JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J.:- It is yet another case, in which Sanyogta having been married 10 years back and having three children out of the wedlock, had to face the doom’s day allegedly on account of the atrocities committed upon her at the hands of the accused-respondents, namely; Surinder Kumar and Nirmla (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), who had to face trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). However, the trial ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 24.4.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Jallandhar. 2. The prosecution allegations, in brief, are that Surinder Kumar, respondent was married to Sanyogta ten years back. The respondents had often been maltreating and beating her. On 17.3.1997 at about 7.00 a.m, when Sanyogta was present in her house along with her husband Surinder Kumar, Nirmla came, poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her by igniting the match box. Consequently, they fled away by leaving her to burn in flames. She was admitted to the Hospital, where, her brother-in-Iaw (Jija) Subash Chander and brother Kulbir Kumar came, to whom, she narrated the occurrence. On the aforesaid dying declaration made by Sanyogta, the case was registered against the respondents under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Ultimately, on her death within 40 minutes, the offence was converted into 302/34 IPC. 3. The case was investigated. Charge report was submitted. The respondents were charged under Section 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. J.S. Bath (PW1), Gopal Jolly (PW2), Kulbir Kumar (PW3), Narinder Singh (PW4), Sub-Inspector Sarabjit Singh (PW5), Joginder Singh (PW6), Dr. Alok Lalwani (PW7) and Sub-Inspector Harjinder Singh (PW8). 5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), both the respondents denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication. Respondent Surinder Kumar further submitted that he was not present in the house at the time of occurrence and that Sanyogta tried to commit suicide by burning herself in his absence; his brother shifted her to Sacred Heart Hospital, Maqsudan, where she succumbed to her injuries. Respondent Surinder Kumar further submitted that he was not present in the house at the time of occurrence and that Sanyogta tried to commit suicide by burning herself in his absence; his brother shifted her to Sacred Heart Hospital, Maqsudan, where she succumbed to her injuries. Similarly, respondent Nirmla also pleaded that after six months of the marriage, the couple had started living separately in a separate house; the neighbours informed her about the incident, on which she rushed to the place of occurrence and put off the fire with the help of her son, whereafter, her other son, namely Sanjiv Kumar took her to the Hospital for treatment. 6. In defence, the respondents examined Gaurav Kumar (DW1), Sanjiv Kumar (DW2) and Hari Kishan (DW3). Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal. Hence, this appeal. The order of acquittal is based on the following circumstances:­ (1) The dying declaration cannot be attached any credibility; . (2) The presence of Gopal Jolly (PW2) at the spot is doubtful; (3) Kulbir Kumar (PW3) has not supported the prosecution case; and (4) The investigation appears to be tainted. 7. The reposition of confidence in the dying declaration is the paramount consideration before it is used as evidence for basing the conviction of the accused. Though, the prudence requires for corroboration of dying declaration, yet the conviction could be banked upon this sole piece of evidence, provided, the prosecution succeeds in proving the same beyond reasonable doubt. Now, before we lay our hands to evaluate the dying declaration, it requires to be reproduced, which reads as under:­ “Stated that I am resident of village Kishan Garh and have been married to Surinder S/o Om Parkash r/o Kishan Garh about 10 years back. My husband Surinder and my mother-in-law Nirmla used to beat me quite often. At about 7 a.m., today my mother-in-law came to our house and poured kerosene oil from the can on my body by igniting the match-stick. My husband was present there at that time. Just after, they fled away from the spot. My body caught fire and I raised alarm that l had been burnt and had come out in the street on which people brought me to the hospital and got me admitted. In the meantime, my brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Sub ash Chander and my brother Kulbir Kumar too came to whom I narrated woeful story which happened with me. My body caught fire and I raised alarm that l had been burnt and had come out in the street on which people brought me to the hospital and got me admitted. In the meantime, my brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Sub ash Chander and my brother Kulbir Kumar too came to whom I narrated woeful story which happened with me. Statement has been read over and is correct.” 8. The other circumstances, which are emanating from the evidence led by the prosecution are that the respondent Nirmla had two sons, namely; Surinder Kumar (respondent) and Sanjiv Kumar. Both the bothers were living separately. Nirmla was living with Sanjiv Kumar. Even as per dying declaration, she (Nirmla) had come from outside. Authentic evidence in the shape of ‘ration cards’ has come forth in order to establish that both the sons were living separately and respondent Nirmla was living separate from Surinder Kumar. Hari Kishan (DW3), a depot holder has proved the form D-1 (Ex-DC) and testified that the said form transpires that Nirmal was living with his son Sanjiv Kumar. 9. Sanyogta (deceased) has levelled allegations in the dying declarations against the respondents that :- (i) they had often been beating her (ii) Nirmla (respondent) came to their house and poured kerosene oil upon her and burnt her by igniting match box (iii) at that time her husband was present, who ran away from the spot along with Nirmla, (iv) she gave alarm “Jalla Ditta- Jalla Ditta” and came out in the street and then, the people took her to the Hospital (v) her brother-in-law (Jija) Subash Chander and brother Kublir Kumar came in the Hospital, to whom she disclosed the tragic story. 10. While examining the aforesaid facts, as mentioned in the dying declaration in the light of the evidence brought on record, the same appears to be factually incorrect and not reliable. 