JUDGMENT Jahagirdar, J - In Sessions Case No. 97 of 1983 tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dhule, three persons were prosecuted for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 is the son of accused No. 2, the latter being the former's mother. Accused No. 3 was at the relevant time the Police Patil of the village Nandane in Dhule Taluka of Dhule District where accused Nos. Land 2 reside. Accused No. 1 was married to a girl called Vimal, also called Nirmala, who was the daughter of one Rambhau Mali and Manjulabai. 2. The prosecution case was that on 17th February 19153, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of the said Nirmalabai committed her murder by an act which they knew would cause her death. The act attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 2 was an act of pushing the said Nirmalabai on a burning hearth (Chool). Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged in the Sessions Case with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution alleged that accused No. 3 with the intention to exonerate accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offence which they committed deliberately framed a public record, namely the report of the incident sent by him to the police station. He was, therefore, charged with the offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The facts leading to the prosecution have been given in great details in the judgment of the Court below, but we may give a broad outline of the same. There was admittedly strained relationship between Nirmalabai on the one hand and her husband and mother-in-law, on the other. At one stage Nirmalabai had returned to her parental house only to be persuaded at some later date to go to her marital house. It has come on record that accused No. I issued a written notice calling upon Nirmalabai to return to he~ marital house. There was thus, according to the prosecution, sufficient motive for accused Nos. 1 and 2 to do away with the life of Nirmalabai which they did, according to the prosecution, on 17th of February 1933. At about 9 p. m. on that day, a messenger came from village Nandane to inform Manjulabai that, Nirmalabai is burnt. There was thus, according to the prosecution, sufficient motive for accused Nos. 1 and 2 to do away with the life of Nirmalabai which they did, according to the prosecution, on 17th of February 1933. At about 9 p. m. on that day, a messenger came from village Nandane to inform Manjulabai that, Nirmalabai is burnt. Manjulabai took certain steps to see that her husband reached village Nandane to be of help to her daughter who was in distress. She also tried to go to the village, but before she could do so three persons who were interested in the welfare of Nirmalabai reached the village Nandane in a motor vehicle which has been described as a Matador van. These three persons are Gojarbai Daga Mahajan, who is the sister of the father of deceased Nirmalabai, Nathu Bowaji Patil, the Police Patil of village Biladi, and Rambhau himself. The last mentioned, however, could not be examined in the Sessions case because by that time he had expired. Gojarbai and Nathu Patil have been examined as prosecution witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. These three persons reached village Nandane at night and immediately took Nirmalabai in the Matador vehicle to Dhule Civil Hospital. On the way, however, accused No. 3, who had accompanied them in the said motor vehicle, suggested to them that they should go via Songir Police Station because it is at that police station he had already lodged information about the incident in which Nirmalabai had sustained injuries. They accordingly went via Songir Police Station where they met Head Constable Gaikwad who was the Station Officer in charge of that police station. 5. Thereafter they proceeded to Dhule Civil Hospital where Nirmalabai was admitted at about 4 a. m Dr. Vasave, examined as P.W. 7, gave her initial treatment and produced in the trial Court the case papers which are at Exhibit 37. Immediately thereafter one Mr. Madhav Kashinath Bhandari, an Executive Magistrate of Dhule, was caned at the Civil Hospital for recording the dying declaration of the said Nirmalabai. Madhav Bhandari is examined as P.W. 4 and the dying declaration purported to be that of Nirmalabai is at Exhibit 26. Nirmalabai expired on 20th of February, 1983 and Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 5) conducted the postmortem examination the notes of which are at Exhibit 30. In the meantime, the investigation had already been taken up. Madhav Bhandari is examined as P.W. 4 and the dying declaration purported to be that of Nirmalabai is at Exhibit 26. Nirmalabai expired on 20th of February, 1983 and Dr. Raghuvanshi (P.W. 5) conducted the postmortem examination the notes of which are at Exhibit 30. In the meantime, the investigation had already been taken up. