Judgment BRAHME P.S., J.:­-Two brothers namely Wasudeo Ninaji and Gajanan Ninaji and their mother Drupadabai Ninaji (appellants herein) and Narmadabai Gajanan, original accused No. 3 were tried for the offences under sections 302 and 498-A of I.P.C. for murder of Jyoti w/o appellant Wasudeo and also for subjecting her to ill-treatment and cruelty. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1998, by judgment dated 21-1-1999, found the appellants guilty for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months and also convicted Wasudeo (appellant No. 1) and Dhrupadabai (appellant No. 3) for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, Narmadabai Gajanan (original accused No. 3) was acquitted of the offences under sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the order and judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that victim Jyoti was daughter of Rajaram Wankhede (P.W. 1) and Pramila Rajaram Wankhede (P.W. 2) and she was married to appellant Wasudeo on 8-5-1997. Appellant No. 2 Gajanan is real brother of appellant Wasudeo and original appellant No. 3 Narmadabai is his wife and appellant No. 3 Dhrupadabai is mother of appellants Wasudeo and Gajanan. After marriage, Jyoti had been to the house of appellant Wasudeo for co-habitation at village Poraj, Tq. Khamgaon. Admittedly, after one month of marriage and before Akhadi Festival, Rajaram had been to village Poraj to fetch his daughter Jyoti for Akhadi Festival and after having stayed for a night there, brought with him Jyoti to his house. Jyoti told her father that her husband was accusing her as Zamli (lethargic) and that original accused No. 3 and appellant Dhrupadabai were telling appellant Wasudeo that deceased Jyoti was not doing house hold work and that, at the instigation of appellants and Narmadabai, appellant Wasudeo used to beat her. Jyoti told her father that her husband was accusing her as Zamli (lethargic) and that original accused No. 3 and appellant Dhrupadabai were telling appellant Wasudeo that deceased Jyoti was not doing house hold work and that, at the instigation of appellants and Narmadabai, appellant Wasudeo used to beat her. Rajaram brought Jyoti to his house at village Dhanegaon where she lived for few days and appellants Wasudeo and Gajanan came to his house after about a month to fetch Jyoti. However, he did not send Jyoti with them as Jyoti had complained of ill-treatment at the hands of appellants while she was living in matrimonial home. Again on 5-10-1997, appellants Wasudeo came to the house of Rajaram for fetching Jyoti and on assurance given by him as not to ill-treat Jyoti Rajaram and his wife Pramilabai agreed to send Jyoti with him for cohabitation and accordingly, Jyoti alongwith appellant Wasudeo left for their village Poraj on 7-10-1997. It is claimed by witness-Pramilabai that she had also accompanied Jyoti and appellant No. 1 and they came to village Ghatpuri where witness Ratan Sasawe (P.W. 8), who is matrimonial uncle of Jyoti, was residing, Jyoti and appellant Wasudeo having stayed at the house of Ratan for a night, on the next day went to village Poraj. On the next day i.e. on 8-10-1997, as per prosection case, early in the morning around 5.00 a.m. when Jyoti woke up and went to the kitchen, appellant Wasudeo pressed her mouth, appellant Dhrupadabai caught hold her both hands and appellant Gajanan and his wife Narmadabai poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire with lighted match stick. Jyoti sustained extensive burn injuries. She was taken to the General Hospital, Khamgaon. 3. Rajaram, as also his wife Pramilabai were informed by Shriram about the incident that Jyoti sustained severe burns and that she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Khamgaon. After receiving message, both rushed to the hospital to see their daughter Jyoti. Jyoti, while in the hospital, told her parents that the appellants and Narmadabai set her on fire. Sunil Tajne (P.W. 10), P.S.I. attached to the Police Station, Khamgaon City received memo (Exh. 55) from the General Hospital, Khamgaon regarding admission of victim Jyoti at the Hospital. Immediately, he gave requisition letter to Taluqa Magistrate for recording dying declaration of injured Jyoti. Sunil Tajne (P.W. 10), P.S.I. attached to the Police Station, Khamgaon City received memo (Exh. 55) from the General Hospital, Khamgaon regarding admission of victim Jyoti at the Hospital. Immediately, he gave requisition letter to Taluqa Magistrate for recording dying declaration of injured Jyoti. The Taluqa Magistrate and Naib-Tahsildar Chandrashekhar Sonune (P.W. 9), on receiving the requisition letter, reached to the General Hospital, Khamgaon. Dr. Ashok Gaikwad (P.W. 12) who was attached to the General Hospital as Medical Officer, on the request of the Executive Magistrate Chandrashekhar Sonune, examined the then injured Jyoti, who was admitted in burn ward and issued certificate on Exh. 53 to the effect that the patient was fully conscious well- oriented to record the statement. The Executive Magistrate, Chandrashekhar then recorded statement of Jyoti wherein she told that appellant Wasudeo, Gajanan and Dhrupadabai set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her person. This statement is accepted as dying declaration (Exh. 53). P.S.I. Tajne went to the hospital and recorded statement of Jyoti vide Exh. 57. This is upon by prosecution as second dying declaration. In that statement (Exh. 57), Jyoti stated that appellant Wasudeo and Dhrupadabai pressed her mouth and caught hold her hands; while appellant Gajanan and his wife Narmadabai poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. P.S.I. Sunil then came to the Police Station and lodged complaint against the appellant under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C. vide Crime No. 0 of 1997. He sent the F.I.R. (Exh. 58), which was drawn on the basis of the dying declaration (Exh. 53) and relevant papers to Police Station, Pimpalgaon Raja within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. On his complaint, offence was registered at the Police Station, Pimpalgaon Raja vide Crime No. 50 of 1997. P.S.I. Trimbak Saswe (P.W. 11) who was then attached to Police Station, Pimpalgaon Raja took up investigation in the matter and visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot panchanma (Exh. 42). The articles which he found at the place of occurrence including one bottle containing kerosene came to be seized when the spot panchnama (Exh. 42) was drawn. The accused were arrested and they were brought to Police Station. Appellant No. 2 was having some burn injuries on his person. He was, therefore, referred to the Primary Health Centre, Pimpalgaon Raja for medical examination. Dr. 42) was drawn. The accused were arrested and they were brought to Police Station. Appellant No. 2 was having some burn injuries on his person. He was, therefore, referred to the Primary Health Centre, Pimpalgaon Raja for medical examination. Dr. Rushikesh Khadilkar (P.W. 13), who was the Medical Officer, examined appellant Gajanan and found four burn injuries on his person which he noted in the certificate (Exh. 67) issued by him. 4. Mr. Daithankar (P.W. 14), who was then S.D.P.O. Khamgaon, carried out further investigation. He went to the hospital and recorded statement of Jyoti. Subsequently Jyoti died in the hospital on 17-10-1997 at about 4.00 p.m. Dr. Keshav Mendhe (P.W. 6) and Dr. Pallavi (P.W. 7) who were attached to the General Hospital Khamgaon carried out autopsy on the dead body of Jyoti and prepared post-mortem report (Exh. 47). The burn injuries which were noticed on the dead body have been categorically noted in Column No. 17 of the post-mortem report. The Medical Officer found that the burn injuries were ante-mortem. Total burns : 93% were deep, reddish. In the opinion of Dr. Pallavi, cause of death was shock due to extensive burns i.e. 93%. The property was sent to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur for examination. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khamgaon, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. 5. Before the learned Additional Session Judge, all the accused stood charged of the offences under sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code vide charge Exh. 21. