L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. The sole accused in S.c. No.l22 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Prakasam District at Ongole, filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence handed out to him by the trial Court. He was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that he committed the murder of one Kasukurthi Nagamani. The trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, but convicted him for the one under Section 302 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant commenced with the receipt of intimation from the Headquarters hospital, by the Head Constable of Police, Singarayakonda, PW.20, to the effect that the deceased Kasukurthi Nagamani, daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2, was admitted to the hospital with bum injuries. The investigation was taken up and a crime was registered. The dying declaration of Nagamani was recorded by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur, P.W.21. It is marked as Ex.P .31. In her statement to the police, marked as Ex.P.l, she stated that at about 1.00 p.m. on 20.5.1999, her parents went to attend coolie work and her brother, P.W.3 and her sister went outside and the appellant is said to have come to their house when she was alone. He is said to have held her hand and asked her to forget, in the context of their marriage. It was alleged that when the deceased did not agree for what was proposed by the appellant, he poured kerosene, which was available in the house, on the deceased and set her on fire. She is said to have come out of the house in flames, and her neighbour, P.W.5, is said to have extinguished the fire, by placing a gunny bag upon her. 3. The deceased succumbed to injuries thereafter, and the provision in the FIR was altered. Charges were, and the appellant pleaded not guilty. She is said to have come out of the house in flames, and her neighbour, P.W.5, is said to have extinguished the fire, by placing a gunny bag upon her. 3. The deceased succumbed to injuries thereafter, and the provision in the FIR was altered. Charges were, and the appellant pleaded not guilty. Through its judgment, dated 21.10.2005, the trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under the provisions of the Act, but convicted him under Section 302 IPC. 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that this is one of the rare cases where the parents of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution, and even in the evidence of P.W.3, brother of the deceased, there are several contradictions. He contends that P.Ws.3 and 5 have stated that the appellant had poured water to extinguish the fire on the body of the deceased, whereas neither in Ex.P.1 nor in Ex.P.31, there is a reference to this fact. He further contends that the other independent witnesses, who were examined as P.Ws.6 to 12, have been declared hostile and virtually, there was nothing on record to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPc. He further contends that the alleged motive for the appellant to have resorted to such an offence is so unnatural and improbable that it hardly deserves to be believed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that not only there is an eye-witness account of the incident but also there exist two dying declarations, which are consistent with each other. He submits that the prosecution has proved its case through the oral and documentary evidence in the form of the letters that were exchanged between the deceased and the appellant. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P1 to P34 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased; PW.4, a neighbour of PW.1 PWs.7 to 12, who acted as mediators at various stages, during the course of investigation; were declared hostile. PW.13 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body. PW.14 is the Head Master, to whom an answer sheet of the deceased was marked, for comparison of the same with certain letters. PW.13 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body. PW.14 is the Head Master, to whom an answer sheet of the deceased was marked, for comparison of the same with certain letters. PW.15 is the Constable, who first received the information about the occurrence and handed over the dead body of the deceased to the ( hospital. PW.16 is a classmate of the deceased and was declared hostile. PW.l7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who 1 conducted the investigation up to certain, extent. PW.l8 is the witness for the arrest of the appellant and was declared hostile. PW s.19 and 20 are the Police Officials, who conducted investigation, and PW.21 is the Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration, Ex.P .31. PW.22, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, and PW.23 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted the inquest. 7. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that the following questions arise for consideration: (a) Whether the dying declarations marked as Exs.P31 and 34 are trustworthy and truthful? (b) Whether the other evidence on record would support the version of the prosecution? and. (c) Whether there existed any motive for the appellant, to set the deceased on fire? 8. The deceased was a minor girl of 14 years, and by the time the incident took place she was studying 9th class. The appellant is a resident of the same locality. That the deceased died out of bum injuries, is a matter of record and there is no doubt about it. The whole dispute is as to how the deceased received the bum injuries. 9. As observed earlier, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and P.W.3 is her brother. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, on the date of the incident, they went on coolie work and P.W.6 same to them and informed that their laughter had fallen down, with bum injuries, near his house. They have also stated that by the time they came, their daughter was n a condition to speak, but they did not verify the reasons for her receiving bum injuries. Both of them said that they have shifted the deceased to the hospital. These two witnesses were declared hostile and nothing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution. 10. Both of them said that they have shifted the deceased to the hospital. These two witnesses were declared hostile and nothing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution. 10. It is to be noted that the information about the bum injuries to the deceased was said to have received by PWs.1 and 2 through P.W.6. P.W.3 is one of the witnesses, not declared hostile. He said that the deceased and the appellant were quarrelling in her house and in the meanwhile, he went to the house of P.W.S to watch T.Y. According to him, the deceased came out with bum injuries and P.W.S had put the flames off. He has also stated that the appellant poured water on the deceased. He stated that he left the place of occurrence and went to his parents to inform about the same. Therefore, there is a clear contradiction as to the source of information to P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, this witness did not speak about the presence of P.W.6 at the occurrence. P.WA was declared hostile. P.W.S stated that he has seen the deceased with burn injuries before his house. He covered her with gunny bag and before that the appellant poured water upon the deceased. He said to have sent P.W.3 to inform P.Ws.1 and 2 about the occurrence. 