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and since Nirmalabai died accused Nos. 1 and 2 were put up for trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and contended that they had been falsely implicated on account of the strained relationship between the family of Nirmalabai and themselves. The defence of accused No. 3 was that he had also been falsely implicated in this case because of his .refusal to pay certain money to Nathu Bowaji Patil, the Police Patil of village Biladi who had accompanied the relatives of deceased Nirmalabai to village Nandane. The defence, therefore, was one of total denial of the offences alleged and of false implication for one or the other reason. 7. In the trial Court, Gojarbai, as already mentioned, was examined as P.W. 2 while Nathu Bowaji Patil, the Police Patil of village Biladi who had accompanied Gojarbai and Rambhau to village Nandane was examined as P.W. 3. Police Head Constable Gaikwad of Songir Police Station was examined as P.W. 6 for the purpose of proving that accused No. 3 had earlier sent to the police station the statement which had been made by Nirmalabai which is at Ex. 33, and the Khabari report sent by the said accused, which is at Ex. 32. The Executive Magistrate, namely Madhav Kashinath Bhandari, was examined as P.W. 4 for the purpose of proving the dying declaration at Exhibit 26. Dr. Vasave, who gave initial treatment to Nirmalabai, and Dr. Raghuvanshi, who conducted the postmortem examination, have been examined, as P.W. Nos. 7 and 5 respectively. It is not necessary for us to mention that the investigating officer was also examined. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence which was thus led before him, has come to the conclusion that accused No. 2 atone was responsible for pushing the deceased Nirmalabai in the domestic hearth-an act in which the said Nirmalabai sustained severe burn injuries ultimately resulting in her death. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence which was thus led before him, has come to the conclusion that accused No. 2 atone was responsible for pushing the deceased Nirmalabai in the domestic hearth-an act in which the said Nirmalabai sustained severe burn injuries ultimately resulting in her death. This act, according to the learned Sessions Judge, was intended to cause injuries which were Sufficient the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, therefore, accused No. 2 was responsible for the offence Punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,. The learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to accused No. 1 and acquitted him of the offence with which he was charged. The learned Sessions Judge was also persuaded to hold that accused No. 3 had submitted a false report at Exhibit 33 to Songir Police Station and this was done with a view to save ,accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the possible liability of the criminal act committed by them. Consistent with these findings, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 2 of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 3 of the offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of the payment of fine, accused No. 3 was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. This the learned Sessions Judge did by his judgment and order dated 8th of May 1984 which are the subject matter of challenge in these two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1984 has been preferred by accused No. 2 while Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1984 has been preferred by accused No. 3 Mr. S. R. Chitnis, the learned Advocate, appears for both the accused in the appeals while Mrs. Rao, the learned Public Prosecutor, appears for the State in both the appeals. 9. We have taken the liberty of mentioning the prosecution case in some details. We have also taken the liberty of mentioning the broad outline of the evidence which was led before the learned Sessions Judge. This has been done by us so that we may straightaway address ourselves to the questions that arise in these two appeals. 9. We have taken the liberty of mentioning the prosecution case in some details. We have also taken the liberty of mentioning the broad outline of the evidence which was led before the learned Sessions Judge. This has been done by us so that we may straightaway address ourselves to the questions that arise in these two appeals. The first question which arises in these two appeals is whether the conviction of accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable on the evidence of the dying declarations. The second question is whether Exhibits 33 and 32, which were despatched by accused No. 3 to Songir Police Station at about 7 p.m. on the same day on which the incident 'took place, can be said to be false documents. 10. The learned Sessions Judge himself has mentioned in paragraph 10 of his judgment that the prosecution case is solely based upon the dying declarations, one of which was reduced to writing at Exhibit 26 and the other oral dying declaration which is said to have been made by deceased Nirmalabai to three persons, namely her mother Manjulabai, paternal aunt Gojarbai and Nathu Patil, the Police Patil of village Biladi. There is admittedly no direct evidence involving accused No. 2 in the incident in which Nirmalabai sustained burn injuries. In order to appreciate the value of the dying declarations it would be advantageous to briefly recapitulate the sequence of events as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. 