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial. But, from the tenor of cross-examination of witnesses and giving emphasis on the fact that appellant Gajanan sustained burn injuries while extinguishing fire, defence has propounded theory of suicidal death and in support thereof, defence examined Pandit Telang (D.W. 1), Tukaram Karankar (D.W. 2), Pramod Borade (P.W. 3), Gopalsingh Ingle (D.W. 4) and Baldeo Tangade (D.W. 5) as witnesses in defence. At the trial, prosecution examined in all fourteen witnesses which includes parents of Jyoti namely Rajaram (P.W. 1), Pramila (P.W. 2), Kisan Herode (P.W. 3) who acted as a panch in whose presence spot panchnama (Exh. At the trial, prosecution examined in all fourteen witnesses which includes parents of Jyoti namely Rajaram (P.W. 1), Pramila (P.W. 2), Kisan Herode (P.W. 3) who acted as a panch in whose presence spot panchnama (Exh. 42) was prepared, Vijay Wankhede (P.W. 4), who is cousin of Rajaram who claimed that Jyoti when returned to her parent's house for Akhadi Festival, visited his house and told about ill-treatment at her matrimonial house from all the accused persons and that after receiving message, he accompanied Rajaram and Shriram and went to the General Hospital, Khamgaon where Jyoti told him that she was set on fire by all the accused persons by pouring kerosene on her person, Gautam Sardar (P.W. 5) a panch witness in whose presence shirt of the accused was seized under seizure memo (Exh. 45) and as per report of C.A. (Exh. 38), detection of kerosene residue was positive, Dr. Keshav Methe (P.W. 6), and Dr. Pallavi (P.W. 7) who conducted autopsy on the dead body and prepared post-mortem report (Exh. 47), Ratan Sasawe (P.W. 8), who is maternal uncle of deceased Jyoti at whose house Jyoti alongwith appellant Wasudeo and her mother Pramilabai had stayed for a night and on receiving message that Jyoti sustained burns and was admitted in the General Hospital, Khamgaon, he went there and when asked Jyoti as to what happened to her, she told him that accused Nos. 1 to 4 set her on fire, Chandrashekhar Sonune (P.W. 9), Naib-Tahsildar-Cum-Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration (Exh. 53) of Jyoti after Dr. Ashok (P.W. 12) examined her and certified that she was well-oriented, conscious to give statement, Sunil Tajne (P.W. 10), P.S.I. who recorded dying declaration (Exh. 57) and conducted investigation in the matter after having registered the offence against the accused, Trimbak Saste (P.W. 11) who carried out further investigation into the matter, Dr. Rushikesh (P.W. 13) who examined appellant Gajanan for burn injuries sustained by him as noticed in the certificate (Exh. 67) issued by him and D.S.P. Chandrashekhar Daithankar (P.W. 14) who completed investigation and filed charge-sheet. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appreciation of evidence and accepting dying declaration (Exh. Rushikesh (P.W. 13) who examined appellant Gajanan for burn injuries sustained by him as noticed in the certificate (Exh. 67) issued by him and D.S.P. Chandrashekhar Daithankar (P.W. 14) who completed investigation and filed charge-sheet. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appreciation of evidence and accepting dying declaration (Exh. 53), coupled with the medical evidence and also the evidence of parents of Jyoti and witnesses Ratan and Vijay on the point of ill-treatment meted out to Jyoti, found that the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. is brought home as against appellants Wasudeo and Dhrupadabai and the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. was brought home against appellant Wasudeo, Gajanan and Dhrupadabai. Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them as stated above. Appellants Wasudeo and Dhrupadabai were also convicted for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced in the manner as stated above. Appellant No. 2 Gajanan was acquitted of the offenced under section 498-A of I.P.C. Accused Narmadabai Gajanan was acquitted of the offences with which she was charged. Hence, this appeal challenging the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence. 7. We have heard Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mirza, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P., we have gone through the material evidence on record. Before we consider the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate first refer to few facts about which there is no dispute. The incident in which victim Jyoti sustained 93% burns on her person occurred on 8-10-1997 at the house of appellant Wasudeo at about 5.00 a.m. and that, Jyoti had returned to the matrimonial home a day earlier to resume co-habitation. The incident took place inside the house and when Jyoti caught fire and sustained burns, all the appellants were present in the house. Appellant No. 2 Gajanan and his wife Narmadabai were infact residing separately. It is not disputed that appellant Ganjanan sustained burn injuries at the time of incident when Jyoti got burnt and sustained 93% burn injuries. Jyoti was examined by Dr. Ashok (P.W 12) certifying that she was fit, well- oriented and conscious to make statement. Appellant No. 2 Gajanan and his wife Narmadabai were infact residing separately. It is not disputed that appellant Ganjanan sustained burn injuries at the time of incident when Jyoti got burnt and sustained 93% burn injuries. Jyoti was examined by Dr. Ashok (P.W 12) certifying that she was fit, well- oriented and conscious to make statement. It is also not disputed that Jyoti remained admitted in the hospital till 17-10-1997 on which day she succumbed to the bun injuries. It is admitted further that Dr. Pallavi with Dr. Keshav Mendhe conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jyoti and have mentioned in the post-mortem report (Exh. 47) that the death occurred due to 93% burn injuries Jyoti had sustained. It is the matter of record that, in the mean time on 8-10-1997, after the dying declaration (Exh. 53) was recorded, P.S.I. Sunil Tajane recording dying declaration (Exh. 57) and the Superintendent of Police Daithankar (P.W. 14) recorded the third dying declaration of the deceased, after he visited the hospital. As stated earlier appellant No. 2 Gajanan has admitted that he sustained burns which Dr. Rushikesh noted in his certificate (Exh. 67) and as stated earlier, the factum of burn injuries sustained by him has been taken shelter of to lend assurance to his claim that he attempted to save Jyoti by extinguishing fire. 8. On the evidence on record, a circumstance is established that, on the shirt of appellant Gajanan, which was seized when he was arrested as per the report of Chemical Analyser Exh. 38, detection of kerosene residue was positive. It is also not disputed that on partly burnt clothes of the deceased, as per the report of Chemical Analyser Exh. 38, detection of kerosene residue is positive. Detection of kerosene residues on the clothes of appellant Gajanan, as also on the clothes of deceased totally rules out the possibility of accidental death of Jyoti. Jyoti died by burn injuries sustained. It is the prosecution case that Jyoti died homicidal death as appellants set her on fire on pouring kerosene on her person. As against that, though neither of the appellants has taken a plea in a straight- forward manner that Jyoti committed suicide by burning herself on pouring kerosene on her person, as pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment, it was suggested through the evidence of defence witnesses that Jyoti might have committed suicide. As against that, though neither of the appellants has taken a plea in a straight- forward manner that Jyoti committed suicide by burning herself on pouring kerosene on her person, as pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment, it was suggested through the evidence of defence witnesses that Jyoti might have committed suicide. The learned Counsel for the appellants in his submissions also adhered to the suggestions given to the witnesses, more particularly to witnesses Rajaram, Pramilabai, Ratan and Vijay that Jyoti disliked appellant - Wasudeo and that she was brought to the matrimonial home against her wishes for co-habitation and therefore, in such circumstances, she chose to put an end to her life. As regards the merits of theory of suicidal death of Jyoti, we shall deal with it a bit later after considering the prosecution evidence. But, at this juncture, we have no hesitation in taking note of the conduct exhibited by the appellants which, according to us, militates against the theory of suicidal death propounded by the defence. 