JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—The appellant, Ramesh Chand alias Rodu, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 45-J/VII of 1999 vide judgment dated 27.7.2000 for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and upon such conviction he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. The accused is a resident of village Katholi, Tehsil Jawali of District Kangra. He owns land in village Khabbal. PW1 Sindhu alias Mohinder has taken a piece of land on rent from the accused wherein he has constructed a hut and is residing therein alongwith his wife Smt. Bholi Devi (hereinafter referred to as deceased) and three daughters of the ages between one year and six years. 3. On 17.5.1999 at about 8 p.m. PW 1 had gone to his field in order to set up "Jandaries" (catches for animals). While so working in the field he heard the sound of crying of his children coming from the side of his hut. He came running to his hut and saw his wife, the deceased, on fire. He extinguished the fire. By that time the deceased was seriously burnt. He directed his wife to go to the Panchayat. He carried his crying children and followed the deceased and was able to join her on the way near a tube well. On hearing the cries of the deceased, a number of persons gathered near the tube well including PW 2 Smt. Santosh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Khabbal, and PW 4 Bajro Ram. On enquiries by PW 2 Smt. Santosh, the deceased told her that she was set on fire by the accused. The deceased was taken to the hospital at Nagrota Surian where she was medically examined by PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar. She was found to have sustained burns to the extent of 90%. PW 9 after examining the deceased referred her to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, for further management. The deceased on having been brought to Dharamshala died at about 2.30 p.m. on 18.5.1999 at Zonal Hospital. 4. Kuldeep Kumar. She was found to have sustained burns to the extent of 90%. PW 9 after examining the deceased referred her to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, for further management. The deceased on having been brought to Dharamshala died at about 2.30 p.m. on 18.5.1999 at Zonal Hospital. 4. On the deceased having been brought to the hospital at Nagrota Surian with burn injuries, PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar gave necessary information to the police. On such information PW 15 Head Constable Parma Nand went to the hospital and after obtaining the opinion of PW 9 as to whether the deceased was in a fit state to make a statement, he recorded the statement Ex. PK of the deceased in the presence of PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar, on the basis of which a case for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station, Haripur vide FIR No. 30 of 1999, Ex. PS. After the death of the deceased, the offence was converted to the one under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. On the basis of investigation, the offence under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, also came to be added. 5. During the course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by PW 8 Dr. Dinesh Mehta. In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased had died due to asphyxia and hypovolaemic shock due to ante-mortem superficial 85% burns. 6. The investigation officer took into possession one match box, an empty bottle used as a lamp and a piece of burnt cloth from the spot vide memo Ex. PB. 7. On the completion of investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. His case is that of denial and false implication. The defence set up by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, in answer to question No. 25 is as under:— "Sindhu is a notorious criminal. Sindhu alias Mohinder had taken the land from me for the construction of a Juggi one year ago. He had built a hut there. The defence set up by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, in answer to question No. 25 is as under:— "Sindhu is a notorious criminal. Sindhu alias Mohinder had taken the land from me for the construction of a Juggi one year ago. He had built a hut there. However, when I learnt that he deals in sale and distillation of the illicit liquor alongwith his wife Bholi Devi, I asked him to leave my land, since the persons used to take illicit liquor at his hut. Since this was objected by me, he got the case falsely instituted in connivance with the police. I have learnt that still now he is doing the work of illicit liquor there. The police of police post Nagrota Surian is helping Sindhu in his work of illicit distillation." 8. The prosecution, in support of its case, in order to bring home the offence against the accused examined nineteen witnesses in all. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 9. The learned trial Judge, upon consideration of the evidence led before him while acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, convicted and sentenced the accused for the Offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, as aforesaid. 10. The accused, feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Judge, has approached this Court by way of the present appeal under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing his conviction and sentence. 