11. P.W. 2 Gojarbai mentions in the beginning of her deposition about the strained relationship between Vimal also called Nirmala and her husband. She has mentioned that ultimately Nirmala was sent to her husband's house. About 8 or 10 days after Nirmala had returned to her husband's house, a messenger from village Nandane came and informed her that Nirmala is burnt. It may be noted that Gojarbai stays at village Shir Pur. She and her brother Rambhau, therefore, went to village Nandane in a Matador. On the way they met another brother Namdeo by name and also Nathu Patil (P.W. 3). When they went to the house of the accused at Nandane they, according to her deposition in the examination-in-chief, noticed that the door of the house was chained from outside and accused Nos. On the way they met another brother Namdeo by name and also Nathu Patil (P.W. 3). When they went to the house of the accused at Nandane they, according to her deposition in the examination-in-chief, noticed that the door of the house was chained from outside and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other relations of the accused were sitting outside the house on the Ota. They went inside the house and found that Nirmalabai was lying on the ground. They took her to the Civil Hospital at Dhule where she was given treatment and where" according to Gojarbai, a Magistrate was called for recording her statement. After the departure of the Magistrate she asked Nirmalabai as to what had happened and Nirmala replied that she had been pushed on the hearth by her mother-in-law and was kicked by her husband. It was on account of this that she sustained burn injuries.-In the cross-examination it bas been brought out that her case made out in the examination in-chief that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sitting outside the house by chaining the door from outside had not been stated by her in the statement to the police. She also admitted that at village Nandane itself none of the persons who went to that village after learning of the incident, made any enquiry with any of the neighhours to find out as to how Nirmalabai had sustained the burn injuries. The omissions relating to the conduct of accused Nos. 1 and 2 of sitting outside the house when Nirmalabai was lying injured inside the' house been proved by putting questions of the investigating officer. 12. We may also note at this stage that she has admitted that on the way from Nandane to Dhule Civil Hospital the vehicle was stopped at Songir for some time. She has also mentioned that after the medical officer and given treatment to Nirmala her brothers Namdeo, Rambhau and one Bhai Madane, a local person, had a talk with Nirmala and then they came out of the ward in which Nirmala had been admitted. It is only after this that the Magistrate who unlimitedly recorded the dying declaration came. From what has been stated by this witness, therefore, so much is clear that after reaching Nandane all the persons who-had gone to fetch Nirmala collected Nirmala in the van and went to Dhule Civil Hospital. It is only after this that the Magistrate who unlimitedly recorded the dying declaration came. From what has been stated by this witness, therefore, so much is clear that after reaching Nandane all the persons who-had gone to fetch Nirmala collected Nirmala in the van and went to Dhule Civil Hospital. Neither at Nandane nor on the way did Nirmala make any statement, disclosing the circumstances in which she received the burn injuries. A dying declaration was undoubtedly recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Dhule, but not before all the persons who had accompanied Nirmala had a talk with Nirmala in the hospital. She has also admitted that on the way to Dhule Civil Hospital the motor vehicle which was carrying them and Nirmala had stopped for some time at Songir. It is thus clear from what has been mentioned by this witness that for nearly 9 to 10 hours Nirmala did not disclose to anyone as to how she sustained the burn injuries. She did not, disclose this to anyone from the group which accompanied her right from Nandane to 'Dhule Civil Hospital. Did she disclose anything at 'Songir Police Station where the motor vehicle had stopped for some time? In order to find answer to this question we must refer briefly to the testimony of P.W. 3 Nithu Patil and of P.W. 6 Police Head Constable Gaikwad of Songir Police Station. 