9. Though the appellants were very much in the house at the time when the incident took place, in which Jyoti sustained 93% burn injuries, none of the appellants had stated in a straight forward manner as to how Jyoti caught fire and got burnt. It is significant to note that defence of the accused is that of total denial. In the nature of things, had Jyoti committed suicide by burning herself, appellants would have disclosed this fact to the persons who had collected in front of the house as admitted by defence. The appellants would not have hesitated in taking Jyoti to the hospital immediately after the occurrence and reported to police that Jyoti has committed suicide by burning herself. Though appellants have examined five witnesses in defence, none has stated before the Court in evidence that Jyoti disclosed that she attempted to commit suicide by burning herself. None of the witnesses has stated nor it is elicited from evidence of any witness that appellants disclosed at that juncture when Jyoti was lying in front of the house having sustained burn injuries, that she herself got burnt. As against that, defence has tried to spell out from the version of defence witnesses wherein they claimed that Jyoti told that she committed mistake that she might have committed suicide. As against that, defence has tried to spell out from the version of defence witnesses wherein they claimed that Jyoti told that she committed mistake that she might have committed suicide. At least the appellant No. 2 Gajanan, who claimed to have sustained burn injuries while attempting to extinguish fire when Jyoti was burning, was expected in all probabilities to state in his plea that Jyoti attempted to commit suicide by burning herself. In addition to this, in none of the dying declarations and the statement of Jyoti recorded by Police Officers, it could be spelt out of that Jyoti suffered burn in an attempt to commit suicide. 10. Now we consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate its claim that the appellants committed murder of Jyoti by setting her on fire. At the outset, it is cleat that unfortunately prosecution could not lay its hands on direct evidence. The prosecution case mainly hinges on dying declarations made by Jyoti to her parents, Rajaram and Pramila and Vijay and Ratan and also written dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate Chandrashekhar Sonune (P.W. 9), P.S.I. Tajne and Deputy Superintendent of Police Daithankar. In additional to this the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence as regards the finding of kerosene residue on the shirt of appellant - Gajanan. As records the oral dying declaration to witness Rajaram and Pramilabai, both the witnesses have stated consistently in their evidence before the Court that "She told me that all the accused persons set her on fire. She further told me that accused No. 1 pressed her mouth, while accused No. 4 caught hold her both hands; accused No. 3 brought bottle of kerosene oil and accused Nos. 2 and 3 poured kerosene on my person; accused No. 2 lighted matchstick and set me on fire." Similarly the oral dying declaration given to witnesses Vijay and Ratan is consistent but very cryptic. Both the witnesses in their evidence stated "I asked Jyoti as to what happened, she told me that accused Nos. 1 to 4 set her on fire". 11. The witness Daithankar (P.W. 14) stated in his evidence that during the course of investigation conducted by him, he visited the hospital and recorded the statement of victim - Jyoti. Both the witnesses in their evidence stated "I asked Jyoti as to what happened, she told me that accused Nos. 1 to 4 set her on fire". 11. The witness Daithankar (P.W. 14) stated in his evidence that during the course of investigation conducted by him, he visited the hospital and recorded the statement of victim - Jyoti. He stated that P.S.I. Saste had given requisition letter to Medical Officer at General Hospital Khamgaon to show as to whether patient Jyoti was in a position to give the statement. On the said letter- Exhibit 52 the Medical Officer has given certificate about the fitness of patient- Jyoti to make the statement and after obtaining the certificate, he recorded the statement of Jyoti. In his evidence he further stated that Jyoti told him that accused No. 1 pressed her mouth , while accused No. 4 caught hold her hands, then accused No. 3 poured Kerosene on her person and accused No. 3 lighted matchstick and set her on fire. Though this witness claimed that he recorded statement of victim on record no such statement in writing has been brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, whatever, the witness has stated in his evidence, regarding disclosure made by victim- Jyoti about the occurrence has to be considered as oral dying declaration. 12. In the first dying declaration - Exhibit 53 recorded by Naib Tahsildar - Executive Magistrate - Chandrashekhar Sonune which is in question and answer form, it is recorded as under: "2) What happened to you? My husband mother-in-law and jeth (elder brother of the husband) poured kerosene on my person and set me on fire. 3) How the incident took This day at 5 O'Clock in the morning place and do you my husband Wasudeo Dhurpata suspect anyone? and Gajanan poured kerosene on my person and set me on fire." 13. P.S.I. Tajne (P.W. 10) recorded second dying declaration- Exhibit 57, relevant portion of the said dying declaration - Exhibit 57 is as follows: "On Sunday my husband Wasudeo had come to my parental house to take me back and promised that he would not ill-treat hereafter. Thereafter my husband stayed at any parental house on Sunday and Monday. Next day i.e. on Tuesday he brought me back to Poraj. Thereon my mother-in-law Jeth and Jethani asked him as to why I was brought back and beat me thereafter. Thereafter my husband stayed at any parental house on Sunday and Monday. Next day i.e. on Tuesday he brought me back to Poraj. Thereon my mother-in-law Jeth and Jethani asked him as to why I was brought back and beat me thereafter. My husband and mother-in-law caught of me and Jeth and Jethani poured Kerosene on my person out of (big) bottle and set me on fire as a result of which I sustained burn injuries." 14. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial Court did not appreciate the circumstantial evidence mainly relating to dying declaration made by the victim to the witnesses in correct perspective. He pointed out that three written dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate - Sonune, P.S.I.- Tajne and Deputy Superintendent of Police - Dajthankar are inconsistent with each other. These dying declarations are inconsistent with oral dying declaration made to the witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have discarded the dying declarations. However by relying on the dying declaration Exhibit 53, the trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellants. As regards the oral dying declaration, the learned Counsel pointed out that both the witnesses -Rajaram and Pramilabai, have made improvements on material particulars as regards the part played by each one and the accused about which they have not stated even a word in their statement recorded by the police. 15. As regards the dying declaration-Exhibit 53 the learned Counsel pointed out that only general statement that accused No. 1, accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 poured kerosene and set her on fire, has been made. As against that in the dying declaration -Exhibit 57, which came to be recorded by P.S.I. Tajne immediately after recording earlier dying declaration recorded-Exhibit 53, the deceased has given graphic account of what had happened at the time of occurrence and what role was played by each of the appellants including the accused - Narmadabai. He pointed out glaring discrepancy in these two dying declaration when in first dying declaration Exhibit 53, the presence of accused No. 3 - Narmadabai as also role played by her at the time of occurence in connection with burning of Jyoti is conspicuously absent in earlier written dying declaration - Exhibit 53. He pointed out glaring discrepancy in these two dying declaration when in first dying declaration Exhibit 53, the presence of accused No. 3 - Narmadabai as also role played by her at the time of occurence in connection with burning of Jyoti is conspicuously absent in earlier written dying declaration - Exhibit 53. The learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court has acquitted the original accused No. 3 - Narmadabai taking into consideration the fact that in the dying declaration - Exhibit 53 nothing has been stated about her