S. R. DONGAONKAR, J:- The appellants challenge their conviction for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, for which they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and Life Imprisonment for life besides fine respectively in Sessions Trial No, 193/1992, decided by the Sessions Judge, Akala by his Judgment dated 30-9-1993, 2. Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants were that P.W. 1 Suman Mohan Ingale is mother of deceased Rajkanya who had married to one Suresh Mahore the brother of the husband of appellant no.2, Appellants arc mother and daughter in relation. Deceased Rajkanya was the issue begotten from the first husband of P.W. 1 Suman, The name of her first husband was Shaligram Tale, She could not pull on well with him, so she deserted him and remarried with one Mohan Ingale. Rajkanya was also residing prior to her marriage with them at Sindhi Camp, Akola, Suman had no other issue from her second husband Mohan. It is also necessary to mention that it is the case of the prosecution that deceased Rajkanya had initially married with one Nashikrao Madhusudan Val rule about 4-5 years back, But because of ill-treatment by him, she deserted him and remarried with Suresh the brother of Gaganan Mahore, the husband of appellant no.2, This Suresh & Gajanan were residing with said Rajkanya and appellant no.2 Sau. Sangita, respectively, in the adjoining rooms in village Chandur which is situated at a distance of 1 - 1 1/2 k.m. from Akola, The mother of these brothers Shantabai was residing with Rajkanya and Suresh, Sunita was the first daughter of appellant no.1 and elder sister of appellant no.2 who had initially married with Saresh, But as she could not live happily with him there was divorce between them ad this Sunita thereafter remarried. Deceased Rajkanya had earlier husband living but she had remarried with Suresh, whereas the first wife of Suresh Sunita had performed other marriage leaving him, It is necessary to note that after marriage of Rajkanya and Suresh, there was marriage between sister of Sangita i.e. appellant no.2 with Gajanan. It is alleged that marriage between Rajkanya and Suresh took place on 22-5-1991, whereas marriage between appellant no.2 Sangita and Gaganan had taken place on 23-5-1991. It is alleged that marriage between Rajkanya and Suresh took place on 22-5-1991, whereas marriage between appellant no.2 Sangita and Gaganan had taken place on 23-5-1991. It is alleged that, this Gajanan thereafter brought Sunita at the house of Suresh and therefore deceased Rajkanya had asked her mother P.W. 1 Suman as to whether there was valid divorce between the said Suresh and Sunita. She informed that she had seen divorce deed, Thereafter, it is alleged; both the appellants started ill-treating the said Rajkanya, perhaps on the ground, that Sunita could not pull on well with Suresh and his married life was good with deceased Rajkanya, It is alleged that they used to pass sarcastic remarks against Rajkanya. It is also a case of the prosecution that P.W. 1 Suman, her second husband Mohan and deceased Rajkanya were involved in a murder of one Shila daughter of Namdeorao Ghogre which took place on 22-12-1989 and they were being prosecuted in Sessions Trial No.41/1991. It is the case of the prosecution that Suresh was not informed about the pending prosecution for the serious offence against deceased Rajkanya. The incident in question had taken place on 14-9-1991 and therefore, the trial against deceased Ralkanya abated. It may be noted that in that case Mohan was acquitted whereas P.W. 1 Suman was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, 3. Turning to this case it is alleged that the appellants were visiting the house of Gajanan and they used to pick up quarrels with deceased Rajkanya which caused mental torture to her. It is alleged that earlier when P.W.1 Suman and her husband Mohan had visited the house of Rajkanya she complained about both the accused and made a grievance that they were picking up quarrels with her and causing harassment to her. It is further alleged that P.W. 1 Suman had decided to take her daughter deceased - Rajkanya back, but Suresh intervened and told that Rajkanya should not be taken back, On the date of the incident in the issue of taking water from the common water tap in the courtyard there was quarrel. The time was about 2.00 p.m. when both Suresh and Gajanan had gone to work as Labourers in the field. Shantabai was there. She had objected both the accused. Deceased Rajkanya intervened and asked both the accused not to quarrel with Shantabai who was elderly woman. The time was about 2.00 p.m. when both Suresh and Gajanan had gone to work as Labourers in the field. Shantabai was there. She had objected both the accused. Deceased Rajkanya intervened and asked both the accused not to quarrel with Shantabai who was elderly woman. It is alleged that there was scuffle between the appellants on one side and the deceased Rajkanya on the other. It is the case of the prosecution further that the appellants pushed Rajkanya into her house and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Rajkanya sustained 100% burns and thereafter, she was taken to Main Hospital, Akola from Chandur. Gajanan