah. S.I. Shiv Kumar (PW 20) then conducted the statutory enquiry under Section 174 Cr. P.C. Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) as also his brother Dr. Indar Lal Chadah joined in that enquiry. Panchnama Ex. P.N. was prepared in that respect which was signed by Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) and his brother Dr. Inder Lai Chadah. No objection was raised at that time that it was a case of homicide. 55. The cremation of the dead body of the deceased was performed the same day at Dehra Dun and her relations from both the sides i.e. from her parents side as also from the side of her in-laws participated in that cremation. 56. Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) admitted in this cross examination that "cordial relations existed between us and the accused till the death of my daughter". Towards the end of his cross-examination he stated "it was only after the death of Mrs. Kiran Chopra that I got infuriated". This conduct on the part of Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) clearly shows that he had no grievance against the appellants till the death of his daughter. These admissions on the part of Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) can certainly not be reconciled with his version that he learnt from the deceased about her having been set on fire by the appellants. 57. There are various other circumstances which again would point towards the innocence of the appellants. We, however, in view of what has been stated above do not consider it necessary to mention about all of them. Suffice to say that in this case it is not that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellants but the prosecution evidence itself is sufficient to return a positive verdict of innocence in favour of the appellants. We would accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence as recorded against the appellants by the trial Court. The appellants are already on bail. They need not surrender to their bails which stand cancelled. 58. Before parting with this case we must record our serious concern with respect to the manner in which this case has been handled and investigated by the police. The appellants are already on bail. They need not surrender to their bails which stand cancelled. 58. Before parting with this case we must record our serious concern with respect to the manner in which this case has been handled and investigated by the police. The police officers in charge, Police Post Rajban and Police Station Paonta Sahib art the relevant time undoubtedly showed culpable negligence in ignoring a serious case of burn injuries suffered by a young lady of their area, a fact which admittedly finds mention in their records. Thereafter, for reasons unknown, they depicted un-called for interest in the case and went out of their way in fabricating evidence to involve the present appellants in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. This is certainly a very serious matter which calls for an elaborate enquiry. We would accordingly while referring outselves from offering any detailed comments on the conduct of the concerned police officers, recommend that the Inspector-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, should cither himself or through some of his senior officers get a thorough probe made Into the matter and especially on the following points and to proceed against the delinquent officers in accordance with law : (i) Why the S.L Brij Lal (PW 22) and A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh (PW 4) who were then posted as S.H.O. Paonta Sahib and Incharge, Police post, Rajban respectively failed to take any action in the matter till the death of Mrs. Kiran Chopra (which occurred on 25-8-1982) when report with respect to her admission in the hospital with serious burn injuries had been received by both of them on the very day of the occurrence i.e. 20-8-1982 ? (ii) Whether A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh at all visited Paonta Sahib on 20-3-1982 ? If so in what connection he visited that station. If not, how report No. 14 of the Daily Diary Register of Paonta Sahib was recorded ? (iii) Whether A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh visited the Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib on 20-8-1982 ? If so, how and when ? (iv) Whether A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh actually submitted application Ex. PA/2 to the Medical Officer in charge Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib for his opinion if Mrs. Kiran Chopra was in a fit condition to make her statement ? If so, why this application was made and opinion Ex. PA/2/A of the Doctor obtained when to the knowledge of the A.S.I. Mrs. (iv) Whether A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh actually submitted application Ex. PA/2 to the Medical Officer in charge Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib for his opinion if Mrs. Kiran Chopra was in a fit condition to make her statement ? If so, why this application was made and opinion Ex. PA/2/A of the Doctor obtained when to the knowledge of the A.S.I. Mrs. Kiran Chopra had already been shifted from that hospital and was no more available. If A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh was really keen to record the statement of Mrs. Kiran Chopra, why he did not proceed to Herbertpur after he was informed that the lady had been shifted there ? (v) Whether Ex. P.J. is the only report lodged with police station Paonta Sahib by Shri M.L. Chadah (PW 12) ? (vi) When was this report actually produced at the police station ? (vii) Why the S.H.O. recorded the F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. (Ex. P.Q.) on the basis of this report when he admits to have ascertained from its maker (Shri M.L. Chadah) that the lady had not died till then ? (viii) In any case why no correction was made in this F.I.R. pertaining to the offence in the very presence of Shri M.L. Chadah when the latter disclosed that the lady had not died ? (ix) Whether the Daily Diary Report No. 22 dated 20-8-1982 pertaining to police station Paonta Sahib was recorded in respect of the F.I.R. based on report Ex. P- J. ? If so, why it is not in accordance with Ex. P.J. and why it omits to mention the names of the mother-in-law and father-in-law of Mrs. Kiran Chopra which prominently appear in Ex. P.J.? (x) If the Daily Diary Report No. 22, referred to above, was based on some other F.I.R., what has happened to that F.I.R. ? (xi) Whether there are any erasions and over-writings in the body of the Daily Dairy Report No. 22 referred to above ? If so, under what circumstances the same were made and who is responsible for that, (xii) Whether the corrections made in the various copies of the F.I.R, Ex. P.Q. as also in the various copies of the Daily Dairy Report No. 22, referred to above, were made simultaneously or the copies forwarded to the S. P.s office were corrected in that office only ? P.Q. as also in the various copies of the Daily Dairy Report No. 22, referred to above, were made simultaneously or the copies forwarded to the S. P.s office were corrected in that office only ? (xiii) Whether sheet No. 39 pertaining to 20-8-1982 to 21-8-1982 and containing report Nos. 1 to 8 in the Daily Diary Register of Police Post Rajban has been replaced after tearing off the original sheet ? If so, the responsibility for the same be fixed. (xiv) Why is the copy of the above referred to sheet which was sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police different from the original retained at the Police Post as admitted by A.S.I. Bakhshish Singh in his examination in Court. 59. A copy of this judgment be sent each to the Chief Secretary to H.P. Government and the I.G. Police, Himachal Pradesh. Appeal allowed.