presence as well as role played by her at the time of commission of the offence. The learned Counsel vehemently submitted that this discrepancy vis-a-vis multiple dying declaration and if it relates to material facts, the dying declarations - Exhibit 53 also becomes doubtful and therefore, the same should be discarded. As regards the oral dying declaration to witnesses - Ratan and Vijay the learned Counsel pointed out that it was vague as it could be. No reliance can be placed on that evidence in that regard. As against that referring to evidence of defence witnesses the learned Counsel submitted that their evidence is acceptable and reliable. They are natural witnesses as they are residing in the neighbourhood of the house of the appellants. Referring to the claim made by one of the defence witnesses that Jyoti told that she committed mistake the learned Counsel making much capital of this submitted that probability of Jyoti having committed suicide can not be ruled out. To substantiate this, the learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the circumstances and fact that the appellant - Gajanan sustained burn injuries on his person, which goes to show that he suffered burn injuries when he tried to extinguish fire on seeing Jyoti burning in flame. The learned Counsel referring to the factual position that victim during the span of five moths from her marriage with appellant - Wasudeo, stayed in the matrimonial home hardly for 15-20 days. She remained at the house of her parents for rest of the period. So having regard to this factual position, the learned Counsel submitted that it does not stand to reason that there was any occasion for appellants to cause ill-treatment to the victim and much less to commit her murder. She remained at the house of her parents for rest of the period. So having regard to this factual position, the learned Counsel submitted that it does not stand to reason that there was any occasion for appellants to cause ill-treatment to the victim and much less to commit her murder. The learned Counsel submitted that as shown by defence, Jyoti was not willing to cohabit with the appellant and for the reason that she disliked the appellant - Wasudeo and that it was the appellant who succeeded in bringing her to matrimonial house for cohabitation, it was totally against her wishes and in such circumstances it stands probable that in order to get rid of cohabitation with the appellant, the victim in all probability might have committed suicide. 16. As against that Mr. Mirza learned A.P.P. vehemently submitted that it is not a Rule of law that dying declarations which are multiple in number have to be discarded totally if there is inconsistence vis a vis the statement made in the dying declarations. He submitted that the dying declaration - Exhibit 53, it stands to the test and scrutiny of the Court and therefore, the trial Court has rightly accepted the same has true, genuine, statement of deceased and if that is so then no corroboration is necessary and conviction could he based on solitary evidence of dying declaration Exhibit 53. In that case inconsistency inter se found there in written dying declarations as also the oral dying declarations on material particulars will have no bearing on the dying declaration - Exhibit 53, one which is proved to be truthful and authentic. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that having referred to the fact that the marriage of Jyoti was recent origin and in the absence of any cogent reason, it is absolutely not probable and plausible that Jyoti decided to put an end to her life. The conduct of the appellants, so also the plea of total denial taken by the appellants militates against the theory of suicidal death. 17. Now we shall consider the decision of the Apex Court in 1993 S.C.C.(Cri.) 1012 (Govind Narain and another-appellants v. State of Rajasthan Respondent)1, relied upon by learned Counsel Mr. Daga. In this case the witnesses to the second dying declaration were totally inconsistent about the statement allegedly made by the deceased to all of them. 17. Now we shall consider the decision of the Apex Court in 1993 S.C.C.(Cri.) 1012 (Govind Narain and another-appellants v. State of Rajasthan Respondent)1, relied upon by learned Counsel Mr. Daga. In this case the witnesses to the second dying declaration were totally inconsistent about the statement allegedly made by the deceased to all of them. They differ on material aspects. The variation in their testimony as regards the assault by lathis and the participation of all the accused in the commission of the crime renders it unsafe to rely on them to hold that the dying declaration as alleged by the prosecution had been made by the deceased to these witnesses. In that case the prosecution relied upon second dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased when he was brought out and was placed on the cot in the presence of several witnesses. It was found that there were major discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses as regards the dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased. Thus, the witnesses to the second dying declaration were totally inconsistent about the statement allegedly made by the deceased to all of them. Therefore, the Apex Court found that variation in their testimony as regards the factum of assault and participation of the accused in commission of crime rendered it unsafe to rely on them to hold that the dying declaration as alleged by the prosecution had been made by the deceased to these witnesses. It is in this context the second dying declaration was accepted by the Court. In this case the first dying declaration which was made by the deceased to a witness - was also discarded by the Court mainly on the ground that the version of the witness to whom the dying declaration was made was disbelieved as his testimony did not inspire confidence. The third dying declaration alleged to have been made, was also discarded by the courts again on the ground that the testimony of the witness to whom the dying declaration was made by the deceased was disbelieved. It is thus clear that in case of multiple dying declaration acceptance of each dying declaration will depend upon satisfaction of the Court as to authenticity and truthfulness of the dying declaration. In no case inconsistency in a dying declaration inter se will be a factor to discard the dying declarations. It is thus clear that in case of multiple dying declaration acceptance of each dying declaration will depend upon satisfaction of the Court as to authenticity and truthfulness of the dying declaration. In no case inconsistency in a dying declaration inter se will be a factor to discard the dying declarations. It is also clear that no dying declaration could be discarded merely on the ground that other dying declaration is found to be unsafe to rely upon. In other words the rejection of one of the dying declarations will not be a ground to discard other dying declarations. 18. Mr. Mirza learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 1998(6) S.C.C. 232 , (Sreerama Murthy, Appellant v. State of A.P., Respondent)2. In this case three dying declarations were placed in service by the prosecution. In that the first dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class after ascertaining the physical and mental fitness of the deceased who clearly stated that she was set on fire by the appellant therein. It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the dying declaration Exhibit P-23 and Exhibit P-33 ought not to have been relied upon as they contained improvements. It was further pointed out that in the last dying declaration a clear attempt was made to involve the father of the appellant who has been acquitted by the High Court. Because of some doubts arising thereform the appellant's father was given benefit of doubt, that does not necessarily mean that it was not genuine. In any case it does not have any bearing on the genuineness and truthfulness of the first dying declaration Exhibit P-26 which was recorded by the Additional First Class, Judicial Magistrate, after ascertaining the physical and mental fitness of the person making it. This decision supports the submission of Mr. Mirza, the learned A.P.P. Merely because the original accused - Narmadabai was acquitted by the trial Court by giving benefit of doubt as deceased did not name her, in dying declaration - Exhibit 53, that does not impair the genuineness and truthfulness of the dying declaration Exhibit 53. This decision supports the submission of Mr. Mirza, the learned A.P.P. Merely because the original accused - Narmadabai was acquitted by the trial Court by giving benefit of doubt as deceased did not name her, in dying declaration - Exhibit 53, that does not impair the genuineness and truthfulness of the dying declaration Exhibit 53. He also submitted that merely because in the second dying declaration Exhibit 57 name of accused - Narmadabai was included by the deceased which is inconsistent with the dying declaration Exhibit 53, that does not necessarily mean that the dying declaration Exhibit 57 was not genuine. This decision in our view also makes the position clear that genuineness and truthfulness of a dying declaration has to be tested independently on the evidence on record relating to that dying declaration and therefore, mere inconsistency vis a vis two dying declarations, even as regards the involvement of any of the accused by itself will not render both the dying declaration unworthy of credit. 