Mr. P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10/11/1990 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which he convictedthe appellant of an offence punishable under Section 3021. P. C. having intentionallycaused the death of one Smt. Asha @ Attri by pouring kerosene oil on her and settingher on fire and order dated 13/11/1990 by which he awarded sentence ofrigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 2,000. 00 and in default to undergorigorous imprisonment for one month more. The facts, as have come out from the evidence, in brief, are that deceased Ashawas married to one Pyare Lal many years ago and three issues have been born fromthe said wedlock out of whom two were female and one was a boy and she wasliving with her husband Pyare Lal in a lane near Chowki No. 2 and even after thedeath of her husband she continued to live there. ( 2 ) IT is the case that about four years prior to her death, she had started livingas wife of appellant. Raj Narain, in the Jhuggi at Shakti Nagar located near thedrain. Raj Narain appears to have represented to the deceased that he was anunmarried person but later on it was revealed to the deceased that Raj Narain wasa married man and his wife had also come to live with Raj Narain a couple of daysprior to the incident in question. ( 3 ) ON 17/06/1987, Asha was found in a burnt condition in the said hut andin a Police Control Room van she was brought first to Hindu Rao Hospital but asfacilities for treating the burn patients were not available in that hospital, she wasremoved to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital by Head Constable Madan Chand, PW-10,and she was got admitted in that hospital at 10. 15 p. m. The M. L. C,ex. PW5/awasprepared by PW-5 Dr. V. K-Popli who had recorded in that M. L. C. that the patienthad been admitted with alleged history of being set on fire after pouring keroseneoil by Raj Narain (as stated by the patient) and he found that the patient wasconscious and was oriented, pulse was 88 per minute, regular, respiration 24/cmgeneral and both pupils were reacting to light and no smell of alcohol/smell ofkerosene and he found 95% burns on different portions of the body of the patient. The patient was then got admitted in the ward. ( 4 ) INFORMATION to the Police Station Roshan Ara Road was given at 9. 12 p. m. by S. I. Tarif Singh of Police Control Room who had been informed by one Rajnarain from a public telephone booth that there had taken place an incident of firein a hut in Sawan Ashram, Shakti Nagar. Head Constable Rashid Singh wasdeputed to inquire into the matter who went to the spot on being handed over thecopy of the report Ex. PWS/a. Bhalinder Singh, S. I. posted in that Police Station,on receiving the information, had reached the place of occurrence and thereafter,learning that the lady had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital, had reached thereand on getting the information that she had been taken to Jai Prakash Narainhospital, he went to the said Hospital and obtained the M. L. C, Ex. PW5/a. Thedoctor who was treating the patient in the ward had declared the patient unfit forstatement at 12 midnight and thereafter the Sub-Inspector had come to the place of. occurrence and had made an endorsement Ex. PW8/b and got the case registeredvide F. I. R. No-182/87 under Section 309 Indian Penal Code in which he recorded that theenquiries made at the spot revealed that the lady had tried to commit suicide byburning herself. ( 5 ) THE F. I. R. was registered at 12. 55 a. m. Thereafter, he had taken intopossession burnt saree, brassiere and a cotton-wick batti from the spot besides abottle which contained some kerosene and he had converted them into a sealedparcel. Asha had succumbed to her burn injuries on 18/06/1987 at about 9. 45a. m. Information with regard to her death was given to Police Station Roshan Araroad by Duty Constable Dayal Chand at 10. 40 a. m. which was recorded in thedaily Diary, copy of which is Ex. PW9/a. ( 6 ) ON 19/06/1987, written complaint, Ex. PWS/a, was given by PW3, Ramsaroop, brother of the deceased in which he disclosed that he had come to knowfrom reliable sources that it was Raj Narain who had burnt his sister by pouringkerosene on her and the police had deliberately not registered a case of murder andthus, he wanted proper investigations to be carried out. PWS/a, was given by PW3, Ramsaroop, brother of the deceased in which he disclosed that he had come to knowfrom reliable sources that it was Raj Narain who had burnt his sister by pouringkerosene on her and the police had deliberately not registered a case of murder andthus, he wanted proper investigations to be carried out. On 19/06/1987, theinvestigating