and Suresh were called and then Gajanan informed P.W. 1 Suman that Rajkanya was burnt and she was admitted in Main Hospital. Akola. She was treated there. It is alleged that deceased Rajkanya made a dying declaration to P.W. 1 Suman orally, saying that both the appellants picked up quarrels with her. They pushed her in the house and poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. She also told that Shantabai was present there, she in order to avoid untoward incident picked up the matchbox and ran away from the house, however, somehow appellant secured another match stick and set her on fire. The Police Constable who was present at the outpost in the General Hospital, Akola, gave telephonic message to Civil Lines Police Station, regarding admission of deceased Rajkanya and requested him to arrange for recording of dying declaration. Some time thereafter, P.W. 2 Executive Magistrate-Upadhye came there on receipt of the requisition and recorded dying declaration of the deceased Rajkanya as per Exh.24. It may be stated that it is the case of the prosecution that P. W. 3 Gulabrao Kapate, who was familiar with the husband of P.W. 1 Suman had been the witness to the disclosure of ill-treatment by deceased Rajkanya. He had also come to hospital. P.W. 4 Dr. Ranjit Patil is said to have given fitness certificate of the deceased for making dying declaration to P. W. 2 Upadhye and also on recording the statement. Offence under sections 307, 498-A read with section 34 of I.P.C. was registered against appellants. P.W. 6 P.S.I. Totawar registered crime after recording statement. He went to spot to prepare spot panchanama Ex.28 which was prepared in presence of P.W. 5 Bhaurao Bawne. Offence under sections 307, 498-A read with section 34 of I.P.C. was registered against appellants. P.W. 6 P.S.I. Totawar registered crime after recording statement. He went to spot to prepare spot panchanama Ex.28 which was prepared in presence of P.W. 5 Bhaurao Bawne. Some articles were seized from the spot as per Ex.29. Thereal'ter, the said Ralkanya died. As such offence was converted into Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Inquest Panchanama was prepared as per EX.31. P.M. report was received Ex.33. Thus, it is alleged that the appellants who are mother and daughter had ill-treated and caused harassment to deceased Rajkanya the second wife of Suresh and at the relevant time they had set her on fire and because of burn injuries to the extent of 100%, she succumbed on following day in the morning. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and as the offences were triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, AKola. 4. The learned trial Judge framed charge for the aforesaid offences and explained to the appellants. Appellants pleaded not guilty. Their defence as it appears from the cross-examination of the witness is that deceased Rajkanya had committed suicide. But it was not because of ill-treatment or any harassment at the instance of the appellants. They denied to have committed any offence under section 302 and even under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Prosecution examined six witnesses as stated above. P.W. 1 Suman, P.W. 3 Gulabrao Kapate are the witnesses on the point to alleged ill-treatment caused by the appellants to deceased Rajkanya. P.W. 1 is also witness to the alleged oral dying declaration of deceased Rajkanya, she had further given details about the relationship between parties. P.W. 2 Upadhye is Executive Magistrate who has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Rajkanya EX.24 and P.W. 4 Dr. Ranjit Patil is Medical Officer who has certified the deceased to be fit to make statement at the relevant time. P.W.6 P.S.I. Totawar is Investigating Officer he has recorded the complaint-cum-dying declaration Ex.37, registered offences as per Ex.38, prepared spot panchanama and seizure of articles from the spot as per Exs.28 and 29 in presence of P.W. 5 Bhaurao Bawne. He has also prepared Inquest Panchanama EX.31 and received P. M. Report EX.33. P.W.6 P.S.I. Totawar is Investigating Officer he has recorded the complaint-cum-dying declaration Ex.37, registered offences as per Ex.38, prepared spot panchanama and seizure of articles from the spot as per Exs.28 and 29 in presence of P.W. 5 Bhaurao Bawne. He has also prepared Inquest Panchanama EX.31 and received P. M. Report EX.33. Death of the deceased as it appears from the Ex.33 is from shock due to 100% burns. This P. M. Report is admitted by the defence. 6. The defence also had led evidence of two witnesses namely D.W. 1 Anil Mahore who happens to be the nephew of Gajanana. He is a child witness of 12 years, who has come to depose that at the relevant time he was playing outside the house. There was quarrel between Shantabai and deceased Rajkanya. Sometime thereafter, deceased Rajkanya went in her house and closed door from inside and he noticed smoke coming out of the house, thereafter he, Shantabai and appellants raised hue and cry, Vinayak. Bhaurao, Shriram etc. came to the spot, they broke open the wooden planks of the door of the house of deceased Rajkanya, he entered the house, unchained the door and thereafter the fire of the deceased was extinguished by water. He has also deposed that when Rajkanya was shifted to hospital, he went to inform about the incident to Suresh and Gajanan. D.W. 2 Shriram Daberao has also deposed that at the time of incident he was sitting on the platform of his house, he heard hue and cries from the house of Suresh. He noticed smoke and flames from the room of Suresh. The door was closed from inside, hence he asked Bhaurao to push the door, they broke open the door by axe. Thereafter, they noticed deceased Rajkanya lying in burnt condition and her fire was extinguished by water. She was taken to hospital. He specifically stated that Rajkanya was alone present in the house when they broke open the door planks. 