11. Before evaluating the evidence, it needs to be mentioned that even as per the dying declaration, no part has been attributed to Surinder Kumar in the commission of the crime. The only allegation against Surinder Kumar is that he was present at the house and fled away from there, which factually is also incorrect and even if the same is treated to be correct, even then it is not possible to hold his complicity in the commission of crime. 12. The only allegation against Surinder Kumar is that he was present at the house and fled away from there, which factually is also incorrect and even if the same is treated to be correct, even then it is not possible to hold his complicity in the commission of crime. 12. Now, coming to the dying declaration (Ex.PH), a bare perusal of it, transpires that the space left in between the lines is smooth and almost equal except the last two lines, where it is mentioned as under:­- “........my brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Subash Chander and my brother Kulbir Kumar too came to whom, I narrated woeful story which happened with me. Statement has been read over and is correct.” The aforesaid insertion of two lines in the dying declaration (Ex.PH) smells of some tampering in it in order to project them as witnesses. 13. Now coming to the other fact with regard to the maltreatment met out by the deceased at the hands of the respondents, the prosecution has examined Kulbir Kumar (PW3), the solitary witness to prove this fact, who is stated to be the brother of the deceased. He has not stated even a word regarding the maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of the respondents. Even Gopal Jolly (PW2), who is son of the brother of the deceased has not stated anything to prove this assertion. Neither the parents, nor any other relative has come forward to support the allegation of the cruelty as levelled by the deceased in the dying declaration. 14. The portion of the deposition made by the deceased in the form of dying declaration that Kulbir Kumar (PW3) and Subash Chander had come to the hospital, to whom she narrated the woeful story, does not find support from any evidence. Subash Chander has not been examined, whereas, Kulbir Kumar (PW3) has not supported this allegation, rather he stated that when he reached the Hospital along with Subash Chander, Raghbir Kumar, then his sister was crying and saying that her statement may be got recorded. Had she stated them the woeful story, then Kulbir Kumar must have come forward to say something about the maltreatment by respondents. Evidence of Gopal Jolly (PW2) also does not extend support to the dying declaration in so far as the fleeing away of Surinder Kumar. Had she stated them the woeful story, then Kulbir Kumar must have come forward to say something about the maltreatment by respondents. Evidence of Gopal Jolly (PW2) also does not extend support to the dying declaration in so far as the fleeing away of Surinder Kumar. Dying declaration speaks that Surinder Kumar fled away after Sanyogta (deceased) caught fire, whereas, while appearing in the witness box, he stated that he saw Surinder Kumar coming out from the house with the can meant for kerosene, but he fled away ignoring his request to stop. 15. In the dying declaration, it is mentioned that when her body was in the flames, she raised hue and cry and came into the street, but Gopal Jolly (PW2) does not support this fact also. He says that he entered the house and saw that Sanyogta was burning in the courtyard of the house. Gopal Jolly is also contradictory with regard to the bringing of Sanyogta to the Hospital. He also stated that the neighbours were telling one another that she be removed to the Hospital. 16. The investigation of the case also appears to be tainted one. The presence of Gopal Jolly (PW2) at the spot is doubtful for the reasons as mentioned above and also from her remainipg part of the deposition. He is none else, but son of the brother of the deceased. Had he been present at the spot, he would have made efforts to extinguish the fire and would have asked the deceased’s father’s sister about the circumstances under which he got her and taken her to the hospital, but he instead left her unattended and went to inform the relatives of the deceased at Kartarpur. It is further highlighting that his presence at the Hospital also becomes doubtful as neither Kulbir Kumar (PW3) has stated about his arrival in the house, nor his name finds mention in the dying declaration. His statement sans credence for the material improvements made by him. He deposed before the police that he along with Raghbir Singh and Kulbir Kumar came to the hospital from Kartarpur, but this fact has not been mentioned in the statement (Ex.DA). Similarly, he deposed that when he reached in the street, he saw smoke coming from the house, but this fact does not find mention in the statement (Ex.DA). 17. He deposed before the police that he along with Raghbir Singh and Kulbir Kumar came to the hospital from Kartarpur, but this fact has not been mentioned in the statement (Ex.DA). Similarly, he deposed that when he reached in the street, he saw smoke coming from the house, but this fact does not find mention in the statement (Ex.DA). 17. Above all, Gaurav Kumar (DW1) is the son of the deceased as well as respondent Surinder Kumar. He being about nine years old was aware of the sequence of events leading to the occurrence. He without any fear or favour testified in the Court that the respondents were not responsible for burning Nirmla to death. The evidence further throws dust over the dying declaration as Sanyogta after reaching the Hospital, instead of disclosing the cause of death, went upon to record her statement, also smells of some tutoring behind it. Otherwise, in the normal course of events, Sanyogta in the first instance, in the process of crying, would have preferred to disclose the cause of death, then to ask Kulbir Kumar and Subash Chander to make arrangement for recording her statement. Consequently, we are convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid dying declaration beyond reasonable doubt and the same being a result of tutoring or prompting, could not be placed reliance. Having gone through the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Trial Court, we are unable to differ with the same. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. ----------------