19. In 1999(6) S.C.C. 545 (Harjit Kaur, Appellant v. State of Punjab, Respondent)3, the Apex Court has considered the question regarding admissibility of multiple dying declarations. In this case the first dying declaration was made before the Police Officer while second one was made before the Magistrate. In the first dying declaration deceased stated that she had received burns as a result of an accident. The courts below recorded a finding that the dying declaration was made to save her husband and in-law. The deceased was not a free person then. The reason given by the courts below for not accepting the first dying declaration were found convincing. However second dying declaration was found more probable and natural. In the circumstances, the Apex Court held that second dying declaration can not he regarded as untrue merely because it is contrary to her statement made earlier. This decision again makes the position clear that when there are more than one dying declarations and out of them one is found to be not acceptable and other is found to be more probable and natural, then the second dying declaration cannot be discarded as untrue merely because first dying declaration was discarded on the ground that it contained a contrary statement. This decision supports the contention of Mr. This decision supports the contention of Mr. Mirza that the dying declaration Exhibit 53 cannot be recorded as untrue merely because in the dying declaration Exhibit 57 the deceased has made contrary statement vis a vis the involvement of accused Narmadabai. 20. The Apex Court in 1997 Cri.L.J. 3505, (Pratapaneni Ravi Kumar alias Ravi and another etc., appellant v. State of Andhara Pradesh Respondents)4, on credibility of dying declaration found that when the first dying declaration recorded by the police immediately after the deceased gained consciousness after attack names of all the accused were not given in such dying declaration while in the second dying declaration recorded by Magistrate after half hour later names of all the accused stated. There was no evidence to show that in between recording of two statement anyone was allowed to go near the deceased. Therefore, the Apex Court found that further details as given the second dying declaration can not be treated as improvement over the first one. Mr. Mirza learned A.P.P. placing reliance on this decision submitted that inclusion of name of accused Narmadabai in dying declaration Exhibit 57 which was recorded immediately after earlier dying declaration Exhibit 53 cannot be treated as improvement over the first one and therefore, the dying declaration Exhibit 57 recorded by the P.S.I. Tajne has to be accepted and relied upon. The learned A.P.P. submitted with emphasis that even though the trial Court has acquitted the accused Narmadabai on the ground in the dying declaration Exhibit 53 deceased did not disclose her name as one of the assailants that by itself does not render the subsequent dying declaration Exhibit 57 untruthful. 21. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in above decisions regarding appreciation of evidence for determining credibility of dying declarations made by the deceased in given case, it is necessary to scrutinize every dying declaration on which the prosecution has placed reliance. It is clear in our mind rejection of one of the dying declarations will have no bearing on other dying declaration, if on evidence the said dying declaration is found to be genuine and truthful. In the instant case we shall first consider the dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer Deputy Superintendent of police - Daithankar. In the instant case we shall first consider the dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer Deputy Superintendent of police - Daithankar. As stated in earlier part of the judgement though this witness claimed that he recorded dying declaration of the deceased in pursuance of the statement made by her unfortunately that statement which is claimed as dying declaration is not on record. In our view in the absence of that statement being proved through the evidence of these witnesses, that dying declaration will have to be left out of consideration. That apart in our view there is no hesitation in considering the evidence of witness Daithankar in which he has stated about disclosure made by the deceased to him as oral dying declaration. In his evidence he has stated that. "Jyoti told me that accused No. 1 pressed her mouth, while accused No. 4 was caught hold her hands then accused No. 3 poured kerosene on her person and accused No. 2 lighted a match stick and set her on fire. She further told me that when she was burning all accused started running and at that time she caught hold accused no. 2. But accused No. 3 Narmadabai got released the accused No. 2 from Jyoti. She further told me that during that incident accused No. 2 also sustained burn injuries." 22. This witness has stated in his evidence that before recording the statement of deceased, the Medical Officer has given certificate on letter Exhibit 62 about the fitness of patient Jyoti to record the statement. After obtaining the certificate of Medical Officer he recorded the statement. This witness in his cross-examination however, admitted that he was not present in the hospital when the requisition letter was given to the doctor and that the Medical Officer has not examined the Jyoti in his presence. It is also admitted by this witness that in the case papers which he received included the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate. It was further suggested to this witness by the defence that he has recorded the statement of Jyoti as per the statement of her parents in order to implicate the accused No. 3. It was also suggested to him that Jyoti in fact did not make any statement before him. Of course the witness had stoutly denied the suggestion. It was further suggested to this witness by the defence that he has recorded the statement of Jyoti as per the statement of her parents in order to implicate the accused No. 3. It was also suggested to him that Jyoti in fact did not make any statement before him. Of course the witness had stoutly denied the suggestion. This witness no where stated that Jyoti was in fit condition, physical and mental to make the statement. Nor he ascertained the said factum of her fitness by putting questions to her. In our opinion this is very relevant in the background that the certificate on the basis of which he placed reliance for fitness of the patient to make statement was not issued by Medical Officer in his presence, nor the patient was examined by the Medical Officer in the presence of this witness. In addition to this actual statement recorded by this witness is not on recorded. It is not proved through the evidence of this witness. In such circumstances in our considered opinion it is found unsafe to accept the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased Jyoti to this witness. Therefore, the evidence of this witness as regards oral dying declaration has to be left out of consideration. 