BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This is an appeal filed by two accused persons in Sessions case No. 132 of 1999. They were tried on the basis of allegation that on 10-4-1998 at about mid day they committed murder of one Smt. Pulimala Padma by pouring kerosene over her and setting her ablaze. The deceased Padma was daughter-in-law of A1 and sister-in-law of A2. Charge was framed under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. ( 2 ) P. W. 4 was projected as eye-witness to the occurrence. She is daughter of the deceased who was minor on the date of occurrence. P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were projected as witnesses with respect to certain circumstances. P. W. 8 is a witness to the inquest. P. W. 9 is a doctor who treated the deceased in the first instance and recorded dying declaration. P. W. 10 is a panch witness for scene of offence. P. W. 11 is also a witness to inquest. P. W. 12 is a Magistrate who recorded the second dying declaration. P. W. 13 is a doctor who conducted postmortem. P. Ws. 14 and 15 are Investigating Officers. ( 3 ) IN the light of the record before us and in the light of the arguments made, we intend first to go to P. W. 4 s statement who was projected as eye witness. P. W. 4 is the daughter of deceased. Her age on the date of recording of statement i. e. , 30-4-2001 was 9 years. So, it could be taken that she was about 7 years old when the occurrence took place. The learned Judge put her usual questions to arrive at a satisfaction that the child realizes the importance of making a statement before Court. In her chief examination she supported the case of prosecution and stated that on the date of incident from 8. 00 am to 12. 00 noon there was quarrel between her mother and A1 and A2. She and her brothers had gone to school, they returned at 12. 00 noon. Her mother was inside the house weeping. In her chief examination she supported the case of prosecution and stated that on the date of incident from 8. 00 am to 12. 00 noon there was quarrel between her mother and A1 and A2. She and her brothers had gone to school, they returned at 12. 00 noon. Her mother was inside the house weeping. Some time later a1 and A2 began to quarrel with her mother. Her mother went to tap, brought water and poured down the entire water. In the course of quarrel A1 and A2 took her mother inside the house, the witness also went inside. Al poured kerosene over her mother and A2 lit fire to her. Within a short span of time she caught fire, her father came and poured water and put off the fire. The witness had also gone to Nagarjunasagar hospital when her father took the deceased to hospital. Doctors advised that she should be shifted to Hyderabad. The witness and her brothers went to hospital at Hyderabad. Her mother lived for 7 days and then died. After the death of her mother, her father brought back the body of the deceased and cremated her. In her cross-examination she however stated, "from yesterday, Police have been reading out the entire paper to me, as to how I should give evidence. Police have told me that I should give evidence as per that statement, or else I will be sent to jail. I have been living with my mother s sisters and my mother s brothers. They were also telling me that I should give evidence as above. Previously my statement was not recorded by police. For the first time yesterday, police have read over statement to me. I was quite young then. It is not true to suggest that on the tutoring by maternal aunts, and P. Ws. 1 and 2 I am giving false evidence. It is not true to suggest that they have threatened me, that in the event I do not speak and give evidence as above, they will not educate and look after me. It is not true to suggest that on the tutoring by maternal aunts, and P. Ws. 1 and 2 I am giving false evidence. It is not true to suggest that they have threatened me, that in the event I do not speak and give evidence as above, they will not educate and look after me. " Since this witness is a child witness and in cross-examination she was emphatic to say that she had been tutored by police and other relations of the deceased to make the statement which she had made, it would be highly risky to rely on her statement alone for convicting the accused for an offence of murder. Therefore, the evidence of this child witness will have to be scrutinized with caution and care and will have to be seen and examined in the light of other evidence available on record. ( 4 ) OTHER prosecution witnesses are not witnesses to the occurrence. However, p. Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that the deceased had told them orally that she had been burnt after one accused pouring kerosene over her and another litting fire. These oral dying declarations will have to be seen in the context of the written dying declarations one recorded by the Doctor and the other by the magistrate. Coming to the first dying declaration, it may be mentioned that this dying declaration Was recorded by P. W. 9, doctor. This was the first dying declaration made by the deceased which is on record. This was recorded by P. W. 9 on 10-4-1998 at 5. 