7. Learned trial Judge found the case rested wholly on the circumstantial evidence. There was motive for commission of the offence for the appellants. Deceased died of 100% burns. There are three dying declarations which are consistent & implicating the appellants. The door planks which are allegedly cut and through which D.W. 1 Anil had entered were produced before court. 7. Learned trial Judge found the case rested wholly on the circumstantial evidence. There was motive for commission of the offence for the appellants. Deceased died of 100% burns. There are three dying declarations which are consistent & implicating the appellants. The door planks which are allegedly cut and through which D.W. 1 Anil had entered were produced before court. They are not of such dimensions that D. W.I Anil would be able to enter into the house and unchain the door. After opining that the dying declarations are consistent and the defence was totally unreliable, he held the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offences and passed the above mentioned sentences against them. 8. This judgment of conviction has been challenged by the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the dying declarations of the deceased Ralkanya, the first oral dying declaration of P.W. 1, 2nd recorded by Executive Magistrate P.W. 2 Upadhye and 3rd by I.O. P.W. 6 Totawar are unreliable and tutored. According to him, the evidence of P.W. 1 Suman and P.W. 3 Gulabrao is unreliable and is based only on surmises. There was every possibility of deceased Rajkanya being tutored for making such dying declaration implicating the appellants. According to him, deceased Rajkanya and P.W. 1 Suman were already being prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they could have implicated the appellants falsely. It is also submitted by him and specifically that deceased Rajkanya was burnt to 100%, there were burn injuries on her face and her face was totally burnt. P.W. 4 Dr. Patil though has given fitness certificate he did not examine her and in fact he was not connected with the Female Burn Ward. He must have casually given certificate of fitness. According to him as the deceased was burnt 100% she could not have been able to make any dying declaration. According to him, it is apparent from the evidence of the prosecution (cross-examination) and particularly of P.W. 5 Bhaurao Bawne and contents of spot panchanama Ex.28, which is supported by defence witnesses, that when the smoke was noticed, deceased was inside and door of the house was closed from inside. It was got to be broke opened and deceased was found in burnt condition. It was got to be broke opened and deceased was found in burnt condition. There is absolutely' no evidence to show that she was any time ill-treated by the appellants and as such, it cannot be held positively that deceased had died of homicidal death only. It may be suicidal one. It is also submitted that version of D.W. 1 Anil and also D.W. Shriram Daberao does not lead any conclusion that they are deposing false and therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Judge is incorrect, improper and unjust. He has committed an error in convicting the appellants by relying on the dying declarations, which implicate the appellants for the offence under section 302 and section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, though they are totally unreliable. According to him, in any case, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt as the very factum of homicidal death of the deceased is not established and the fact that there is no case of ill-treatment by the "relatives" of the husband in specific, as the appellants are mother and daughter, appellant no.2 being wife of his brother. He has further to submit that Sunita erstwhile wife of Suresh was happily married with other person and therefore there could not have been any grudge for the appellants to commit any offence. As such according to him, appeal deserves to be allowed by giving benefit of doubt to the appellants. 10. As against this, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the judgment of the learned Trial Judge is correct and he has rightly relied on the dying declarations of the deceased which arc consistent with each other and also other evidence on record. He has relied on 1992 Cri.L.J, 3149 (S.C.) (Dharam Pal Vs. State of Punjab); AIR 1987 SC 860 (Suresh Vs, State of Madhya Pradesh) and 2007 Cri.L.J, 317 (S.C.) : [2007 ALL SCR 87] (Vithal Vs, State of Maharashtra), to contend that when there are multiple dying declarations and accused were named in all the dying declarations, the evidence of the witnesses was corroborating the dying declarations, reliance can be placed on the same. According to him when dying declaration positively accusing the appellants, found not tutored they can be relied upon for basing conviction of the appellants and therefore, he submitted that the appeal needs to be dismissed. 