Honble MITAL, J.–Appellants Kundan Lal, Sammi alias Shyam Lal and Smt. Durga have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21.10.97 passed by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 108/97 whereby the appellants were convicted of the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 250/- each else to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellants were acquitted of remaining charges under Sections 304-B and 498A I.P.C. The State of Rajasthan has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. (2). In nutshell, the prosecution case is that Smt. Veena Rani wife of the accused Kundan Lal was brought on 29.3.94 at 2.20 afternoon to the Primary Health Centre, Keshrisinghpur with 90% burn injuries all over the body. The Medical Officer Dr. Gopal Das Sharma P.W. 11 informed the S.H.O., Police Station, Keshrisinghpur who gave a letter Ex. P14 for her medical examination which is Ex. P22. Dr. Gopal Das referred the case to General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, Sarvar Ali, S.H.O., Keshrisinghpur P.W.7 reached the hospital and recorded the statement of injured Smt. Veena Rani at 7.30 P.M., which is also FIR of this case, Thereafter, on the wri- tten request of S.H.O. Sarvar Ali, P.W. 8 Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Additional Judicial Magistrate,Sri Ganganagar recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Veena Rani on the same day at 8.25 P.M. in the General hospital, Sri Ganganagar. She stated in her statement Ex.P11 given to S.H.O Sarvar Ali that she was married to Kundan Lal before six years. Her younger sister Seema Rani was also married to her brother-in- law (Devar) Raja Ram. The accused persons used to harass and beat her for the demand of dowry. She was in her room at about 1.45 P.M. Her mother-in-law Smt. Durga Devi and brother-in-law Sammi caught her and poured Kerosene oil on her body. Her husband accused Kundan Lal lit the fire. On her hue and cry, one Khatik came at the place of occurrence. A case was registered under Section 498-A and 307 read with 34 I.P.C. Smt. Veena Rani died of burn injuries at 10.00 A.M. on 5.4.94. The post-mortem was conducted by a Medical Board of three doctors which expressed opinion that cause of death was shock and toxaemia due to extensive burns about 90% (3). A case was registered under Section 498-A and 307 read with 34 I.P.C. Smt. Veena Rani died of burn injuries at 10.00 A.M. on 5.4.94. The post-mortem was conducted by a Medical Board of three doctors which expressed opinion that cause of death was shock and toxaemia due to extensive burns about 90% (3). Sarvar Ali S.H.O. conducted the investigation and prepared the inquest re- port, site plan, seized burnt pieces of clothes & hair, plastic jerrycan, one stove, match box, pieces of clothes and cover of quilt. There was no Kerosene oil in the stove. He also took into possession the dowry articles given at the time of the marriage at the instance of accused Kundan Lal. After completion of the investigation challan was submitted in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 498A, 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. The learned Special Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. The accused persons claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and accused persons produced three witnesses in defence. Prosecution exhibited 37 documents. The defence exhibited the statement of Smt. Krishna Devi mother of the deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.D1. The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the offences under Section 304-B and 498A I.P.C. were not proved and, therefore, recorded acquittal as stated above and convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (4). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned Special Sessions Judge has committed grave error in believing the two dying declarations one recorded by Investigating Officer Sarvar Ali Ex.P11 and another Ex. P10 recorded by Shri Rajeshwar Singh Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. Both the dying declarations are inconsistent regarding overt act alleged against the accused persons. Other material particulars of the dying declarations have not been found proved by oral evidence led by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to several glaring infirmities in the dying declarations to show that these should not have been used as a sole basis for recording the conviction. Other material particulars of the dying declarations have not been found proved by oral evidence led by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to several glaring infirmities in the dying declarations to show that these should not have been used as a sole basis for recording the conviction. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and argued that the conviction can be based on the dying declarations which are completely reliable. (5). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. We find that there is no di- rect evidence to prove the alleged overt act of the accused persons. The prosecution case rests on the dying declarations Ex. P11 and P.10 recorded on 29.3.94. As already stated, Ex. P11 was reduced into writing by S.H.O. Sarvar Ali which has been used as F.I.R. of this case for initiating the investigation. Ex. P10 has been recorded by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar after obtaining a certificate from Dr. Sarojni P.W. 14 who was attending Smt. Veena Rani in the Surgical Ward. There is no other circumstantial or direct evidence against the accused persons. Therefore, the crucial point which arises for adjudication is whether the above two dying declarations are trustworthy and can form the basis of conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (6). Before we deal with the submissions made on behalf of both the sides about the dying declarations, it is relevant to note that the offence under Sections 304-B and 498A I.P.C. has not been found proved against the accused persons because the prosecution failed to establish that Smt. Veena Rani deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for the demand of dowary. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the oral and documentary evidence in detail and observed that father of the deceased Madan Lal, brother-in-law Satpal and Smt. Seema Rani real sister have not supported the prosecution and do not at all depose about any demand of dowry by the accused persons and treating the deceased with cruelty. Smt. krishna Devi mother and Raj Kumar brother of the deceased stated about the allegation of demand of dowry but their statements were contradictory to their previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such were not reliable. Smt. krishna Devi mother and Raj Kumar brother of the deceased stated about the allegation of demand of dowry but their statements were contradictory to their previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such were not reliable. On the other hand, this fact has come on record that accused persons were of good nature and, therefore, the younger sister Seema Rani was married to the younger brother of accused Kundan Lal. The accused persons did not raise any demand of dowry for 4-5 years after the marriage of Veena Rani till the marriage of Seema Rani with Raja Ram younger brother of Kundan Lal. The neighbours P.W. 1 Smt. Vimla and defence witnesses Lal Chand, Kalu Ram and Tilak Raj deposed that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons and their relations with the deceased were very cordial. Thus, the prosecution case regarding the demand of dowry and harassment, beating and cruelty to the deceased is not proved. This fact or the circumstance is very relevant and important to show that the accused persons had no motive to commit murder of Smt. Veena Rani. (7). We have carefully scrutinised the two dying declarations Ex. P10 and P 11 which are inconsistent and full of discrepancies:- (i) Smt. Veena Rani alleged the demand of dowry by the accused persons and also that she was treated with cruelty. But this fact is not stated by her in the dying declaration Ex. P11 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. (ii) She alleged against her husband Kundan Lal that he is a gambler, deals with liquor. Her brother-in-law also sells liquor. Her husband do not bring necessary house hold articles from the market and beat her on any pretext. Such allegations in Ex. P10 do not find any mention at all in Ex. P11 i.e. the dying declaration recorded by SHO Sarvar Ali. (iii) There is glaring discrepancy in the overt act scribed to the accused persons in both the dying declarations. According to Ex.P11 her mother-in-law Smt. Durga Devi and brother-in-law Sammi caught her and poured Kerosene oil. The husband Kundan Lal set fire to her. But in Ex. P10 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, she has stated that all the three accused caught her, her brother-in-law poured Kerosene oil. But she is unable to say who lit the fire. According to Ex.P11 her mother-in-law Smt. Durga Devi and brother-in-law Sammi caught her and poured Kerosene oil. The husband Kundan Lal set fire to her. But in Ex. P10 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, she has stated that all the three accused caught her, her brother-in-law poured Kerosene oil. But she is unable to say who lit the fire. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the accused persons, the above statements cannot be split and read against one accused to base conviction. Both the dying declarations deserve wholesale re- jection. (iv) As already discussed above the allegation of demand of dowry levelled by the deceased in her statement Ex. P11 has not been found proved at all and this allegation in the dying declaration is contradictory to the oral testimony of her father Madan Lal, brother-in-law Satpal and real sister Smt. Seema Rani. (v) Her father Madan Lal, brother-in-law Satpal and real sister Smt. Seema Rani have been examined by the prosecution and on not supporting the prosecution case they have been declared hostile. There is no reason or any explanation on the record to show that why the father and the real sister of the deceased are not supporting the statements given by the deceased in Ex. P10 and P11 dying declarations. This fact or the circumstance creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. (8). A dying declaration can form sole basis of conviction provided the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it was given by the maker in conscious and fit state of mental condition. Further it should also be proved that the dying declaration was given willingly without any threat and pressure. Reasonable possibility of tuitoring the declarant should also be ruled out. It is also impor- tant that the dying declaration should be recorded properly as far as possible in questions and answers and in the language/dialect spoken by the deceased. If for any reason it is not recorded in questions, answers or in the language or dialect spoken by the declarant, it should not suffer from the infirmity of vagueness, inconsistency or discrepancy. Despite all this, the rule of prudence is that some in- dependent corroboration should be sought before acting upon the evidence of dying declaration. (9). If for any reason it is not recorded in questions, answers or in the language or dialect spoken by the declarant, it should not suffer from the infirmity of vagueness, inconsistency or discrepancy. Despite all this, the rule of prudence is that some in- dependent corroboration should be sought before acting upon the evidence of dying declaration. (9). In the instant case, we have no hesitation to hold that the two dying declarations Ex.P10 and P11 are discrepant, inconsistent and also contradictory to the oral testimony of the witnesses as already discussed above. The learned Special Sessions Judge has lost sight of the material aspect of the case and has not appreciated the dying declarations in right perspective. We, therefore, hold that the two dying declarations do not at all inspire confidence and it is unsafe to base conviction on the dying declarations Ex. P10 and P11. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. also beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and on facts. (10). In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. The accused Kundan Lal, Sammi alias Shyam Lal and Smt. Durga are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. They shall be released immediately if not required in any other case.