13. Nathu Patil, after mentioning about the information relating to the burn, injuries of Nirmala, has stated that he along with others proceeded to the house of Nirmala. Like Gojarbai before him, be also mentioned that Nirmala was inside the house whereas accused Nos. 1 and 2 were outside the house on the Ota. Thereafter he has mentioned that in the vehicle Nirmala was taken to Dhule Civil Hospital where she was examined by the medical officer on duty. He has also stated about the dying declaration made before the Magistrate. After the Magistrate had left, all these persons went inside the room where Nirmala had been' admitted. Thereafter he has mentioned that in the vehicle Nirmala was taken to Dhule Civil Hospital where she was examined by the medical officer on duty. He has also stated about the dying declaration made before the Magistrate. After the Magistrate had left, all these persons went inside the room where Nirmala had been' admitted. The following to be found in the examination-in-chief of this witness ought to be noted: "Rambhau inquired Nirmala as to what statement the Magistrate has recorded and she told that she had stated to the Magistrate that she was pushed on the hearth by her mother in-law and was kicked by husband and she does not know what statement the Police Patil .of Nandane had got written from her. Rambhau also had made the inquiry with Nirmala as to how she sustained the burns and she replied that she was pushed on the, burning hearth by her mother-in-law and was kicked by her husband." 14. Two significant features of this statement to be .found in the examination in-chief of this witness ought to be noted. In the first place, Rambhau, the father of Nirmalabai, asked her as to what statement the Magistrate had recorded. According to this witness, Nirmala told them that she had told the Magistrate three things. One was that she was pushed on the hearth by her mother-in-law; the second was that she was kicked by her husband; and thirdly, which is most important so far as accused No. 3 is concerned, - she had told the Magistrate that she did not know what statement the Police Patil of Nandane fact got written from her. As we will see a little later, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate does not mention anything about the kick having been administered by her husband. So also the dying declaration does not mention anything at all about any statement referred to by the deceased Nirmala. To this extent what has been stated by P.W. No. 3 Nathu Patil stands contradicted. This will be clear when we examine the dying declaration itself. Similarly, the alleged statement made by way of dying declaration to Rambhau, which was heard by this witness, to the effect that Nirmala was kicked by her husband hi also contradicted by the recitals in the written dying declaration at Exhibit 26. 15. This will be clear when we examine the dying declaration itself. Similarly, the alleged statement made by way of dying declaration to Rambhau, which was heard by this witness, to the effect that Nirmala was kicked by her husband hi also contradicted by the recitals in the written dying declaration at Exhibit 26. 15. In the meantime we will take note of what has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. He has admitted that he had not stated before the police that Rambhau had inquired with Nirmala as to what statement the Magistrate had recorded. Obviously therefore. the entire statement made by him in the examination-in-chief goes overboard. In his statement recorded on 19th of -February 1983 he had not stated about the dying declaration allegedly made by Nirmala to Rambhau, her father. So the oral dying declaration to Rambhau also goes overboard. This despite the fact that this witness asserts that he had stated about the oral 'dying declaration to Rambhau in his presence in a supplementary statement. In reply to further questions in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that on the way to Dhule Civil Hospital they all had been to Songir because accused No. 3 had told them that they should consult the - Songir Police Station before going to Dhule. The Station Officer was present in the police station when they went there this shows that accused No. 3 was insisting that before going to Dhule they should go to the police station at Songir. This Police Patil. namely Nathu, admits in reply to the questions in the cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 3 that accused No. 3 was also present with them in the Matador and that when they reached the police station accused No. 3 had informed the station officer that the lady had sustained burns. He also admits that the station officer had directed accused No. 3 and others to admit Nirmala in the hospital at Dhule for further action- It is also admitted by this witness that in his presence the police station officer told accused No. 3 that the latter's report has been received in the police station through the Kotwal, and further action should be taken by accused No. 3 and get the patient admitted in the Dhule Civil Hospital. The entire testimony 'of P.W. 3 Nathu does not prove anything except that when they went to the village Nandane they found Nirmala with burn injuries in the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2. His story about the dying declaration is fully disproved by his own admissions in the cross examination. In his statement before police he has not mentioned anything about the story that Nirmala had made certain disclosures in reply to the questions Bsked to herby her father' Rambhau. His testimony, therefore, is of no assistance to the prosecution at all. On the other hand, what he has stated in reply to certain questions in the cross examination helps accused No. 3. His replies in the cross-examination show that accused No. 3 had long before this party reached the police station at Songir sent certain reports relating to the incident in which Nirmala had been injured. 