11. According to him when dying declaration positively accusing the appellants, found not tutored they can be relied upon for basing conviction of the appellants and therefore, he submitted that the appeal needs to be dismissed. 11. We have gone through the record of the case and also judgment impugned in this appeal with the assistance of the learned counsel. 12. As already stated above it is not disputed that the deceased had died due to 100% burns i.e. shock due to 100%, burns. It is worth while to see the nature and extent of burns, mentioned in paragraph 17 of the P.M. Reports. It mentions burn injuries al1 over the body. Face & Neck 09%. Chest 18%. Rack 18%. Upper Limb 18 (9th each), Lower Limbs 36 (18% each) and Genitals 01%. It is apparent that she had suffered extensive burns, even on her face and neck. At this stage it is necessary to refer the evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Ranjit Patil who has given fitness certificate when the dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, (P.W. 2 Upadhye). In cross-examination, he has stated that the history of the patient is recorded in O.P.D. Card. He also stated that on that date he was not Ward Incharge of the Female Burns Ward and that in his certificate he did not mention about the details of the medical examination conducted. He has also admitted that the patient with 100% burn injuries may some times have a loss of orientation. P.W. 2 Upadhye in cross-examination has stated that it was true that the face of the patient was burnt. He denied the material suggestion as regards the possibility of deceased making no dying declaration. This dying declaration is produced at Exhibit 24, which states - "Derani (wife brother-in-law) Sangita and her mother beat me, poured kerosene on my person and set me on fire". She did not tell anything else. Thus this dying declaration which is recorded on 14-9-1991 at 17.35 hours, states only that appellants heat her. poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. 13. At this juncture it is necessary to see the evidence of P.W. 1 Suman and P.W. 3 Gulabrao, who incidentally happens to be retired police constable. 14. Thus this dying declaration which is recorded on 14-9-1991 at 17.35 hours, states only that appellants heat her. poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. 13. At this juncture it is necessary to see the evidence of P.W. 1 Suman and P.W. 3 Gulabrao, who incidentally happens to be retired police constable. 14. As regards the incident; P.W. 1 Suman after stating about the details of the alleged cruel treatment as regards the dying declaration stated that after about 4-5 days Gajanan came to her and told that her daughter had poured kerosene on her body and at that time one more person was accompanying with Gajanan. She became unconscious. Gajanan had told that her daughter was brought to Main Hospital, Akola. She therefore, went with Gaganan to Main Hospital, Akola. Rajkanya was admitted in burn ward of the hospital, Shantabai the grandmother of Suresh and some other relatives were sitting in the ward. Rajkanya was burnt below her neck but her face and hair were intact. This statement of her face and her hair being intact does not seem to be correct in view of P.M. report. She then asserted that she had asked Rajkanya as to what had happened and her daughter told her that both the accused had quarreled with her and both accused had picked up quarrel with Shantabai and Rajkanya had intervened and asked the appellants as to why they were misbehaving with the old lady Shantabai. Thereafter she disclosed that there were some disputes, as she did not tell that she was in jail. She has specifically told in her that both the accused (appellants) picked up a tin containing kerosene oil, poured on her head and thereafter, Shantabai picked up match stick and went running out of the house, apprehending that accused/appellants might burn Rajkanya and thereafter Lilabai picked up another matchbox and lit the match stick and hurled it on the body of Rajkanya. This story is given by Rajkanya to P.W. 1 Suman immediately when she went to the hospital after some time of the incident. In cross-examination she has admitted that she (her daughter Rajkanya) was her only issue. This story is given by Rajkanya to P.W. 1 Suman immediately when she went to the hospital after some time of the incident. In cross-examination she has admitted that she (her daughter Rajkanya) was her only issue. Her second husband Mohan and Rajkanya were prosecuted in murder case and the charge was for murder of one Sheela Namdeo Ghogre and she has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and because Rajkanya died, proceedings were abated against her. This aspect would be discussed later on. Suffice it is to say that it is her story that she had stated to her the appellants had set fire to her by pouring kerosene. She was confronted with some omissions and contradictions from her statements. The case suggested to her in cross-examination is that she and deceased Rajkanya were unable to arrange for their defence. Her son-in-law Suresh also had not helped in defending the case and so on. The thing which is to be noted, in her cross-examination is that she has stated that Shantabai was residing with Suresh and Rajkanya, were living in separate room, other than that of Gajanan in same courtyard. She has denied the suggestion of tutoring deceased Rajkanya to make the later dying declaration. 