Officer recorded the statements of Constable Parsu Ram, PW-7, whowas working as Duty Constable in the Jai Prakash Narain Hospital at the time thelady Asha was got admitted in a burnt condition in that hospital and also recordedthe statement of Head Constable Madan Chand, PW-10, who had brought Asha tothe said hospital from Hindu Rao Hospital and also recorded the statement of Headconstable Hira Singh who had brought the lady from the spot to Hindu Raohospital. Head Constable Hira Singh appears to have died before his statementcould be recorded in the Court. ( 7 ) PW-10, Head Constable Madan Chand, had disclosed to the police that infact Asha had made a dying declaration while being taken to the hospital that shewas burnt by Raj Narain, her husband, after he had poured the kerosene oil on her. PW7 Parsu Ram claimed to be present with the doctor when the said dyingdeclaration was allegedly made by the deceased. ( 8 ) THE dead body of Asha was sent to Mortuary on 18/06/1987 at about11. 20 a. m. It is recorded at Ex. PW12/f that the body and the death summary had758 been received at 3 p. m. on 18/06/1987 but surprisingly, the inquest papers werenot sent along with the dead body by the Investigating Officer and rather, theinquest papers came to be prepared on 19/06/1987 and were delivered to thedoctor at 10. 40 a. m. on 19/06/1987. The Investigating Officer had not explainedin his statement in Court coming as PW-15 as to why the dead body was sent to themortuary for post-mortem examination on 18/06/1987 and why the inquestpapers were not prepared before sending the dead body for post-mortem. Norally, before sending the body to the Mortuary, the Investigating Officer wassupposed to have carried out the inquest proceedings and prepared the inquestpapers but in this case we find that application seeking the post-mortem was alsoprepared on 19/06/1987 and so also the brief facts, Ex. PW12/b and also theinquest report Ex. PW15/d. ( 9 ) IF we go through these brief facts, Ex. PW12/b and also theinquest report Ex. PW15/d. ( 9 ) IF we go through these brief facts, Ex. PW12/b and the application for postmortem, Ex. PW12/f, we find that there is no mention that the lady had made anydying declaration to the doctor or to any other witnesses and what is recorded isthat certain inquiries had revealed that Asha was staying illegally with Raj Narainand Raj Narain had brought his wife from the village to stay with him and on 1 7/06/1987, Asha and Raj Narain had a fierce quarrel and in that course. Raj Narainhad set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on Asha. There is no reference to anydying declaration made by the deceased in these documents. ( 10 ) IT appears that on receipt of the complaint Ex. PW3/a from Ram Saroop,who also in that complaint had not made any reference to the dying declaration ofthe deceased implicating the appellant, that the Investigating Officer thought it fitto convert the case from Section 309 to Section 3021. P. C. on 19/06/1987. In thecomplaint, Ex. PW3/a, Ram Saroop, PW3, had disclosed that he had come to knowfrom some reliable source that his sister had been burnt by Raj Narain. He had notdisclosed the name of any such source from which he got this information. Evenin his testimony in Court as PW3, he did not mention the name of any person whohad given him this information that his sister had been burnt by Raj Narain. He hadmentioned in cross-examination that one child, soon after the occurrence of 1 7/06/1987, had come to his house and informed his wife about his sister being burntby Raj Narain and on coming back to his house from his job, he went to the hospitalon the next day in the morning and by that time his sister had already died. According to him, he was not interrogated by the police in the hospital andthereafter he had got drafted this complaint from some unknown persons and hadgiven this complaint to the S. H. O. The complaint does not bear any date. It is onlyin the testimony of the Investigating Officer that it was revealed that this complaintwas given on 19/06/1987. ( 11 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has brought home the offence tothe appellant on the basis of the dying declaration record by PW5, Dr. It is onlyin the testimony of the Investigating Officer that it was revealed that this complaintwas given on 19/06/1987. ( 11 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has brought home the offence tothe appellant on the basis of the dying declaration record by PW5, Dr. V. K. Popli inthe M. L. C. and also the dying declaration proved by PW7 Parsu Ram and PW10,head Constable Madan Chand. ( 12 ) IT is the settled law that if a dying declaration had been made by thedeceased and