30 p. m. It reads as under :"i, Pulimala Padma, age 20 years, my marriage was solemnized with Phakeeraiah resident of Parvedula village about 8 years back. My native village is Gyarakunta Palem. I have two male children aged about (5) years and one year, and one daughter aged 7 years. Yesterday my husband went to Pothunooru village to see our relatives. In our house myself, my children and my mother-in-law saidamma, aged 60 years are staying. Today in the afternoon, as we have no food for lunch I am preparing Sajja Roties then accidentally my left veil was felt in fire and caught fire to my body, hands, face, stomach, legs and sustained burns. When I am preparing breads (roties) my mother-in-law went outside the house. Today in the afternoon, as we have no food for lunch I am preparing Sajja Roties then accidentally my left veil was felt in fire and caught fire to my body, hands, face, stomach, legs and sustained burns. When I am preparing breads (roties) my mother-in-law went outside the house. When fire was caught hold my children raised hue and cries. Nobody were there in surrounding houses as they went to attend their works. In the meantime my husband came from pothunooru village, saw me, raised cries, and put off the fire and shifted me to hospital. I have no suspicion on anybody. I am deposing this voluntarily, having full consciousness. P. W. 9 appeared as a witness also before the Court. He stated that, police wanted to call M. R. O. to record the dying declaration of the deceased but as the M. R. O was not available police requested him to record the dying declaration. According to his opinion there was no time to call the Magistrate. He recorded the dying declaration and on the next day the deceased was shifted to osmania General Hospital. In this dying declaration the deceased had categorically stated that she caught fire by accident whereas in another dying declaration which was recorded by the Magistrate after more than 24 hours of the first dying declaration i. e. , on 11-4-1998 at about 3. 20 p. m. she said :"incident happened yesterday afternoon. At that time my mother-in-law was at the house. Mother-in-law and sister-in-law poured some kerosene and set me on fire. Mother-in-law is Saidamma and Sister-in-law Alivelu were there. On the ground that I beat the child they picked up quarrel with me on that score. My father-in-law has gone to thrashing floor. Previously they done like this 3 times. They sent me to my mother s house at that time village elders chastised them then they kept in their house. My husband did not say anything. They have poured kerosene on me and set me on fire. Afterwards village people came and scolded. Thereafter my brother came and took me to the hospital. Then from there I came here, there is nothing to say. "the two dying declarations are diametrically opposite to each other. My husband did not say anything. They have poured kerosene on me and set me on fire. Afterwards village people came and scolded. Thereafter my brother came and took me to the hospital. Then from there I came here, there is nothing to say. "the two dying declarations are diametrically opposite to each other. In one dying declaration which was the first, the deceased said that she caught fire by an accident whereas in the second dying declaration she stated that the accused were responsible for burning her. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dandu lakshmi Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1999 SCC (Cri) 1176 : (1999 Cri LJ 4287) when two dying declarations are contradictory to each other and cannot be reconciled with each other and there is no other evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime, it will not be safe to rely on either of the dying declarations. But, the learned public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to another judgment of Supreme Court reported in Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1130 : (1999 Cri LJ 4055 ). In this case there were two dying declarations. In the first dying declaration the deceased had stated that she had caught fire due to an accident whereas in the second dying declaration she had implicated the accused. The High Court took the view that the first dying declaration was made when the deceased was under the influence of the accused and therefore that was not a voluntary dying declaration whereas the second dying declaration was more natural and probable. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the first dying declaration was under the influence of the accused. This is basically a question of fact for which there must be evidence which would suggest that a particular dying declaration was not voluntary and was under the influence of somebody. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court did not rely on the first dying declaration for the reasons given in the judgment itself. The Supreme Court held that, if the deceased had really received injuries at 2. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court did not rely on the first dying declaration for the reasons given in the judgment itself. The Supreme Court held that, if the deceased had really received injuries at 2. 00 a. m. by an accident because of bursting of stove then her in-laws would have taken her to the hospital immediately and would not have waited till 7. 30 a. m. They would have also informed her relations immediately. On the basis of failure by in-laws to take the deceased to hospital the Supreme Court discarded the first dying declaration and accepted the second dying declaration. But, in the case before us, we have found that that deceased was immediately shifted to the hospital by the husband himself and it was nobody s case that her parents were not informed. In fact, by 8. 00 p. m. her parents were in the hospital who were living 30 Kms. away from the house of the deceased. Therefore, in our view, this judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case. Since the two dying declarations, one recorded by the doctor and the other recorded by the magistrate cannot be reconciled, and there is nothing on record to show that either of the dying declarations was made under the influence of any other person. If it could be said that first dying declaration was made under the influence of accused without any evidence to that effect, then it could also be argued that second dying declaration was made at the instance of relations of deceased. ( 5 ) FOR these reasons, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. The appellants are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not needed in any other case. Appeal allowed.