11. Be it stated that the State has not assailed the acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, by way of an appeal under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure. Such acquittal has, thus, become final. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 13. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in the present case. The case of the prosecution is, primarily, based on the following dying declarations alleged to have been made by the deceased:— (i) Ex. PK made by the deceased to PW 15 Head Constable Parma Nand in the presence of PW 9 Dr. 13. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in the present case. The case of the prosecution is, primarily, based on the following dying declarations alleged to have been made by the deceased:— (i) Ex. PK made by the deceased to PW 15 Head Constable Parma Nand in the presence of PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar; and (ii) Oral dying declarations alleged to have been made by the deceased near the tube well to PW 2 Smt. Santosh in the presence of PW 3, Phindu and PW 4 Bajro Ram. 14. Ex. PK is, in fact, the statement of the deceased, which was purported to have been recorded by PW 15 Head Constable under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, a case was thereafter registered for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, vide FIR Ex. PS. 15. It is well settled that such a statement can be treated as a dying declaration within the meaning of Section 32, Evidence Act, 1872. 16. In Gulam Hussain and another v. State of Delhi, 2000 (7) SCC 254, the statement of the victim of the burn injuries was recorded by an Assistant Sub Inspector in Hospital after getting an opinion from the Doctor that the injured was fit to make a statement. Later the victim died. In his deposition he had referred to the circumstances which ultimately proved to be the cause of his death. A contention was raised on behalf of the accused therein that since the statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer, which was treated as FIR, the same could not be treated as a dying declaration and was inadmissible in evidence. Repelling the contention it was held, by the Honble Supreme Court that because at the time of recording the statement the Assistant Sub Inspetor did not possess the capacity of an Investigation Officer as the investigation had not commenced by then, such a statement could bi treated as a dying declaration which is admissible in evidence under Section 32, Evidence Act. 17. It is by now well settled that dying declaration is admissible in evidence and can form the basis for conviction, if found to be reliable. 17. It is by now well settled that dying declaration is admissible in evidence and can form the basis for conviction, if found to be reliable. While, it is in the nature of an exception to the general rule forbidding hearsay evidence, it is admitted on the premise that ordinarily a dying person will not falsely implicate an innocent person in the commission of a serious crime. This premise, which is based on the maxim "A man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth", is considered strong Enough to set off the need that the maker of the statement should state so on oath and be cross-examined by the person who is sought to be implicated. In order that a dying declaration may form the sole basis for conviction without need for independent corroboration, it must be shown that person making it had the opportunity of identifying the person implicated and it is thoroughly reliable and free from blemish. If, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is found that the maker of the statement was in a fit state of mind and had voluntarily made the statement on the basis of personal knowledge without being influenced by others and the Court, on strict scrutiny, finds it to be reliable, there is no rule of law or even of prudence that such a reliable piece of evidence should not be acted upon unless it is corroborated. A dying declaration by itself is an independent piece of evidence and can be acted upon, without seeking any corroboration, if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable. 18. The Honble Supreme Court in Gulam Hussain v. State of Delhi (supra) has held:— (i) A dying declaration must be dealt with caution for the reason that the maker thereof had not been subjected to cross-examination; (ii) there is no rule of law or rule of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated; (iii) However, in case the prosecution fails to fully establish the recording of the alleged dying declaration, it would not be safe to convict the accused only on such dying declaration unless the same is corroborated in other material particulars. 19. 19. Dealing with the question of evidentiary value to be attached to a dying declaration, the Supreme Court in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SCC 684, has held : "Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy. Under Section 32, when a statement is made by a person, as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstances which result in his death, in cases in which the cause of that persons death comes into question, such a statement, oral or in writing, made by the deceased to the witness is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. The statement made by the deceased, called the dying declaration, falls in that category provided it has been made by the deceased while in a fit mental condition. A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by %e deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his\death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. If there are more than one dying declarations then the Court has also to scrutinise all the dying declarations to find out if each one of these passes the test of being trustworthy The Court must further find out whether the different dying declarations are consistent with each other in material particulars before accepting and relying upon the same—" 20. In the light of the above principles, we now proceed to examine the above dying declarations. 