JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code"), is directed against the judgment dated 25th August, 1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Kotputli, in Sessions Case No. 99/22, convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period to two months, and also convicting her under Section 498-A, IPC and sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.in case FIR No. 95/96, dated 29th July, 1986 of Pol ice Station - Pragpura, District - Jaipur. 2. The prosecution-story, in short, was as under: Smt. Shanti (for short, "the deceased"), was married to Mahesh Kumar, the brother of the appellant and had been residing in the matrimonial home, along with her husband, her husband's brother Inder Kumar and her parents-in-law, in Village-Jodhpura, within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Pragpura. The appellant is married to one Ramniwas, but due to some dispute between the husband and wife, she had been living with her parents and brother Mahesh Kumar. On the morning of 21st July, 1986, while the deceased was at her house, she received bum-injuries and on hearing her cries, her brother-in-law Inder Kumar, besides some neighbours, rushed inside the house and extinguished the fire. She was removed to Athela Primary Health Centre near her village, where she was admitted and was given initial treatment. On 22nd July, 1986, ASI Kansingh (PW 21) went to Athela Dispensary and recorded her statement (Ex. D.6), according to which, she was suffering from epileptic fits and while she was cooking rice on a kerosene-oil stove, she got a fit and fell on the burning stove and her clothes caught fire and thereupon, the appellant and Inder Kumar rescued her and that when she regained consciousness, she found herself outside the house. The Aphelia Dispensary referred the deceased to Sawai Man Singh Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur (for short, "the SMS Hospital"), where, she was admitted on 22nd July, 1986. The Aphelia Dispensary referred the deceased to Sawai Man Singh Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur (for short, "the SMS Hospital"), where, she was admitted on 22nd July, 1986. On 24th July, 1986, the SHO, Pol ice Station - Moti Doongri, Jaipur, submitted an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, stating that he had received an information from the Medical Jurist of the SMS Hospital about the condition of the deceased being serious and with the request that her dying-declaration be got recorded. The learned CJM passed order directing Shri Gordhanlal (PW 7), the Judicial Magistrate, to go and record the statement of the deceased and thereupon, her statement (Ex. P.2) was recorded by the learned Magistrate at about 6.45 p.m. in Ward-3AB, Surgical Unit-III, on Bed No. 11. According to this statement, the appellant, after her quarrel with her husband, had been residing at the house of her parents (the parents-in-law of the deceased) and she used to taunt the deceased by saving that her father had not given anything in the dowry and that on the eventful morning, the appellant had poured kerosene-oil on her body and had set her clothes on fire with the aid of a match stick. According to this statement, her parents-in-law or her husband had never made any demand or complaint about the dowry and had been keeping her nicely, and according to this statement, even the husband of the deceased, Mahesh Kumar was not present at the house at the relevant time. On receipt of the information, the SHO, PS - Pragpura, obtained copy of the dying-declaration, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and on the basis thereof, registered a case under Section 307, IPC on 29th July, 1986, on which date, the SHO visited the spot and prepared a site-plan (Ex. P.5) thereof. The deceased died in the SMS Hospital at 10.15 a.m. on 31st July, 1986. The inquest-report on the dead body of the deceased was prepared by Shri Kalyan Sahai (PW 22), Assistant Collector-cum-Magistrate, Jaipur, and along with these documents, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted the same evening at 6.20 p.m. Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW 11), who conducted the postmortem examination, prepared the postmortem report (Ex. P.8), according to which, the cause of death was due to septicaemic shock due to extensive ante-mortem bum injuries. P.C. Vyas (PW 11), who conducted the postmortem examination, prepared the postmortem report (Ex. P.8), according to which, the cause of death was due to septicaemic shock due to extensive ante-mortem bum injuries. During the investigation, the SHO arrested Mahesh Kumar on 5th August, 1986 and at his instance recovered the burnt clothes of the deceased from a blind well near the Athela Dispensary. After completing the investigation, the police filed a challan against the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A, IPC Read With Section 120-B, IPC against the appellant and under Section 201, IPC, Read With Section 120-B, IPC against Mahesh Kumar. After committal, the case was put before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, who framed charges under Sections 302 and 498-A, IPC against the appellant and under Section 201, IPC against Mahesh Kumar. During the