16. We now turn to the testimony of P.W. 6 Police Head Constable Gaikwad who was in charge of the police station at Songir. He has made it clear that at about 7.15 p.m. on 17th February 1983 one Mahadu Mali had come to him with the report of the Police Patil of Nandane. To the said report was annexed a statement of one Nirmala Mali which had been recorded by the Police Patil of Nandane, namely accused No. 3. Head Constable Gaikwad further states that he had given a matter to Mahadu Mali to take the lady to Civil Hospital for treatment. He had also instructed the Beat Police Head Constable, one Pakhali by name, to make an enquiry in the matter and he had made an entry to that effect in the Station Diary. He had identified Exhibit 32 as the report which was sent by accused No. 3 and Exhibit 33 as the statement which was purportedly recorded by accused No. 3 To a question asked on behalf of accused No. 3 he has stated that he had shown both Exhibits 32 and 33 to the Police Sub-Inspector of Songir Police Station on the same day at about 8 p.m. 17. From the evidence so far discussed it is clear t\lat Nirmalabai, who had undoubtedly burn injuries but who was Not so severely injured as to be disabled from making a statement relating to the incident in which she sustained the injuries did not make any statement from the time the party of her relatives came to the village Nandane sometime around midnight till she was admitted to Dhule Civil Hospital at about 4 a.m. on the following day. Thus she did not make any statement despite the fact that she was entirely in the company of her well-wishers and a Police Patil of her own village and neither accused No. 1 nor accused No. 2 was in the motor vehicle in which she was being taken to the civil hospital at Dhule The vehicle went via Songir' Police Station. Accused No. 3 had informed her relatives that he had already lodged a report at the Songir Police Station. Despite this she did not tell anyone in the vehicle that she had not made any statement to the Police Patil or that she made a statement to him that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for the injuries sustained by her. 18. The dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate at about 5 a.m. only after the .relatives of Nirmala had a talk with her, as deposed to by P.W. 2 Gojarbai. This materially affects the credibility of the dying declaration, Exhibit 26, to which we will now turn, though it may not be necessary to say that P.W. 4 Madhav Kashinath Bhandari, the Executive Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration, has not 'faithfully and correctly recorded the same. 19. P.W. 4 Madhav Kashinath Bhandari has stated that at about 5 a.m. on 18th of February 1983 a policeman from Dhule Taluka Police Station came to his house and requested him to accompany him to the Dhule Civil Hospital for recording the dying declaration of one Vimalbai Arjun Mali, that is the deceased. Accordingly he accompanied the police to the Civil Hospital. He went to the Burn Ward where Vimalbai was admitted. He made enquiries with the medical officer whether Vimalbai was in a condition to give her statement. Accordingly he accompanied the police to the Civil Hospital. He went to the Burn Ward where Vimalbai was admitted. He made enquiries with the medical officer whether Vimalbai was in a condition to give her statement. After the medical officer replied in the affirmative he recorded the statement of Vimalbai and put it in a sealed cover to remain with him till he was examined' in the Court. He asserts that the statement was read over to the patient after its completion and she admitted the same to be correct in token whereof Vimalbai is said to have affixed her thumb impression on the statement in his presence. The statement is at Exhibit 26. It may be reproduced in full: "I, Vimalbai Arjun? Mali r/o Nandale Taluka Dhule, age 30, give statement that yesterday on 17-2-1983 in the evening my mother-in-aw Nadarbai w/o Bhika pushed me on burned hear then cooking stove, due to that my body and sari burned. My husband Arjun was in the house. I have no issue. There was no quarrel between me and my mother in-law. As I do not work my mother-in-law pushed me on cooking stove. Mother in law, I, husband and husband's brother live together.” 