JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This appeal has been directed by the State of Haryana against judgment dated 14.12.1998 passed by the Session Judge, Hisar, whereby the respondents (accused) were acquitted of the charge under Sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Smt. Neelam (now deceased) was married to Om Parkash son of Leela Krishan, respondent No. 1 and Tara Wanti, respondent No. 2, on 2.2.1987. Neelam was cooking meals on 21.6.1987 at about 3 P.M., on the hearth in which fuel was placed. She was wearing Salwar and shirt of terry-cot, which all of a sudden caught fire from the sparks coming out of the hearth. When her clothes caught fire, out of panic, she ran into the house crying BURNT BURNT. The respondents i.e. her father-in-law, Leela Krishan, her mother-in-law Tara Wanti, her brother-in-law Gobind Ram and his wife Pushpa were attracted to her cries. Leela Krishan poured a pitcher of water being near by on her, due to which the fire was extinguished. He mother-in-law, Tara Wanti removed her to the Civil Hospital, Hisar, and got her admitted there. 3. Upon receipt of Ruqa, Ex.PG, from Dr. N.M. Sharma, PW-6 Shubh Ram, Head Constable, Incharge PP Civil Hospital, Hisar, went there and recorded statement, Ex.DB of Neelam in which she disclosed that she had got accidental burns while cooking food, for which no one was to be blamed and she did not want any action to be taken against her in-laws. Dr. Sharma noted in the MLR, Ex. PK, that her burns were to the extent of 60% to 70% and her burnt-part was below the chin but the scalp and scalp hair were not burnt and at that time, she was conscious, when her statement was recorded by the police. 4. On 26.6.1987, PW-1 Atam Parkash, brother of Neelam moved an application, Ex.PA to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for again recording the statement of Neelam and he deputed Shri S.P. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Hisar, to record her statement. Sh. S.P. Sharma obtained opinion of the doctor, Ex.PM/1 about the fitness of Neelam to make the statement and then he recorded her statement, Ex. PN/2. The said statement was signed by Neelam in token of its correctness. The said statement was attested by Dr. Surinder Singh, PW-8. Sh. S.P. Sharma obtained opinion of the doctor, Ex.PM/1 about the fitness of Neelam to make the statement and then he recorded her statement, Ex. PN/2. The said statement was signed by Neelam in token of its correctness. The said statement was attested by Dr. Surinder Singh, PW-8. In her statement, Ex.PN/2, Neelam came up with a different version and stated that the respondents had been mal-treating her on account of bringing less dowry at the time of marriage but she did not tell this fact to her parents to save the honour of the family and about 3-4 days prior to the occurrence, her in-laws, family had given a threat to her that she would be divorced as she had not brought sufficient dowry and even her husband had made allegation against her that she had committed theft of Rs. 25/- from his pocket. She further stated that her hands were caught by her parents-in-law while Veena, her husbands sister sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and Raju, her husbands younger brother, set her ablaze and she laid down on the floor in an attempt to avoid the impact of fire and raised hue and cry, upon which the neighbours, her father-in-law, Leela Krishan, put two pitchers of water upon her and the fire was extinguished and then she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Hisar, by her mother-in-law Tara Wanti alongwith a woman from the neighbourhood and she was forced to make statement that she had caught fire accidentally while cooking. She further stated that her husband was not to be blamed. 5. Neelam succumbed to her injuries on 14.7.1987. 6. Upon receipt of Ruqa, Ex.PH, about her death, PW-4 Shubh Ram, Head Constable, prepared inquest proceedings, Ex.PI and sent the dead body through Constable Ram Niwas for getting the post mortem done. PW-7 Dr. Jugal Kishore conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Neelam on 14.7.1987 at 5 p.m. alongwith Dr. Mrs. Sushma Madan and opined that the cause of death was shock and generalised septicemia as a result of burns which were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the respondents under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code. 8. Mrs. Sushma Madan and opined that the cause of death was shock and generalised septicemia as a result of burns which were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the respondents under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code. 8. The challan was initially put in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 10.5.1988. 9. Having made out a prima-facie case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were charged under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code while respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were charged under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. 11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 12. After hearing the learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents not guilty and acquitted them as stated above while giving benefit of doubt. 13. Aggrieved by the said judgment, State of Haryana has filed the present appeal. 14. I have heard Shri Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the appellant, Shri Ravi Sodhi, Advocate, counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the record. 15. There are two dying declarations in this case. Neelam, at the first instance, had made dying declaration to the Head Constable Shubh Ram, Ex. DB, in which she had stated that she had caught fire accidentally, when she was preparing food, for which no one was to be blamed and as such, she did not want any action to be taken against any member of the family of her in-laws. DB, in which she had stated that she had caught fire accidentally, when she was preparing food, for which no one was to be blamed and as such, she did not want any action to be taken against any member of the family of her in-laws. Subsequently, she made statement to the Judicial Magistrate, Ex.PN/2 on 26.6.1987 in which she stated that her parents-in-law, Pushpa, her sister-in- law had been pestering her for having brought less dowry since her marriage but she did not tell this fact to her parents to save their honour and they had been quarrelling with her for the last 3-4 days prior to the occurrence and her in-laws threatened her that in case their demand