23. We now scrutinize the dying declaration Exhibit 57 recorded by the P.S.I. Tajne. In earlier part of the judgment we have reproduced what the deceased stated in the dying declaration Exhibit 57. This witness Tajne stated in his evidence that requisition letter was given to Taluka Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Jyoti and in pursuance thereof the Taluka Magistrate and Naib Tahsildar Shri Sonune (P.W. 9) recorded the dying declaration Exhibit 53. Then on the same day he claimed to have gone to General Hospital, Khamgaon for recording the statement of Jyoti. He gave letter to Medical Officer on duty to give him certificate as to whether Jyoti was in fit condition to give statement. Then he recorded the statement of Jyoti. It is significant to note that the statement Exhibit 57 nowhere show the time when the statement was recorded. Nor there is any certificate issued by the Medical Officer or endorsement on it certifying that Jyoti was conscious and in a fit condition to make statement. Then he recorded the statement of Jyoti. It is significant to note that the statement Exhibit 57 nowhere show the time when the statement was recorded. Nor there is any certificate issued by the Medical Officer or endorsement on it certifying that Jyoti was conscious and in a fit condition to make statement. Similarly there is no endorsement on the dying declaration Exhibit 57 to show that Jyoti was found conscious and fit during the period her statement was recorded. Infact witness Tajne has not stated that when he recorded statement Exhibit 57 the Medical Officer was present. He admitted that he has not obtained certificate in writing about the fitness of Jyoti. Nor he has given any letter accordingly to Medical Officer. He stated that he did not know whether the relative of Jyoti was present near Jyoti when he went to record her statement. But in the next breath to crown this he candidly stated that some ladies were found sitting there after recording the statement. The witness claimed that he went to the Police Station and lodged complaint against all the accused and accordingly offence was registered. The printed F.I.R. is at Exhibit 58. What is surprising is that report which he lodged and which was basis of first information report Exhibit 58 was based on the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate Sonune (P.W. 9). It is again very surprising that in Exhibit 58, there is no reference to dying declaration Exhibit 57 recorded by this witness. In such circumstances in the absence of medical certificate showing that the patient Jyoti was fit to make statement and that witness himself having not ascertained about the fitness of the patient to make the statement and First Information Report Exhibit 58, being based on dying declaration Exhibit 53 recorded by the Executive Magistrate Sonune without there being any reference to the dying declaration - Exhibit 58 recorded by this witness, it is found very unsafe to accept the dying declaration - Exhibit 57. Once the dying declaration Exhibit 57 is left out of consideration inconsistency vis-a-vis earlier dying declaration - Exhibit 53 in relation to inclusion of name of accused 3 Narmadabai needs no consideration and much less it impairs the genuineness and truthfulness of earlier dying declaration Exhibit 53. It is therefore clear that we do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. It is therefore clear that we do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. Daga learned Counsel for the appellant for discarding the dying declaration Exhibit 53 on account of inconsistency vis a vis the subsequent dying declaration - Exhibit 57. At the same time, we do not agree with the learned A.P.P. for taking support of dying declaration Exhibit 57 as corroboration to earlier dying declaration Exhibit 53. But we agree that if dying declaration Exhibit 57 is found to be truthful and genuine, inclusion of accused No. 3 Narmadabai in that declaration by way of improvement by itself will not be a ground to reject the earlier dying declaration - Exhibit 53. 24. This takes us to consider the dying declaration - Exhibit 53 recorded by the Naib Tahsildar and Special Executive Magistrate, Chandrashekhar Sonune. Chandrashekhar Sonune, stated in his evidence that Medical Officer on duty examined injured Jyoti and gave certificate on the form of dying declaration that the patient was fit to give statement. Dr. Ashok Gaikwad in his evidence stated that he examined patient Jyoti on the request of Executive Magistrate and issued certificate that she was conscious to give her statement and then the Executive Magistrate Shri Sonune recorded the statement of Jyoti and after recording the statement, as requested by the Executive Magistrate, he again examined the patient and gave certificate on the dying declaration - Exhibit 53 that patient was fully conscious while recording the statement. The witness - Chandrashekhar Sonune also stated in his evidence that after the statement was recorded he obtained certificate of Medical Officer and accordingly the Doctor has given certificate certifying that patient Jyoti was conscious at the time of completion of statement. It has come in the evidence of Dr. Ashok that the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of patient Jyoti after he has examined the patient and having certified that she was fit to make statement. The evidence of witness - Chandrashekhar Sonune and Dr. Ashok Gaikwad as regards physical fitness of patient to make statement has gone unchallenged. Though both the witness were subjected to cross-examination by defence, their evidence remained unshaken on material particulars. Except bare suggestion that he has given second certificate in the absence of Executive Magistrate and that too without examining the patient. Jyoti nothing has been elicited in the evidence of this witness. Though both the witness were subjected to cross-examination by defence, their evidence remained unshaken on material particulars. Except bare suggestion that he has given second certificate in the absence of Executive Magistrate and that too without examining the patient. Jyoti nothing has been elicited in the evidence of this witness. The witness has stoutly denied the suggestion. That apart the suggestion are found to be meaningless on the fact of contents of the dying declaration Exhibit 53. This is in the sense the dying declaration - Exhibit 53 bears the certificate issued by Dr. Ashok twice i.e. first before recording the statement and secondly after the statement was recorded. 25. Both are independent witness and also responsible officers. There is absolutely no reason for these witnesses to prepare a false statement of the patient. Both the witnesses gave evidence in straightforward manner. It has also come in the evidence of Chandrashekhar Sonune that at the time of recording statement of patient - Jyoti the relatives who were by her side were asked to leave the room. There is absolutely no possibility of patient being tutored to make the statement. So considering the evidence of both these witnesses their appears not even slightest doubt about the genuineness and truthfulness of the statement Exhibit 53. In addition to that the statement - Exhibit 53 is recorded in question and answer form. The statement was read over to the patient. As to the factum of recording the statement by the witness Chandrashekhar Sonune as stated in his evidence remained unshaken. Nothing has been brought in his evidence by defence to discredit his testimony on the factum of statement made by the patient Jyoti. The suggestions given by the defence to this witness have been denied. Therefore, the evidence of both the witnesses inspires confidence and there is every reason to accept the statement Exhibit 53 as truthful. 26. What is disclosed by Jyoti in her statement is very material. She has stated that her husband, mother-in-law and Jeth (elder brother of her husband) poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. It is significant to note that in her statement she has conspicuously excluded the accused Narmadabai. In our opinion this itself is sufficient to accept the statement as genuine and truthful. She has stated that her husband, mother-in-law and Jeth (elder brother of her husband) poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. It is significant to note that in her statement she has conspicuously excluded the accused Narmadabai. In our opinion this itself is sufficient to accept the statement as genuine and truthful. If really the statement was recorded as per dictation of father of victim - Jyoti in all probability all the accused persons could have been involved. It was suggested by defence to the witness Chandrashekhar Sonune that without recording statement of Jyoti, he mentioned all the facts in Exhibit 53 as per the say of parents of Jyoti. The parents of Jyoti have claimed that all the accused persons poured kerosene on her and set on fire. It is a fact that in the dying declaration Exhibit 53, the name of accused No. 3 - Narmadabai is excluded and the deceased said to have stated about the involvement of her husband, brother-in-law, and mother-in-law only. This itself gives authenticity and truthfulness to the dying declaration Exhibit 53. Therefore, it is very much safe to accept and place reliance on this dying declaration Exhibit 53. 