21. In the light of the above principles, we now proceed to examine the above dying declarations. 21. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce the statement Ex. PK, alleged to have been made by the deceased and recorded by PW 15 Head Constable Parma Nand in the presence of PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar. It reads :— "Statement of Smt. Bholi Devi wife of Sindhu alias Mohinder, caste Bangali, resident of Khabbal, Tehsil Jawali, Police Station Haripur, District Kangra, aged 26 years. Stated that I am a resident of the abovesaid address and a housewife. Today the 17.5.1999 at about 8 p.m. I was cooking food outside my house. My husband had gone to the field to fix the Jandries. In the mean time, Ramesh Chand alias Rodu came to my house and enquired about Sindhu. I told him that he had gone to the fields to fix Jandries. He was demanding rent in respect of the land. He demanded Rs. 400 as rent for two months. On my refusal to pay the rent, he caught hold of me from my arm and threw the burning kerosene lamp on me as a result of which my clothes caught fire and Rodu ran away. On hearing my cries, my husband came running, extinguished the fire and immediately brought me to the hospital Nagrota Surian. I have been set on fire by Ramesh Chand alias Rodu." (Emphasis supplied) 22. As per the above version, which is stated to be the first version, given to the police, PW 1 Sindhu alias Mohinder on hearing the cries of the deceased came running, extinguished the fire and immediately carried the deceased to the hospital at Nagrota Surian. It is not in the Statement of the deceased that she was asked by her husband (PW 1) to go to Panchayat and that on the way near the tube well she had met PW 2 Smt. Santosh or PW 3 Phindu or PW 4 Bajro Ram and that she had told them about her having been set on fire by the accused. On this short ground alone, the evidence of the prosecution regarding the making of an oral dying declaration by the deceased to PW 2 Smt. Santosh in the presence of PW 3 Phindu and PW 4 Bajro Ram near the tube well cannot be believed and relied upon. 23. On this short ground alone, the evidence of the prosecution regarding the making of an oral dying declaration by the deceased to PW 2 Smt. Santosh in the presence of PW 3 Phindu and PW 4 Bajro Ram near the tube well cannot be believed and relied upon. 23. Even otherwise, the evidence of the prosecution with regard to the making of a dying declaration by the deceased to PW 2 Smt. Santosh is not fee from doubt. 24. PW 2 Smt. Santosh admittedly is not the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat of the village of the deceased. She is the Pradhan of a different Gram Panchayat. She has deposed that on the relevant date at about 8 p.m. or 8.30 p.m. when she was present in her house, PW 3 Phindu came to call her by informing that the deceased having suffered burn injuries. She first refused to accompany PW 3 Phindu since the deceased was not a resident of her Panchayat. However, subsequently, on humanitarian grounds she accompanied PW 3 and went to the tube well where the deceased was present. When she enquired from the deceased as to what had happened, the deceased told her "she should be saved and Rodu Ram had set her on fire". PW 2 had further stated that nothing else was told to her by the deceased and that she had directed that the deceased be taken to the hospital. 25. During her cross-examination PW 2 Smt. Santosh has stated to the following facts :— (i) the deceased did not tell her how she had suffered the burn injuries, that is, the mode or manner in which she had suffered the burn injuries; (ii) the deceased did not tell her that kerosene was poured on her and then she was set on fire; and (iii) she (PW 2) did not tell the police also regarding the manner in which the deceased had sustained burn injuries. 26. PW 3 Phindu in his statement initially stated in the following terms:— Stated that I know Bholi and her husband Sindu alias Mohinder. About 11 months ago, at about 8.30 or 9 p.m., I was present in my house. Bholi came weeping through common passage in front of my house. She cried that she has suffered burn injuries and she should be saved. About 11 months ago, at about 8.30 or 9 p.m., I was present in my house. Bholi came weeping through common passage in front of my house. She cried that she has suffered burn injuries and she should be saved. She was asked to wait at tube well and then Pradhan was called, namely, Santosh Kumari. I told Santosh Kumari to enquire from her as to what had happened because she was a lady. I do not know what she enquired and what was told by Bholi then she was taken to the Police Post." 27. PW 3 Phindu was got declared hostile by the prosecution and during the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, admitted as under:— "When Bholi passed in front of my house through common path by crying she told that she had been burnt by accused Rodu and thereafter I went to call the Pradhan. I told this fact to the Pradhan also that Bholi Devi is telling that she had been burnt by the accused Rodu. It is incorrect that when Pradhan enquired from Bholi about her cause of burning, the deceased told her that she had been set on fire by the accused Rodu. However, lady Pradhan enquired from the deceased but as to what transpired between them, I do not know." 28. During the course of cross-examination by the accused, the witness reiterated that nothing had transpired between the deceased and PW 2 Smt. Santosh in his presence. 