the contents of the dying declaration are shown to be truthful, thenconviction can be brought home to a particular accused on the basis of such dyingdeclaration. But in the present case, we find that there are a number of suspiciouscircumstances which make us to doubt the veracity of the said dying declarationand also the factum whether the said dying declaration was at all made by thedeceased or not. ( 13 ) IF we look to the M. L. C, Ex. PW5/a, we find that Dr. Popli had notmentioned that the patient was fit for statement. The alleged history recorded byhim (portion a to a ) bears his initial at point b on which the date does notappear to be 17/06/1987 at all. We also find that after recording the words"alleged history of setting on fire after pouring kerosene oil", there appears to bea full-stop and in the gap between the word "oil" and full-stop, the word "by" hadbeen written and thereafter name of Raj Narain stands written and in the line belowit, which appears to have been inserted later on in small letters, the words have beenrecorded as "as recorded by the patient". If the M. L. C. had been prepared at onego, there is reason for the doctor to have put his initial at point w and give a datewhich is not 17/06/1987 and in all probability it looks like 18/06/1987. ( 14 ) IT is pertinent to mention that in case this alleged dying declaration hadbeen there in the M. L. C. when this M. L. C. was handed over to the Investigatingofficer on 17/06/1987 itself, there is no reason why the Investigating Officerwould not have got registered the case under Section 3021. ( 14 ) IT is pertinent to mention that in case this alleged dying declaration hadbeen there in the M. L. C. when this M. L. C. was handed over to the Investigatingofficer on 17/06/1987 itself, there is no reason why the Investigating Officerwould not have got registered the case under Section 3021. P. C. because this dyingdeclaration itself recorded in the M. L. C. disclosed the commission of a cognizableoffence and there could be no question of the Investigating Officer having anydoubt about the dying declaration at that stage. But what we find is thatinvestigating Officer has not mentioned about this dying declaration appearing inthe M. L. C. in the rukka Ex. PW8/a on the basis of which the case was registeredand also does not find mention in the subsequent documents REFERRED TO by us above. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the State has contended that the doctor had no reasonto record any wrong dying declaration in the M. L. C. which he prepared in thenormal course of his duties and she has REFERRED TO to Suresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A. I. R. 1987 Supreme Court 860 in support of her contention that once adying declaration has been recorded by a doctor in the normal course of his duties,the Court should accept the said dying declaration for bringing home the offenceto the accused. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and find that in thatcase Dr. Bhargava, who examined the deceased Lachhibai had declared her to befit for making the statement and thereafter had recorded her dying declaration andhad also mentioned in her M. L. C. that at the fag end of her giving the dyingdeclaration, the lady was lapsing in coma. The statement of Dr. Bhargava in thatcase was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge and also by the High Court andthe Supreme Court had mentioned that there was no reason to doubt the statementof Dr. Bhargava that she had recorded the said dying declaration as given bylachhibai, the deceased in that case. ( 16 ) IT depends on the facts of each case to see whether the dying declarationhad in fact been made by the deceased. Bhargava that she had recorded the said dying declaration as given bylachhibai, the deceased in that case. ( 16 ) IT depends on the facts of each case to see whether the dying declarationhad in fact been made by the deceased. It is only when the Court comes to theconclusion that there is no reasonable doubt that a particular dying declaration hadbeen made by the deceased and the contents of the dying declaration are truthfulthat without seeking any further corroboration, the Court can bring home theoffence to the accused. ( 17 ) IN the present case, we have reason to doubt about the recording of thisdying declaration in the M. L. C. on 17/06/1987. We have already given ourreasons for disbelieving the doctor totally that the deceased had given such a dyingdeclaration when he had prepared the M. L. C. on 17/06/1987 because the crucialwords in the dying declaration i. e. name of Raj Narain and the words "stated by thepatient" appear to have been inserted in this M. L. C. later on at the behest