11. On the first aspect, we commence the discussion with the premise that if the dying declaration of a deceased has an element of truth and probability, it can constitute the basis for convicting the accused, even in the absence of any corroborative evidence. At the same time, the dying declarations must be subjected to close scrutiny, since the maker thereof, would not be available for verification. 12. In the instant case, soon after the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, for treatment, intimation was given to PW.21, for recording the dying declaration. After taking necessary precautions, and ensuring that the deceased was in a condition to give a statement, he recorded EX.P31. The relevant portion of the declaration reads as under: "Myself and Govindu loved each other. I am aged 14 years. He is aged 18 years. He caught hold me, pour the kerosene upon me and lit fire. He said that he will not marry me, asked to forget him. The relevant portion of the declaration reads as under: "Myself and Govindu loved each other. I am aged 14 years. He is aged 18 years. He caught hold me, pour the kerosene upon me and lit fire. He said that he will not marry me, asked to forget him. As I refused to forget him, he poured kerosene and lit fire in the midst of day, in our house. By that time none were present." 13. This statement was recorded between 4:40 and 5:00 p.m., on 20.5.1999. Half-an-hour thereafter, the Head Constable of the Police Station, PW.20, recorded another declaration of the deceased, marked as Ex.P.1. The reason for such a recording is not immediately forthcoming. However, in Ex.P.1, there is substantial elaboration of the incident. The deceased repeated, what is stated by her in EX.P.31 as motive, but she has supplemented certain other facts. It cannot be said that there is any material contradiction between Exs.P.1 and 31. The question as to whether the motive attributed to the appellant would constitute the basis for him to have resorted to such a crime; would be considered at a later stage. 14. So far as the truthfulness 'of the dying declarations is concerned, it needs to be observed that the deceased did not reveal anything about the cause of the bum injuries, to her parents, PWs.1 and 2, or to PW.5, who is the person said to have extinguished the fire by covering her with a gunny bag. PWs.1 and 2 categorically stated that by the time they came to the scene of occurrence, on receiving the information, they found the deceased with bum injuries, and that she was in a position to speak. According to them, the deceased did not inform them of any reasons. So is the case with PW.5. 15. PWs.3 and 5 categorically stated that the appellant was very much at the scene of occurrence and it was he, who brought the water in a bucket and poured upon the deceased. In fact, the covering of the body of the deceased with a gunny bag by PW.5 was subsequent to the pouring of water by the appellant. This material fact was, however, omitted by the deceased. Further, the deceased did not speak about the presence of her brother, PW.3, in both her statements. The entire case of prosecution virtually rested upon the evidence of PW.3. This material fact was, however, omitted by the deceased. Further, the deceased did not speak about the presence of her brother, PW.3, in both her statements. The entire case of prosecution virtually rested upon the evidence of PW.3. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Exs.P.31 and P.34 are trustworthy. 16. As regards the second question, it needs to be seen that majority of the I witnesses, including the parents of the deceased were declared hostile. One important aspect to be noted is that PWs.1 and 2 stated that they have received the intimation about the incident through PW.6. This is in total variation with the evidence of PWs.3 and 5. While PW.5 said that he asked PW.3 to go and inform PWs.1 and 2 about the incident, the latter, on the other hand, stated that he went and informed his parents about the same. It is also important to note that PW.3 did not speak about the presence of PW.6 at all. It has already been pointed out that substantial number of independent witnesses have been declared hostile. The evidence of other witnesses is at variance with each other. Further, none of the witnesses have made an attempt to verify from the deceased, as to the manner in which she received the bum injuries. It is improbable for the accused, to have gone to the house of the deceased, poured kerosene, and thereafter set her on fire. If, in fact, his intention was to kill the deceased, he would not have been the first person to pour water and extinguish the fire. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there exists any reliable evidence, to convict the appellant. 17. Coming to the third question, the deceased and the appellant were students of relatively young age. The prosecution alleged that there was love affair between both of them, and the motive for the appellant to have caused the death of the deceased was, that the latter did not agree to forget the former. We are conscious of the fact that it cannot be laid with mathematical precision, as to what should be the nature of motive for one, to commit an offence. It would depend upon the perception of the individual and the nature of his reaction to an event. Under the same set of facts, different persons may act differently. We are conscious of the fact that it cannot be laid with mathematical precision, as to what should be the nature of motive for one, to commit an offence. It would depend upon the perception of the individual and the nature of his reaction to an event. Under the same set of facts, different persons may act differently. This much, however, can be said that the motive, which is attributed as a cause, for the accused, to have resorted to the crime must, in the evaluation of an ordinary person, be such that, it can constitute a reasonable basis for commission of crime. Though the degrees may vary, the nexus as such must exist. 18. The motive attributed to the appellant for alleged killing of the deceased is that she did not agree to forget him. Even from the record, it is evident that the intimacy between the deceased and the appellant leading to a love affair, started one month before the incident. The deceased herself was hesitant to propose to the appellant, since they were sister and brother, by courtesy, as mentioned in Ex.P.28, a letter said to have been written by her. Assuming that the appellant did not reciprocate the gesture of the deceased, one hardly expects him to have resorted to such a heinous crime. It is unthinkable that the appellant got enraged only because the deceased did not forget him. If he did not like the deceased, he would have refused to respond and be done with it. We are not at all satisfied that there existed a motive, worth its name, for the appellant to have resorted to the acts attributed to him. 19. F or the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence against the appellant. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is needed in any other case.