20. From what has been mentioned in the aforesaid statement it will be seen that no set of any kind which could possibly involve accused No. 1 in any type of offence has been attributed to him. Apart from mentioning that her husband was in the house she has not said anything about her husband. Strangely enough, she has specifically mentioned that there was no quarrel between her and her mother-in-law. If this is so, how is it that her mother-in-law pushed her on the cooking stove? The answer is given by her saying that she did so because she did not worth. The reason given for the heinous act is so trivial that it is impossible to believe that accused No. 2 could have pushed her daughter-in-hw in burning flames with the object of killing her only because she did not work. This becomes important in view of the statement to be found in the same declaration that there was no quarrel between her and her mother-in-law. This becomes important in view of the statement to be found in the same declaration that there was no quarrel between her and her mother-in-law. Looking to the dying declaration as a whole, we do not think that it would be safe to base the conviction of ace used No. 2 on the uncorroborated dying declaration at Exhibit 20. We lay it is underreported because e have already shown earlier to this judgment that the oral dying declaration sought to be proved by Gojarbai and Nathu Patil. P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, were the figments of their imagination. In law, a conviction can undoubtedly be based solely on the dying declaration if it inspires confidence in the mind of the .Court. Looking to the recitals in the dying declaration we find that the story mentioned is unnatural uninspiring' and contains certain internal infirmities which we have already referred to above. 21. Nor can we forget the fact that before this dying declaration was recorded the relatives of deceased Nirmalabai had almost a sort of conference with her that is before the Executive Magistrate in fact had arrived at the scene. We cannot also forget the fact that right from the time when this entire party left the village Nandane till the dying declaration was recorded lit 5 a.m. on 18th February 1983 Nirmala despite being in a position to speak did not tell anyone as to how she sustained the burn injuries. We find it unsafe to confirm the conviction of accused No. 2 for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on this dying declaration which we find is uncorroborated. We also find the said dying declaration somewhat unusual and unnatural. 22. Now we turn to Dr. Vasave (P.W. 7) who was on duty as medical officer in the Civil Hospital at Dhule on 18th February ]983. It was he who examined Nirmalabai who was brought to him by her relatives with a letter from Songir Police Station. In his examination-in-chief Dr. Vasave has mentioned that he examined her and noted the injuries sustained by her. He has mentioned that he informed the police on telephone for arranging to record her dying declaration. It was he who examined Nirmalabai who was brought to him by her relatives with a letter from Songir Police Station. In his examination-in-chief Dr. Vasave has mentioned that he examined her and noted the injuries sustained by her. He has mentioned that he informed the police on telephone for arranging to record her dying declaration. He bas also spoken about a Magistrate coming to the hospital and recording her dying declaration after the Magistrate was satisfied by this witness that Nirmala was in a position to make a statement. Exhibit 37 is a bunch of papers relating to Nirmala's case where the findings of her examination and the details of the treatment given to her have been mentioned. It is interesting to note that in his examination in-chief he has not mentioned anything about any statement having been made by Nirmala to him. However, 'in the .cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos. l' and 2 he stated that he has noted the history of the burns given by the patient in the case-paper and as per that history she was burnt by her mother in-law. Subsequently, in reply to certain questions asked by the Court, the doctor mentions that though the contents of the case papers were in English only one sentence bas been written in Marathi because, according to him, at that time he could not put the idea exactly in English as to what the patient intended to say. This Marathi sentence in Exhibit 37 than Stated reads as follows: "On the patient telling, her mother-in-law burnt her." 23. Cross-examination on the answers liven to the questions asked by the Court was further conducted the doctor was asked as to whether the Marathi sentence in the case paper was written by ball pen and the rest of the contents in Exhibit 37 was written by pen. He replied that contents of the entire case paper dated 18th February 1983 were in his handwriting and all of them were written by ball pen. On a visual examination of Exhibit 37 we find that there 118 some difference in the first three lines the first paper at Exhibit 37 and the remaining lines written on the same page. He replied that contents of the entire case paper dated 18th February 1983 were in his handwriting and all of them were written by ball pen. On a visual examination of Exhibit 37 we find that there 118 some difference in the first three lines the first