27. The parents of Jyoti in their evidence deposed about the disclosure made to them by Jyoti while she was admitted in the hospital. In earlier part of the judgment we have reproduced the disclosure made by Jyoti to her parents. That was what both the witness have stated before the Court in their evidence. In addition to ascribing particular role played by each of the accused, both the witnesses have also stated that all the accused persons set her on fire. Both the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by defence and defence has been successful in bringing out omission as regards particular act done by individual accused about which the witnesses have stated in their examination-in-chief. Witness Rajaram admitted in his cross-examination that he had not stated to police in his statement that Jyoti told him that her husband pressed her mouth, mother in law caught hold her hands, accused No. 3 brought kerosene bottle and accused No. 2 lighted matchstick. Witness Rajaram admitted in his cross-examination that he had not stated to police in his statement that Jyoti told him that her husband pressed her mouth, mother in law caught hold her hands, accused No. 3 brought kerosene bottle and accused No. 2 lighted matchstick. The witness Pramilabai first stated that she has stated to police in her statement that Jyoti told her accused No. 1 pressed her mouth, accused No. 4 caught hold her both hands; accused No. 3 poured kerosene on her person and accused No. 4 light matchstick and set her on fire. But in the next breath she stated that she has not stated so to the police and she has only stated that these four persons have set her on fire. The learned Counsel for appellants vehemently submitted that there is improvement made by both the witnesses in their evidence before the Court, in respect of particular act done by each of the accused, is sufficient to discredit the testimony of both the witnesses. He also submitted that even general statement involving all the accused in commission of murder of Jyoti by burning her, falsifies the dying declaration Exhibit 53. It is very difficult to accept this submission of learned Counsel having regard to law laid down in respect of credibility of statement in the dying declaration in case there are plural dying declarations recorded of the victim. As stated earlier when the dying declaration Exhibit 53 is found to be truthful and genuine, over statement made by these witnesses showing involvement of all the accused in commission of crime, will not impair credibility of the dying declaration - Exhibit 53, much less it will bring any infirmity in it. That apart the evidence of both the witness as to disclosure made to them by Jyoti is not rendered incredible merely because both the witnesses have made improvements in their evidence before the Court giving particulars of the acts done by each of the accused. It is not disputed by defence that both the witnesses after having received the message had gone to hospital to see their daughter Jyoti, who suffered burn injuries. It is also not disputed by defence that Jyoti made some disclosure to them. Even it is very plausible and probable that Jyoti when she was fit to make statement, must have disclosed to her parents as to what had happened. It is also not disputed by defence that Jyoti made some disclosure to them. Even it is very plausible and probable that Jyoti when she was fit to make statement, must have disclosed to her parents as to what had happened. Therefore, the claim of both the witnesses as to disclosure made by Jyoti to them is natural. In the light of statement in Exhibit 53, the evidence of both the witness is acceptable at least to the extent of involvement of accused Wasudeo, accused Gajanan, accused No. 4 Dhrupatabai. Even in the general statement made by these witnesses wherein the name of accused No. 3 Narmadabai was included does not discredit their testimony. 28. The witness Vijay Wankhede who is cousin of Rajaram stated in his evidence that when he went to the hospital to see Jyoti that time Jyoti told him that she was set on fire by all the accused by pouring kerosene on her person. Similarly, witness-Ratan (P.W. 8) who is maternal uncle of Jyoti has stated in his evidence that he went to the hospital to see Jyoti and when asked as to what happened, she told that accused Nos. 1 to 4 set her on fire. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of both the witnesses as to this disclosure made by Jyoti to them as oral dying declaration. Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Their evidence remained undisturbed on material particulars. The fact that both the witnesses had been to the hospital has not been specifically controverted. Their evidence inspires confidence. So accepting their evidence it is again brought on record that Jyoti disclosed that accused persons poured kerosene and set her on fire. For the reasons stated earlier their evidence lends assurance to the statement in dying declaration Exhibit 53 at least to the extent of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The inclusion of accused No. 3 by there witnesses does not bring a falsity in their evidence. 29. The Counsel for the appellant gave much stress on the evidence of defence witnesses and particularly on the statement made by them in their evidence that Jyoti disclosed that she committed mistake. It is on the basis of this the Counsel for defence vehemently submitted that it supports the theory that Jyoti committed suicide. 29. The Counsel for the appellant gave much stress on the evidence of defence witnesses and particularly on the statement made by them in their evidence that Jyoti disclosed that she committed mistake. It is on the basis of this the Counsel for defence vehemently submitted that it supports the theory that Jyoti committed suicide. The fact that the appellant No. 2 Gajanan sustained burn injures is also a circumstances, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant indicating that he sustained injuries in his attempt toe extinguish fire and therefore, that reinforces the theory that Jyoti herself poured kerosene on her person and got burnt. So far as the defence witnesses are concerned, it is also submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that these witness were neighbour and the Investigation Officer has recorded their statements and that they have not been cited as witnesses by the prosecution. But the prosecution has not examined them and therefore, their evidence is relevant to support the defence version that deceased Jyoti sustained burns in her attempt to commit suicide. 30. We have closely scrutinized the evidence of defence witnesses. Their evidence does show that they are the persons residing in the neighbourhood of the appellants. But their evidence does not show that the deceased Jyoti made such disclosure to either of them, when she came out of the house while she was burning. It has come in cross-examination of these witnesses that large number of persons had collected in front of the house of the appellant and Jyoti was shouting in general saying that she committed mistake. Even accepting the same to be true, by no stretch of imagination it can be considered to be a disclosure made to defence witnesses individually and apart from that merely on the basis of such statement it can be inferred that she suggested that she herself set her on fire. None of the witnesses has stated in his evidence that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has no doubt given admission that statement of neighboures were recorded but have not been filed. There is nothing to indicate that these witnesses were cited as witnesses. None of the witnesses has stated in his evidence that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has no doubt given admission that statement of neighboures were recorded but have not been filed. There is nothing to indicate that these witnesses were cited as witnesses. If really the statement of defence witnesses had been recorded by the Investigating Officer and the witnesses had been sited as prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet, then