of more dowry was not met, then she would be divorced; that her parents-in-law and sister-in-law had taken their food and further Om Parkash, her husband, had told her that she had stolen Rs. 25/- from his pocket. She next stated that her parents-in-law had held her hands while her sister-in-law, Veena, sprinkled kerosene oil on her and her Dewar, Raju, younger brother of her husband, set her clothes ablaze and she laid down on the ground to avoid the impact of fire. She next stated that she raised hue and cry and the neighbours were attracted on hearing her shrieks and then her father-in-law, Leela Krishan put two pitchers of water on her body due to which the fire was extinguished and then her mother-in-law alongwith a woman residing in the neighbourhood, took her to the Civil Hospital where she was got admitted. She also stated that her husband was not present at that time and she had no grouse against her husband. There is no dispute about it that conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration, if it is believable. It has been observed in Lallu Bhai Dev Chand Shah and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1776 that the law with regard to dying declaration is very clear and dying declaration must be closely scrutinised as to its truthfulness like any other piece of evidence in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case bearing in mind. In the present case, there are circumstances on file, which show that the dying declaration made by Neelam, Ex.PN/2 is not believable. In the present case, there are circumstances on file, which show that the dying declaration made by Neelam, Ex.PN/2 is not believable. Atam Parkash, PW-1, brother and Ram Sarup, PW2, father of the deceased, Neelam, did not corroborate the dying declaration, Ex.PN/2 of the deceased recorded by PW-9 Sh. S.P. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Hisar. PW-1 categorically stated that all the members of the family of the in-laws of Neelam were present and on enquiry by him as to how she had got burnt, she told that whatever her in-laws had told him was correct. He further admitted that on the morning of 26.6.1987 her elder sister told him that Neelam had made a wrong statement before the police, whereupon he enquired from Neelam as to how she had received the burn injuries but she kept mum and her elder sister advised him to get her statement recorded again. He next stated that on enquiry, Neelam was not prepared to speak about the occurrence, whereupon, he moved application, Ex.PA, to the Court for getting her statement recorded. However, he disowned his statement made to the police to the effect that they suspected that the statement of Neelam, Ex.DB, had been wrongly recorded by PW-4 Shubh Ram, Head Constable. He further stated that Neelam had told him that her terry-cot clothes caught fire accidentally, when she was cooking food on the hearth. To the same effect is the statement of PW-2 Ram Sarup, father of the deceased. The Investigating Officer, PW-3 Raja Ram, stated that he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Hisar, in June, 1987. He had made enquiries from the neighbourhood of the house of the respondents and came to know that Neelam had got burns accidentally. PW-9 Dr. N.M. Sharma stated that Neelam was admitted in the emergency ward and he had opined that she was fit to make the statement. He further admitted that there was no smell of kerosene oil coming from her body when she was admitted in the hospital and her MLR was prepared. If her sister-in-law had sprinkled kerosene oil, then smell of kerosene oil must have come from her body. Moreover, the kerosene oil must have been sprinkled from a distance on all over the body including the head. If the kerosene oil had been sprinkled as alleged, then her head must have also been burnt including her hair. If her sister-in-law had sprinkled kerosene oil, then smell of kerosene oil must have come from her body. Moreover, the kerosene oil must have been sprinkled from a distance on all over the body including the head. If the kerosene oil had been sprinkled as alleged, then her head must have also been burnt including her hair. The very fact that she was burnt below the chin suggests that Kerosene oil was not sprinkled upon her and she got accidental burns as the spark from the hearth caught her terry-cot clothes and she sustained injuries, which were superficial in nature. Thus, she was inspired by her elder sister to make statement as admitted by her brother, Atam Parkash. 16. Her brother and father were summoned and they remained with Neelam from 21st to 26th of June, 1987 but they did not doubt that Neelam had been burnt by her in-laws. She did not change her version when her brother and father were present. She only changed her version when her elder sister came and tried to put pressure upon her. 17. The conduct of the respondents is to be seen. When Leela Krishan came to know that Neelam was burning, then he put two pitchers of water upon her and extinguished the fire. Further her mother-in-law, Tara Wanti alongwith one woman from the neighbourhood took her to the hospital and immediately got her admitted. Leela Krishan also did not take any chance and immediately went to inform father and brother of Neelam about the mishap. They received information in Village Puthi Mangal Khan at 6 P.M. and reached Civil Hospital, Hisar, at 8 p.m. on the same day. The husband of Neelam namely, Om Parkash, had given blood to her as admitted by PW-1 Atam Parkash, brother of Neelam. There is no evidence on the file of ill-treatment by the respondents or her husband for having brought less dowry. She had completely exonerated her husband in both of her dying declarations. If she had been treated with cruelty on account of dowry, then she must have told this fact to her brother or father. The very fact that she kept mum suggests that she was not harassed on account of demand of dowry. The respondents even attended Neelam in the hospital properly. If she had been treated with cruelty on account of dowry, then she must have told this fact to her brother or father. The very fact that she kept mum suggests that she was not harassed on account of demand of dowry. The respondents even attended Neelam in the hospital properly. In view of these facts, I hold that the statement of Neelam, Ex.PN/2 is not believable and no case is made out against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code and against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and they have been rightly acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.