paper at Exhibit 37 and the remaining lines written on the same page. The question was not whether some entries were made by ball pen and some by pen; the question was whether it was this doctor who wrote all that is written on this page of Exhibit 37 or whether part of it were written by somebody else. Unfortunately, pointed cross-examination on this aspect was not conducted at all in the Court below. Though, therefore, we notice that there is, on visual examination, some difference in the handwriting on two page, we will not be justified in giving a finding that there are some interpolations in the document. If we are inclined to accept the fact that the dying declaration was in fact made by Nirmala either to this doctor or to the Extenuative Magistrate which could be believed we would have thought it fit to pursue an enquiry into the entries made on the first pap of Exhibit 37. We are reluctant to accept Dr. Vasave statement, a statement that has come only in the cross-examination, that Nirmala made a statement that she bad been burnt by her mother-in-law. One cannot forget that at the time when Nirmala was handed over for treatment to Dr. Vasave, all her relatives who bad come from Nandane upto the civil hospital, were also with her. In fact this is what this witness has specifically said that they were with Nirmala in the room. It is only when the Executive Magistrate came that they were asked to go out of the room. If therefore a statement of the type mentioned on page of Exhibit 37 was made by Nirmala to Dr. Vasave it would have been necessarily heard by one or the other of the three persons who were with her. None of them has stated anything about Nirmala having made a statement to Dr. Vasave to the effect that her mother-in-law was responsible for the burn injuries. We are, therefore, satisfied that there was no oral dying declaration made by Nirmala to any of the witnesses involving accused No. 2. None of them has stated anything about Nirmala having made a statement to Dr. Vasave to the effect that her mother-in-law was responsible for the burn injuries. We are, therefore, satisfied that there was no oral dying declaration made by Nirmala to any of the witnesses involving accused No. 2. that the dying declaration (Exhibit 26 ), if at all it is true, is unnatural and unusual and bas followed a talk which the relatives of Nirmala had in her room; that the entry relating to the involvement of the mother-in-law of Nirmala in the burn injuries on the first page of Exhibit 37 is highly doubtful because that entry itself does not find any corroborations in other evidence. If we keep aside the dying declaration, admittedly there is no other evidence on the basis of which accused No 2 could be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the dying declaration have not commended themselves to us, accused No. 2 naturally will have to be acquitted of the offence with which she is charged. 24. Turning to the case of accused No. 3, the learned Sessions Judge has held Exhibits 32 and 33 to be fabricated documents practically on the basis that Exhibit 26 represents the correct state of affairs. Since we have returned a finding that there is no evidence at all which could suggest that accused Nos. 1 and 2 or either of them was responsible for the burn injuries of Nirmala which resulted in her death, one cannot, on the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, come to the conclusion that Exhibits. 32 and 33 are false documents. On the other hand, the fact that there' is no other evidence available to show that any other version, other than the one mentioned, in Exhibit 33, was available, it is impossible to dub Exhibits 32 and 33 as false documents. The conduct of accused No. 3 in ending the two documents immediately to the police station at Songir speaks, if anything, of bit innocence. His subsequent conduct also shows that he has sent those reports incorporating in them a version which was given to him by Nirmalabai. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Nirmala made any statement 'other than the one which is incorporated in Exhibit 33. His subsequent conduct also shows that he has sent those reports incorporating in them a version which was given to him by Nirmalabai. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that Nirmala made any statement 'other than the one which is incorporated in Exhibit 33. Thus we find that there is no evidence at all on the basis of which a finding of guilt can be recorded against accused No. 3 under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. He also, there for deserves to be acquitted. 25. In the result, both Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1984 are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded against accused Nos. 2 and 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dhule in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1983 are set aside. The bail bond of accused No. 3 is cancelled. Accused No. 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith. Appeals allowed. Order of conviction and sentence set aside.