non-examination of these witnesses by the prosecution would have been a matter of some consequence. Therefore, with this evidence of defence witnesses it cannot be spelt out even, that the deceased Jyoti sustained burns in her attempt to commit suicide. In this context even accepting the fact that appellant No. 2 Gajanan sustained burns, while attempting to put out fire to save Jyoti that by itself is not sufficient to infer that Jyoti sustained burns by burning herself. In earlier part of judgement we have dealt with this aspect of the matter and we have observed that considering the conduct of the appellant no case of suicidal death is made out as propounded by the defence. We have already observed that had it been a case of suicide, in all probability then some one of the appellants would have disclosed it to the persons who had collected in front of their house and reported the matter to the police after Jyoti was reached to the Hospital. In our opinion total silence on the part to the appellants and their plea of total denial militates against the theory of suicidal death propounded by the defence. Even otherwise no circumstance has been brought on record by the defence to support the theory of suicidal death. Therefore, we do not find any merit and substance in evidence of defence witnesses. 31. As the evidence stands the clothes of appellant No. 2 Gajanan came to be seized and the same were sent to Chemical Analyser for examination. The report of the Chemical Analyser Exhibit 38 shows that as regards the clothes of the appellant No. 2 Gajanan kerosene residue is detected. It is stated that tests for detection of kerosene residue are positive. This finding unequivocally shows actual involvement of the appellant Gajanan in the pouring kerosene on the person of Jyoti. The report of the Chemical Analyser Exhibit 38 shows that as regards the clothes of the appellant No. 2 Gajanan kerosene residue is detected. It is stated that tests for detection of kerosene residue are positive. This finding unequivocally shows actual involvement of the appellant Gajanan in the pouring kerosene on the person of Jyoti. In addition to that fact that he sustained burn injuries lends assurance to the fact that the appellant No. 2 sustained burns while Jyoti was set on fire. The possibility of he having sustained burns while setting Jyoti on fire was not ruled out. The evidence of dying declaration Exhibit 53 coupled with oral dying declarations and the circumstances of positive detection of kerosene residue on the clothes of appellant No. 2 Gajanan clinchingly established that Jyoti was set on fire by the appellants and the appellants-have committed her murder. 32. The trial Court has found the appellant Wasudeo and his mother Dhrupatabai guilty for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. accepting the evidence of Rajaram, Pramilabai, Vijay and Ratan. After marriage Jyoti lived with appellant Wasudeo in matrimonial home with appellant-Dhrupatabai on three occasions. Admittedly, Rajaram had gone to fetch her for Akhadi Festival and during his stay at night Jyoti told him about the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the appellants. She also disclosed that the appellant taunted her saying that she was not doing household work. She told her father that the appellant Wasudeo at times used to beat her. Rajaram sated in his evidence that when Jyoti lived with him at her parental house for about a month both the appellants, Wasudeo and Gajanan had been to fetch her but he did not send her with them as they had ill treated her. Then few days thereafter, appellant-Wasudeo alone came to bring Jyoti and at that time Jyoti was sent with him on assurance given by him that he would not ill treat her. 33. This evidence of Rajaram is corroborated by evidence of Pramilabai who claimed in her evidence that Jyoti told her, when she returned to her parental house, that there was ill-treatment to her by appellants and appellant No. 1 Wasudeo used to beat her. Pramilabai further stated that Jyoti was not sent when appellants had been to fetch her as she was subjected to cruelty. Pramilabai further stated that Jyoti was not sent when appellants had been to fetch her as she was subjected to cruelty. She deposed that on second time when appellant Wasudeo alone came to fetch, Jyoti was sent to her matrimonial home with him on assurance being given by him as not to ill treat her and at that time she had also accompanied with them. Rajaram and Pramilabai in their cross-examination by defence denied the suggestion that Jyoti did not like appellant-Wasudeo and for that reason she was not willing to cohabit with him that Wasudeo brought her to matrimonial home against her wishes. There is no challenge to the factum of ill-treatment caused to Jyoti by the appellant. It is admitted by defence that Rajaram had been to bring Jyoti for Akhadi and that time Jyoti told him about ill-treatment. It is not disputed that when appellant No. 1 and 2 came to bring Jyoti she was not sent with them as she complained of ill-treatment. Defence has cross-examined both these witnesses at length but nothing has been brought by defence in their evidence so as to discredit their testimony. Both the witnesses have stoutly denied the suggestions put to them by the defence. Their evidence inspires confidence. Even parents of Jyoti their claim as to Jyoti having told to them regarding ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her is most natural. 34. Their claim is corroborated by evidence of witness Vijay and Ratan. The witness Vijay is cousin of Rajaram. He deposed that when Jyoti was brought home by her father he invited her and when she visited his house, on being enquired she told him that there was ill-treatment to her by appellants. He also stated that the appellant Wasudeo had been to home when he came to bring Jyoti and that time Rajaram sent Jyoti with him when he assured that he would not ill-treat Jyoti. What is surprising is that his evidence remained unshaken though he was subjected to cross-examination. There has been no denial specifically by defence to the factum of ill-treatment as has been deposed by the witness. His evidence being natural, probable inspires confidence. 35. The witness, Ratan-who is maternal uncle of Jyoti claimed in his evidence that Jyoti told him about ill-treatment to her by the appellants. There has been no denial specifically by defence to the factum of ill-treatment as has been deposed by the witness. His evidence being natural, probable inspires confidence. 35. The witness, Ratan-who is maternal uncle of Jyoti claimed in his evidence that Jyoti told him about ill-treatment to her by the appellants. His evidence is not specifically challenged by the defence accept few suggestions which are also denied by him. His evidence inspires confidence. The learned Counsel for defence commented evidence of these two witnesses, submitting that both the witnesses being closely related are highly interested and therefore, their evidence has to be rejected. There is no Rule of law that evidence of witness who is related to a victim is to be rejected outright merely on the ground that the witness is interested, being related. Rule of prudence requires that evidence of witness itself closely related has to be scrutinized with due caution and circumspection. It requires close scrutiny. If on close scrutiny, tested on touchstone of cross-examination, his evidence inspires confidence and found to be truthful and worthy of credit, then there is every reason to accept evidence of such witnesses. In the case before hand, we are satisfied that both the witnesses are truthful, natural and their evidence inspires confidence. Their evidence lends assurance to the evidence of Rajaram and Pramilabai. So on this evidence it is clinchingly established beyond doubt that Jyoti was subjected to cruelty by appellants-Wasudeo and his mother Dhrupatabai. The trial Court was right in convicting the appellants Wasudeo and Dhrupatabai for offence under section 498-A I.P.C. 36. In the result appellant have been rightly found guilty for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. Appellants Wasudeo and Dhrupatabai have been rightly convicted for offence under section 498-A, I.P.C. The trial Court has committed no error in convicting the appellants and sentencing them. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trail Court. The appeal therefore, merits no consideration and as such the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----