15. This takes us to consider the evidence of P.W. 3 Gulabrao Kapate who is incidentally a Police Constable, though retired. He stated that deceased Rajkanya had told him that the appellants used to abuse her and he had advised her to take it easy as she was newly married and she had to tolerate such things for some time. In cross-examination this witness has stated that it was true that on 14-9-1991, when he was present in the house P.W. 1 Suman came to him and told that Rajkanya was burnt and he should accompany her to Main Hospital. Then he with some of his neighbors has accompanied her to Main Hospital. He also stated that he had given telephonic information to Mohan from Main Hospital about admission of Rajkanya. It is pertinent to note that if such was the case, he would have lodged some report to police station so also P.W. 1 Suman. Their, presence in the hospital prior to the recording of dying declaration by Executive Magistrate P.W. 2 Upadhye, docs not rule out possibility or tutoring Rajkanya to make any dying declaration against appellants. 16. It is pertinent to note that if such was the case, he would have lodged some report to police station so also P.W. 1 Suman. Their, presence in the hospital prior to the recording of dying declaration by Executive Magistrate P.W. 2 Upadhye, docs not rule out possibility or tutoring Rajkanya to make any dying declaration against appellants. 16. With this background it is necessary to assess the evidence of defence witnesses. D.W.1 Anil Mahore is child witness. After putting come questions to assess his understanding about sanctity of oath, he was administered oath and thereafter his evidence was recorded. He deposed precisely and in categorical terms that after quarrel deceased Rajkanya had gone in her room, closed door from inside and then smoke was noticed coming from the house. Shantabai and accused persons raised hue and cry, then Shriram D.W. 2 amongst themselves came there, broke open the part of the door and threw water inside, extinguished fire of the deceased, deceased was seen in burnt condition in the house, she was shifted to hospital. In cross-examination, there appears nothing substantial to show that he is deposing false. No doubt he is nephew of Gajanana the husband of the appellant no.2, but that fact by itself will not discredit that testimony unless there is something to show that he was tutored to make such statement before the Court. In fact P.W. 6 PSI. Totawar has admitted in cross-examination that the statement of D.W. 1 Anil Mahore and D.W. 2 Shriram Daberao and some other witnesses Vinayak, etc. were recorded. They were available in case diary. They have not been cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet as they did not support the dying declaration. To specific question he has stated that those statements were not consistent with the dying declaration and hence they were not included in the charge-sheet. No attempt seems to have been made to verify as to why they are deposing false. D.W. 2 Shriram also stated in the similar way. There is nothing substantial in cross-examination to infer that they are deposing false except that he is closely acquainted with Suresh and Gajanan. He being the neighbour his acquaintance with Suresh and Gajanan can not be said to be unnatural and therefore, their evidence merely on that ground can not be disbelieved. 17. There is nothing substantial in cross-examination to infer that they are deposing false except that he is closely acquainted with Suresh and Gajanan. He being the neighbour his acquaintance with Suresh and Gajanan can not be said to be unnatural and therefore, their evidence merely on that ground can not be disbelieved. 17. Adverting to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer Totawar, it would be seen that he has stated that it is true that it transpired in his investigation that some people broke open the door and extinguished the fire and Rajkanya. He recorded statements of Shantabai and those who had stated to have broken open the door. He has also stated that during the course of investigation it did transpire through some witnesses that Rajkanya had closed the door from inside and atten1pted to commit suicide. This will shown that the prosecution instead of making out case that deceased had not died of suicidal death, and these witnesses who have stated about the same were trying to make out false case suppressed those statements from the court, while filing charge-sheet. 