ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The sole appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 1000; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was also convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs 500; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The appellant was further convicted under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, six months and six months respectively, apart from fine. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court upheld the convictions. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 3. The occurrence in the present case is said to have taken place on 27-10-1996, at 8.00 p.m. in the house of the appellant, who was husband of the victim lady, Veena. Immediately after the occurrence, the victim was removed to hospital where at 8.40 p.m. on the same day, Hariram Bhandari, Inspector of Police recorded dying declaration, which has been marked as Ext. P-19, in which she has clearly stated that she received burn injuries because of accidental fire. Hariram Bhandari, Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement, is dead and the dying declaration has been proved by PW 14 (Smt Anasuya A.), who is another investigating officer. This witness has stated that during the course of investigation, she had seen this dying declaration. This Ext. P-19 is the earliest \ ersion of the occurrence. We have been taken through Ext. P-19 and the evidence of PW 14. We do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the aforesaid dying declaration, which is the earliest version in point of time. 4. Thereafter in the night between 29-10-1996 and 30-10-1996, it has been alleged that the victim made dying declaration before her mother PW 2 (Vasanthi) and cousin PW 9 (Baby @ Leelavathi) in the intensive care unit of a the Hospital. The victim's oral dying declaration has been disclosed for the first time on 31-10-1996 in the first information report, Ext. Thereafter in the night between 29-10-1996 and 30-10-1996, it has been alleged that the victim made dying declaration before her mother PW 2 (Vasanthi) and cousin PW 9 (Baby @ Leelavathi) in the intensive care unit of a the Hospital. The victim's oral dying declaration has been disclosed for the first time on 31-10-1996 in the first information report, Ext. P-5, in which father of the victim, PW 1 (Vishwanath B. Kottari) stated that his wife i.e. PW 2 met the victim in the hospital and she stated before her that it was the harassment meted out by her husband which is the cause of burn injuries sustained by her. Nowhere in the first information report has it been stated by the victim that her husband had either set her on fire or was in any manner responsible for the same. The mother of the victim, who was examined as PW 2 stated in her evidence in court that her daughter told her that nobody came to rescue her when she was suffering burn injuries and the door of the kitchen was bolted from outside and her husband did not open the same, though he was present. The statement of this witness that husband remained outside after bolting the kitchen and did not open the same is also falsified by the evidence of PWs 16 and 17 (Usha and Sunil Kumar), who are the neighbours and immediately when they arrived there, they found the victim and her husband both in the verandah of the house, whereafter she was shifted to the hospital. The appellant undoubtedly suffered 20% burn injuries and was admitted in the same hospital and was discharged after ten days. Therefore, the statement of PW 2 that the victim told her that the husband did not open the door becomes highly doubtful. That apart, this statement is being made for the first time in the Sessions Court in the year 200 I i.e. after five years of the occurrence. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW 2. The other witness is PW 9 and in her statement, she tried to make improvement in the prosecution case and stated that the victim stated before her that by locking the doors from both sides, her husband set her on fire. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW 2. The other witness is PW 9 and in her statement, she tried to make improvement in the prosecution case and stated that the victim stated before her that by locking the doors from both sides, her husband set her on fire. This story that the appellant set his wife on, fire has been disclosed for the first time after five years in the evidence of PW 9, which is neither corroborated by the first information report nor by PW 2. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court was not justified in upholding the convictions of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.