29. Thus, PW 3 Phindu has not only not supported the case of prosecution about the making of an oral dying declaration by the deceased to PW 2 Smt. Santosh, he has gone to the extent of introducing a new case about the deceased while crying having told him about the accused having set her on fire and that such fact was disclosed by him to PW 2 Smt. Santosh when he had gone to call her. This version of PW 3 Phindu does not find support from the testimony of PW 2 Smt. Santosh. 30. PW 4 Bajro Ram has deposed that when PW 2 Smt. Santosh had enquired from the deceased, she had named the accused Rodu as having set her on fire. This version of PW 3 Phindu does not find support from the testimony of PW 2 Smt. Santosh. 30. PW 4 Bajro Ram has deposed that when PW 2 Smt. Santosh had enquired from the deceased, she had named the accused Rodu as having set her on fire. On being cross-examined by the accused, the witness stated that apart from naming Roda, the deceased had not stated anything as regard to the manner in which she sustained the burn injuries. The witness pleaded ignorance to the suggestion put to him if the deceased had named the accused on the advice of her husband. 31. In view of the major contradictions coming on the record with regard to the making of the oral dying declaration by the deceased to PW 2 Smt. Santosh and the circumstances pointed out above, the learned trial Judge has gravely erred in placing reliance on the same. 32. It has been held in Darshdna Devi v. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) Ch. L.R. 315, by the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of evidentiary value of an oral dying declaration that though an oral dying declaration can form the basis of conviction, in a given case, such a dying declaration has to be trust worthy and free from every blemish and inspire confidence. The reproduction of exact words of the oral declaration in such cases is very important. The difference in the exact words of declaration detracts materially from the value of the oral dying declaration. (Emphasis supplied) 33. In the present case none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has reproduced the exact words of the oral declaration. All the witnesses have stated differently thereby rendering the alleged oral dying declaration doubtful. 34. The making of dying declaration Ex. PK by the deceased is also not free from doubt. As stated above, the case of the prosecution is that on the deceased having been brought to the hospital at Nagrota Sudan with burn injuries, necessary information was telephonically given by PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar to the police. Such report vide Ex. PM is shown to have been received by PW 16 ASI Ramesh Chand at 12.30 a.m. on 18.5.1999, who is alleged to have deputed PW 14 Head Constable Parma Nand to the hospital. The statement Ex. Kuldeep Kumar to the police. Such report vide Ex. PM is shown to have been received by PW 16 ASI Ramesh Chand at 12.30 a.m. on 18.5.1999, who is alleged to have deputed PW 14 Head Constable Parma Nand to the hospital. The statement Ex. PK of the deceased is shown to have been recorded by PW 15 Head Constable Parma Nand in the presence of PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar at about 1.35 a.m. on 18.5.1999. 35. PW 1 Sindhu alias Mohinder, the husband of the deceased, as well as PW 4 Bajro Ram, however, have a different story to tell. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that PW 4 Bajro Ram had accompanied PW 1 Sindhu alias Mohinder when the deceased was taken to the hospital. According to PW 1 and PW 4, they alongwith the deceased had first gone to the police post and then on the advice of the police they had gone to the hospital. PW 1 in his cross-examination has stated:— "PWs Bajro and Surinder went up to Police Post with me and Bholi but they were not present in the hospital. The police did not accompany me from the Police Post to the hospital. But they sent me and then they followed me. The police officials at Police Post had enquired the facts from us and 1 and Bholi both narrated the facts to the police, which were reduced into writing by the police." (Emphasis supplied) 36. Similarly, PW 4 Bajro Ram during the course of his cross-examination by the accused, has deposed:— "We first went to police post Nagrota Sudan where police was present, the police enquired from us at Police Post. We all told the facts in our statement to the police. The police also recorded the statement of Bholi Devi at Police Post and it is correct that it was thumb marked by her..... From Police Post, we went to the hospital and I followed other persons. Bholi and Mohinder were talking