trial, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, including the SHO Shri Shiv Nath Sharma, the Investigating Officer, who appeared as PW 24. After recording the statements of the appellant and of Mahesh Kumar under Section 313 of the Code, the learned Trial Court gave opportunity to the appellant and to Mahesh Kumar to lead evidence in defence and Smt. Shakuntala, a neighbour of Mahesh Kumar, was examined as DW 1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court found no case against Mahesh Ku mar and acquitted him, but found the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 498-A, IPC and convicted and sentenced her as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.The whole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and on the dying-declaration (Ex. P.2), stated to have been made by the deceased before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shri Gordhanlal. 4. Shri S.R. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has taken us through the statement made by the ASI Shri Kan Singh, examined as PW 21 and through the dying-declaration (Ex.D.6), stated to have been made by the deceased before PW 21. P.2), stated to have been made by the deceased before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shri Gordhanlal. 4. Shri S.R. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has taken us through the statement made by the ASI Shri Kan Singh, examined as PW 21 and through the dying-declaration (Ex.D.6), stated to have been made by the deceased before PW 21. He has also taken us through the statements made by Prabhudayal PW 2), Smt. Prabhati (PW 18), Hemraj (PW 19) and Bhagwan Sahai (PW 20), the father, mother, brother and distant uncle respectively, of the deceased, besides the statements made by Gajraj Singh (PW 5), Bhanwarlal (PW 6) and Ramjilal (PW 9), the three neighbours of Mahesh Kumar. According to the statements-in-chief made by the father, mother, brother and the distant uncle of the deceased, when they learnt about the incident, they went to the hospital and on inequity, the deceased told them that the appellant and Inder Kumar had set fire to her clothes, and according to them, the deceased had come to their house in June, 1986, where, her husband Mahesh Kumar had also come and had quarrel ed with them on the ground that no sufficient dowry had been given to him and he had demanded Rs. 5,000/-, but on their showing the inability to pay the amount, had taken away the deceased with the threat that they would not see the face of their daughter again. In cross-examination, they were confronted with the statements made by them before the police under Section 161 of the Code, and it was found that no allegations of demand of dowry or complaint about the dowry, were ever made by them before the police. When contradicted further, it was found that it was recorded therein that the deceased was never harassed. 5. No evidence has been produced to show that the deceased was in a fit state of mind when she made the statement (Ex. P.2) before the learned Magistrate and there is nothing on the record to show that any permission was taken from the Medical Officer, attending on the patient before the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased. No evidence has been produced to show that the deceased was in a fit state of mind when she made the statement (Ex. P.2) before the learned Magistrate and there is nothing on the record to show that any permission was taken from the Medical Officer, attending on the patient before the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased. The statement, in cross-examination, of the mother of the deceased, who appeared as PW 18, shows that the father of the deceased had told her to name the appellant and lnder Kumar as the two persons, who had set fire to the clothes of the deceased and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the deceased had not been persuaded to make a statement with a view to implicate the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the dying declaration (Ex. P.2), made before the learned Magistrate, is the one which is safe to rely on. The case set up by the prosecution that the appellant was residing away from her husband and with her parents, finds mention only in the dying-declaration (Ex. P.2) and there is no reliable evidence in support thereof. No such question was put to the appellant while examining her under Section 313 of the Code. In absence of any evidence, it is not clear as to why the appellant would be interested in making any demand of dowry or harassing the deceased on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry, which, if given, would have been available for the use of the husband or parent sin-law of the deceased.For all these reasons, we are of the view that the teamed Trial Court erred on relying on the dying-declaration (Ex. P.2) and also coming to the conclusion that there was any case of demand of dowry by the appellant. The conviction and sentences passed by the learned trial Court, against the appellant, cannot, therefore, upheld.Consequently, we accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Trial Court and acquit the appellant. She is in the custody. She be released forthwith, if not required in another case.Appeal allowed. *******