18. Were is a case where the said Shantabai has been examined by the I.O. & cited as P.W. In charge-sheet. She was not examined by the defence. Learned trial Judge has remarked that said Shantabai though cited as defence witness, was also not examined and therefore, according to him non-examination of this Shantabai, could not lead to drawing of adverse inference against the prosecution case. This is unpalatable inference, inasmuch as her role was specifically asserted by prosecution. 19. It is necessary to bear in mind that it is the case of the prosecution through P.W. 1 that deceased Rajkanya had told that Shantabai had taken away matchbox to avoid untoward incident and thereafter, the appellants took another matchbox and set her on fire. It is true that defence has not examined Shantabai though cited here as defence witness, but then this aspect remained to be proved by the prosecution. It is obvious that in such circumstances, intention to kill said Rajkanya could have been positively established, had she been examined by the prosecution, but it was not done so. 20. It is true that defence has not examined Shantabai though cited here as defence witness, but then this aspect remained to be proved by the prosecution. It is obvious that in such circumstances, intention to kill said Rajkanya could have been positively established, had she been examined by the prosecution, but it was not done so. 20. Now adverting to the contents of the spot panchanama, it would be seen that said panchanama is prepared on 14-9-1991 at about 8.30 p.m. It is to be noticed that the room is admeasuring 18 x 10 feet. It is also seen that in the spot panchanama, it is recorded that on inspecting the said house by going inside, it is seen that the lower wooden planks of both the shutters of the said door are broken. The cut pieces of the said plank were seized as per Ex.29. Learned trial Judge has considered this aspect, against defence. According to him, considering the body feature of D.W. 1 Anil vis-a-vis dimensions of the wooden pieces seized, it can be inferred that, it is totally false that this Anil could go through that much space in the room to unchain the door. This interference is difficult to repel ex-facie. But it is clear from the evidence on record that it is not proved to clear extent that all the pieces of broken door were seized, how was the door of the house. what were the dimensions of the said door. It is difficult to hold positively that vis-a-vis spot panchanama, it is impossible for D.W. 1 Anil to enter into the room through broken part of door. Merely because, the pieces of wooden plank which came before the court were not of sufficient dimensions, so as to allow the D.W. 1 Anil to enter into room, unless there is clear material on record to suggest from planks of the door these only pieces were seized, therefore, it is difficult to concur with the inference drawn by the learned trial court in this behalf so as to hold that the defence is totally false; it is necessary to bear in mind that, basic principle of criminal law requires that falsity of defence can not be pressed into service to find accused guilty, as the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts of Its own. 21. 21. As already stated above in this case there are three dying declarations which do implicate the appellants, We have already pointed out above as to how was the condition of the deceased at the time of making the dying declaration which is recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Immediately thereafter, the statement of deceased was recorded by I.O. She had given complete details, This statement though does not bear time, appears to have been recorded after the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, On perusal of the said statement, it would be seen that she has stated that appellants beat her. Thereafter, she was in the house, they brought kerosene tin from her house, poured kerosene on her person and ablaze. The said statement appears to be quite lengthy as compared to the dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate Upadhye, which is not in so much detail. In fact to last question, Whether she wanted to state anything more", she declined. This will show that the statement given to I.O" in its entirety can not inspire confidence. The possibility to telling the things by P.W. 1 Suman can not be overruled. It can be said that all these three dying declarations do not make out the same details of story except that the appellants are implicated in the same. 22. Now coming to the probability of the incident. it would be seen that the houses of Gajanan and Suresh are adjoining to each other. They have common courtyard. There are other houses in the vicinity, in fact even P.W. 4 Bhaurao Bawne has stated that he was working at the house which was adjoining to the house of Suresh. Even D.W. 1 Anil has stated that he was playing near house, D.W. 2 Shriram Daberao has also stated that he was on the platform of his house, when he heard hue and cry from the house of Suresh, This clearly means that there were many persons around the spot or incident at that time of burning of said Rajkanya, when she states that she was pushed inside, the appellants poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire, and when Shantabai had left with some matchbox, it obviously