with one another on the way to Police Post and hospital, and the police man accompanying her was also enquiring her on the way." 37. From Police Post, we went to the hospital and I followed other persons. Bholi and Mohinder were talking with one another on the way to Police Post and hospital, and the police man accompanying her was also enquiring her on the way." 37. The version given by PW 1 and PW 4 has been denied by PW 16 ASL Ramesh Chand by stating as under:— "It is incorrect that Bholi, her husband Mohinder, Bajro and Surinder had come to Police Post before going to the hospital. It is incorrect that I enquired from them at the Police Post and also recorded their statements. It is incorrect that I am concealing those statements today. It is incorrect that I observed at Police Post that condition of Bholi was critical and she was unable to make a statement. Self stated that she had not come there." 38. In view of the version put forth by PW 1 and PW 4 that they had first gone to the Police Post before going to the hospital and that their statements and that of Bholi deceased were recorded at the Police Post, the very story of the prosecution that PW 15 Head Constable had gone to the Hospital on receipt of information from PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar falls to the ground and the only inference which can be drawn is that Ex. PK came to be recorded as a result of due deliberations and consultation. 39. There are material circumstances in the present case which render the prosecution story and the version contained in Ex. PK as doubtful. According to the prosecution the accused had thrown the burning kerosene lamp on the deceased. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased was using an improvised kerosene lamp, that is, an empty quart of liquor was being used as a lamp by filling the same with kerosene and putting a wick therein. Such quart with the wick inside is alleged to have been taken in possession by PW 16 ASL Ramesh Chand from the spot vide memo. Ex. PB. 40. A perusal of Ex. PB shows that the quart taken into possession from the spot was "empty" and there was smell of kerosene therefrom. However, when such quart was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory it was found to contain 45 mis. of kerosene. Ex. PB. 40. A perusal of Ex. PB shows that the quart taken into possession from the spot was "empty" and there was smell of kerosene therefrom. However, when such quart was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory it was found to contain 45 mis. of kerosene. How the quart came to contain kerosene to the extent of 45 mis. when the same was empty when taken into possession, has remained unexplained. The only inference is that the kerosene appears to have been poured in the quart after it was taken into possession and before it was sent to the Laboratory for examination in order to lend credence and support to the prosecution story. 41. It is pertinent to note that PW 9 Dr. Kuldeep Kumar who had medically examined the deceased at the first instance on her having been brought to him in the hospital at Nagrota Sudan and who had issued the medical certificate Ex. PL has categorically stated in his deposition in Court that there was no smell of kerosene at the time of examination of the deceased and as such he had not mentioned about the smell in the certificate Ex. PL. PW 8 Dr. Dinesh Mehta, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body, also has deposed that there was no smell of kerosene on the body of the deceased at the time of post mortem, therefore, he had not mentioned the same in his report Ex. PG. 42. A burnt piece of clothes which the deceased was allegedly wearing at the time of occurrence was taken into possession from the spot by the Investigation Officer PW 16 ASI Ramesh Chand vide memo Ex. PB. Such burnt piece of cloth was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and vide report Ex. PT no traces or particles of kerosene were found thereon. 43. The above evidence with regard to absence of kerosene on the burnt piece of cloth and the absence of smell of kerosene from the body of the deceased also belies the prosecution story as to the deceased having been set on fire by the accused by throwing a burning kerosene lamp at her. 44. The burnt piece of cloth taken into possession from the spot is that of synthetic cloth, that is, Nylon, as is evident from Ex. PB, which means that the deceased while cooking food was wearing nylon clothes. 44. The burnt piece of cloth taken into possession from the spot is that of synthetic cloth, that is, Nylon, as is evident from Ex. PB, which means that the deceased while cooking food was wearing nylon clothes. Therefore, the possibility of such clothes having caught fire while the deceased was cooking food cannot be ruled out. 45. For the foregoing reasons it is not safe to rely upon the alleged dying declaration Ex. PK, without corroboration, in recording a conviction against the accused. The learned trial. Judge has erred in placing reliance on the same. 46. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge against the accused are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 47. The accused, who is in jai|/ undergoing sentence, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine, if already realised, shall be refunded to the accused. Case property be dealt with as per the directions of the leaned trial Judge.