of thepolice. There is no earthly reason if this dying declaration had appeared in them. L. C, which M. L. C. was perused by the Investigating Officer before getting thecase registered, why no reference has been made to this dying declaration in therukka itself, the basis of the F. I. R, or in the inquest papers, particularly the brief factsprepared by the Investigating Officer on 19/06/1987. ( 18 ) IT is also significant to mention that this Investigating Officer had notrecorded the statement of PW7, Parsu Ram, duty constable and Head Constablemadan Chand, PW10 on 17/06/1987 or on 18/06/1987. In case there hadbeen any dying declaration made in their presence by the deceased, the Investigating Officer would have recorded their statements on 18/06/1987 at least. It isonly when that written complaint, Ex. PW3/a was given by PW3, brother of thedeceased on 19/06/1987 that the Investigating Officer went all out to see thatcase is made out under Section 3021. P. C. ( 19 ) NOW coming to the contents of the dying declaration, it has been mentioned categorically that she was burnt by Raj Narain by pouring kerosene on her. In the post-mortem report, the doctor who had performed the post-mortem hadnot mentioned that there was any smell of kerosene coming from the body when heperformed the post-mortem. Rather, PW-12, Dr. In the post-mortem report, the doctor who had performed the post-mortem hadnot mentioned that there was any smell of kerosene coming from the body when heperformed the post-mortem. Rather, PW-12, Dr. George Paul, categorically statedthat he found no smell of kerosene coming from the scalp hair of the deceased orfrom any other portion of the dead body. The burnt Saree and bra of the deceasedwhich were sent for examination to C. F. S. L. also did not have any trace of kerosenein them as per C. F. S. L. report, Ex. PW15-E. ( 20 ) DR. V. K. Popli, PW5, in M. L. C. had recorded in one sentence that there wasno smell of alcohol/smell of kerosene. If we read that sentence, which is in one line,the inference would be that there was no smell of alcohol and kerosene but in Court,dr. Popli has stated that there was smell of kerosene coming from the body of thatlady. There is again doubtful fact as to whether the body of the lady was givingsmell of kerosene at the time she was examined by Dr. Popli and the said M. L. C. wasprepared. ( 21 ) AS far as history of this lady is concerned, it must be remembered that shehad deserted her three children whom she kept separate from her when she startedliving with the appellant although she was not legally married with the appellantbut she had an assurance that the appellant was unmarried person but it came toher as a shock that the appellant was having a wife and she had come to live withthe appellant and that is why she had gone to her brother, PW3, Ram Saroop andexpressed her anguish in that manner and she wanted the advice of her brother asto what she should do. If these facts are kept in view, there is all the possibility thatasha must have been totally frustrated in being betrayed by her lover, appellant,in concealing the factum of his marriage from her and made her live with him as hiswife for quite a few years and this could be the motive for her to commit suicide andfalsely name the appellant as the person who brought her to such a plight that shehad to end her life. ( 22 ) IT is also pertinent to mention that not even a single witness from theneighbourhood has been examined by the Investigating Officer who could havedeposed that at the time of burning of Asha whether Raj Narain, appellant, waspresent near about or not. The presence of Raj Narain at the time of the incident atthe spot has not been established by the prosecution in any manner. ( 23 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged that it was Raj Narain whohad given telephonic message for summoning the police to the spot. We do notknow whether Raj Narain who gave the message to the police was the appellant orsome other Raj Narain because the Investigating Officer had not collected anyevidence to show that it was the appellant. Raj Narain, who had given thetelephonic call. Be as it may, examining these facts as have appeared in this case,we have lingering doubt about the deceased having made any such dying declaration and also with regard to the truthfulness of the contents of the said dyingdeclaration. ( 24 ) IN view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment andorder of conviction and the sentence of the appellant passed by the Additionalsessions Judge and we acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 3021. P. C. and direct his release from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in anyother case.