JUDGMENT As noted by the Trial Court it is seen that there is no direct evidence available in this case. The case hinges on the following piece of evidence. (a) Circumstantial evidence. (b) Oral dying declaration of Pushpa made to the visitors Krishna (PW 1), Prabhudas (PW 2), L1Xminarayan (PW 3) and Bapulal (PW 15) in the hospital. (c) Extra Judicial Confession made to the witness Noor Mohd. (PW 12). Learned Trial Court has appreciated the aforesaid factors and has come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not clinch the issue and are not such, which can be taken as unerringly pointing out towards guilt of any of the respondents/accused persons. The learned Trial Judge has also disbelieved the belated story of oral dying declaration in the face of the evidence of two doctors, Dr. Lahoti (PW 11) and Dr. S.K. Bandi (PW 16) and the history of the case noted in Exh. p/20, the injury report. In the injury report, the history is recorded as under: "Bum by stove about two hours before Similarly, the Trial Judge has also found that the Extra Judicial Confession said to be made to Noor Mohd. was a concocted piece: We find that three factors as established in this case go against the prosecution and till the balance in favour of the respondents/accused. (a) The deceased Pushpa succumbed 'to the injury after about 11 days but no attempt was made to have her dying declaration recorded by Competent Magistrate. On the other hand, Dr. Lahoti (PW 11) deposed on oath as under: ftl fnu esjs ;gka HkrhZ gqbZ ml fnu ls e`R;q ds fnu rd gks"k eas jghA eSa nks] rhu] rd iq'ik dsk ns[krk FkkA eS mls ckrphr Hkh djrk FkkA ml fnu eSaus mls HkrhZ fd;k ml fnu eSaus iwNk Fkk fd oks ty dSls xbZ] rks iq'ik us eq>s crk;k fd ftl fnu oks tyh ml fnu mldk ,dkn"kh ozr Fkk jkr dks 11 cts ozr [kksyus ds fy, dqN cukus ds fy, mlus LVkso tyk;k LVkso HkHkd x;k mlls mldh lkM+h esa vkx yx xbZ vkSj oks ty xbZA PW 16 Dr. S.K. Bandi does not prove that it was a case causing bum injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.18 Dr. Kharate has proved the statement of this effect recorded in injury report Ex. p/20. S.K. Bandi does not prove that it was a case causing bum injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.18 Dr. Kharate has proved the statement of this effect recorded in injury report Ex. p/20. Held: It is, thus clear that the story of oral dying declaration made to Krishna (PW 1) (sister of the deceased), PW 2, Prabhudas (close acquaintance of the complainant party), and Bapulal PW 15, (a friend of Birdichand, father of the deceased) is not trustworthy. As far as PW 3 Laxminarayan is concerned, his statement is that he was told about crime by Birdichand. His statement is, therefore, of no consequence. The law is settled on the point of dying declaration. In K. Ramchandra Reddy and another v. The Public Prosecutor, ( AIR 1976 SC 1994 ) it is held as under: "A dying declaration which has been recorded by a Competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable) in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character." In the face of the aforesaid conflict of evidence we are of the view that the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and the conclusion about unreliability of oral dying declaration in the face of the sworn testimony of the two doctors and Exh. p/20, is on firm foundation and cannot be faulted with. The aforesaid testimony indicating the accidental fire goes against the prosecution. (b) The father of the deceased Birdichand (PW 14) was informed by the accused persons to come and see the injured Pushpa and he stayed with her till her death. It is strange indeed that he chose to make no report till 6.10.81 (Exh. p/5) if the story of murder or abetment to commit suicide would have been correct then father would not have waited till 6.10.81 to report the matter. This delay in lodgment of the report is another factor going against prosecution. (c) It is evident that the respondents had taken the injured Pushpa to hospital for proper treatment. If the respondents had any hand in this incident, then they would not have taken her to hospital and they would not have informed father of Pushpa. This delay in lodgment of the report is another factor going against prosecution. (c) It is evident that the respondents had taken the injured Pushpa to hospital for proper treatment. If the respondents had any hand in this incident, then they would not have taken her to hospital and they would not have informed father of Pushpa. In Chandrasen and another v. State of M.P. ( 1983 JLJ 73 ) it is held as under :-- " The other circumstance is that Chandra Sen after opening the door immediately rushed at the odd hours of the night to bring a rickshaw, so that he could take the deceased to the hospital. If in fact, 'they wanted to see Rajendra Kumar murdered, they would not have done all the acts mentioned above as, if Rajendra Kumar would have lived, he could have given evidence against these two appellants." The aforesaid factors cogently and convincingly established that the story put forward by the prosecution was apocryphal and it was quite unsafe to place reliance on such story, There is also no reason as to why respondent Phu1chand would make any Extra Judicial Confession to a person like Noor Mohd. In our view, the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence of Noor Mohd. and rightly rejected it as concocted piece. The aforesaid incident took place within two years of marriage and as such the impact of S. 113-A of the Evidence Act could be examined. In our view, no presumption can be drawn in this case because it is Pushpa herself who gave out the story of accidental fire as proved by the aforesaid oral and documentary testimony, It appears that father of the deceased spun the story after the death of Pushpa, perhaps in response to emotional situation faced by him. The prosecution story is, thus, found to be full of doubts. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra; ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ), their Lordships observed that close relatives of victim have tendency to exaggerate or add facts and it was a Court's duty to examine the evidence with great care and caution. On scrupulous scrutiny we find that the evidence is not worthy of being accepted. The Trial Court has, thus, correctly appreciated the evidence AIR 1987 SC 1083 , AIR 1976 SC 1994 , 1983 JLJ 73 and AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on. Appeal dismissed.