means that the door of the house was not closed according to the prosecution. In such circumstances, considering the fact that she is accused of the offence under section 302, it is rather difficult to believe that she would have received 100% burns when the door was open. She would have certainly raised hue and cry and come out of the house, when allegedly appellants had set her on fire. Her burning to the extent of 100% cannot be explained vis-a-vis the prosecution case. It is not the case that she was wearing any nylon saree etc. and therefore, when she caught fire, all her body was burnt, before she could receive any help. It is also not the case of the prosecution that when her fire was extinguished, she immediately told everybody that appellants had set fire to her. She cannot be said to be a village woman, who could not have dared to implicate the appellants at the relevant time in any case. It therefore seems that the theory of her committing suicide can not be said to be without any basis. 23. In a case of circumstantial evidence as observed by the learned trial Judge and as per settled law, prosecution has to establish the claim of circumstances in such a way that each circumstances has to be clearly proved by clear and convincing evidence, cumulative effect of established circumstances must form a complete chain with no link missing and must lead to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that in ail human probabilities it must be the accused and accused alone who must have committed the offence and on no other hypothesis the innocence of the accused could be reasonably proved. Here is the case where possibility of death of the deceased Rajkanya being due to suicidal burns cannot be overruled. 24. The learned trial Judge has drawn the inference favouri1ble to prosecution on two probabilities, one of suicidal and other of homicidal death saying that after considering all pros and cons of the evidence dealt with and material placed before this court and after weighing both the probabilities he is unable to agree with the theory of suicide and therefore question of considering two views does not arise. He has therefore, found that observations of the Apex Court in 1984 Cri.L.J. 1738 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra) are not attracted. He has therefore, found that observations of the Apex Court in 1984 Cri.L.J. 1738 (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra) are not attracted. In our opinion, considering the totality of the circumstances vis-a-vis the fact that of P.W. 3 Gulab who is Police Constable who had accompanied P.W. 1 Suman to the hospital immediately after the incident, did not report the matter to police much less of murderous attack by the appellants on her; the possibility of tutoring to make dying declaration against the appellants at the time of recording of dying declaration by P.'N. 2 upadhye and statement by P. W. 6 P.S.I. Totawar cannot be overruled. We have already pointed out above that the deceased Rajkanya and P.W. 1 Suman, were facing murder charge. In fact P.W. 1 Suman was later convicted. They can not be said to be innocent village women. 25. Here is the case, where it has been tried to suggest by the prosecution that Sunita was unhappy with her second marriage and she was intending to come to Suresh to join earlier matrimonial home. However. P.W. 1 Suman has stated that she had seen divorce deed between them and thereafter the marriage to deceased Rajkanya was performed. Shantabai was living with Suresh the said Sunita and Suresh have not been examined by the prosecution to prove the conduct of the appellants, prior to the incident. It is not a case of the prosecution that Suresh at any time illtreated deceased Rajkanya for any reason. Marriage of Sunita with her second husband had taken place much prior to the incident. In such circumstances it is difficult to believe that even then appellants would have thought that erstwhile wife would come to Suresh, for being his wife again. Thus there is no apparent animus between the appellants and the said Rajkanya. Therefore, in absence of any positive evidence to show that there was some reason for husband of deceased Rajkanya i.e. Suresh, or Gajanan or for that matter even the appellant no.2 Sangita to ill-treat the said Rajkanya. Prosecution loses its very substratum. There is no specific evidence on record in terms of the explanations to section 498-A to implicate the appellants. If at all first explanation is a attracted it would instead of supporting the case of the prosecution support the defence to lead to inference of her death being suicidal one. Prosecution loses its very substratum. There is no specific evidence on record in terms of the explanations to section 498-A to implicate the appellants. If at all first explanation is a attracted it would instead of supporting the case of the prosecution support the defence to lead to inference of her death being suicidal one. Decisions relied by the learned APP are therefore, not attracted. 26. For the aforesaid reasons appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellants arc held not guilty of the offence charged and therefore acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.