JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Mr Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The appellants herein, the son and mother, were tried by the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, at Tirupati, in S.C.No.97 of 2002, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. Through its judgment dated 18- 10-2005, the trial Court held the appellants not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A, but convicted them for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. It sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal. 2. The case presented by the prosecution before the trial Court was as under: A-1 was married to one Lakshmi Devi, about one-and-half years, prior to 30-10- 2001. Alleging that A-1 was harassing and suspecting her fidelity, Lakshmi Devi, went to the house of her parents', one week prior to 30-10-2001. On 29- 10-2001, A-1 went to the house of his in-laws, convinced Lakshmi Devi and brought her to his native place in Chittoor District, stating that he would look after her, well. 3. At about 5:00 a.m., on 30-10-2001, A-1 poured kerosene on Lakshmi Devi and set her on fire. She woke up and removed the burning clothes. When she tried to go out, A-2 beat her and prevented her from going out. In the meanwhile, the neighbours gathered and they chided A-1. Subsequently, A-1 removed Lakshmi Devi to hospital at Tirupati. On receiving the information, about the incident, the Police recorded the statement of Lakshmi Devi and registered a case. Requisition was given to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, who in turn, recorded a declaration on the same day. While undergoing treatment, in the hospital, Lakshmi Devi died, on 15-11-2001. The jprovisions of law in the F.I.R. was altered and investigation was undertaken. Inquest on the dead body, as well as postmortem were conducted. The cause of the death was reported to be the burning injuries. Necessary charges were framed, and the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and imposed sentence of punishment of imprisonment of life. + 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that there are three dying declarations, recorded from the deceased, and several inconsistencies exist in them. The trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and imposed sentence of punishment of imprisonment of life. + 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that there are three dying declarations, recorded from the deceased, and several inconsistencies exist in them. He submits that the dying declarations, in turn, are at variance with the alleged extra judicial confession, said to have been made by A-1, to PW-3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the benefit of doubt, arising out of the serious inconsistencies, deserves to be extended to the accused. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that all dying declarations are uniform and consistent on material aspects. He submits that A-1 himself confessed to PW-3, the maternal uncle of the deceased, about the commission of the offence, and the judgment of the trial Court does not warrant interference. 6. The case against the accused rests on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eye-witness account, to the occurrence. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13, and filed Exs.P-1 to P-16. PW-1 is the neighbour of the house of A-1 and A-2, and she was declared hostile. So is the case with PW-2. The maternal uncle of the deceased, PW-3 spoke about the extra judicial confession, said to have been made to him, by A-1. His evidence is mostly about the involvement of A-1, that too, on the basis of the information received by him. PW-4 is the brother of the deceased. He has stated about the alleged harassment caused to the deceased, and he did not speak of any direct knowledge about the incident. PW-5 is a witness to the Mahazarnama, prepared by the S.I. of police, and PW-6 is a witness to the inquest. PW-7 is the witness for the arrest, and alleged confession of the accused. PW-8 is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem. PW-9 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted the inquest. The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-10. PW-11 is the S.I. of Police, who recorded the statement of the deceased, and registered the F.I.R. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, who recorded the dying declaration, was examined as PW-13. On behalf of the defence, the plea of alibi, in respect of A-1, was taken, and DW-1 was examined in this regard. 7. PW-11 is the S.I. of Police, who recorded the statement of the deceased, and registered the F.I.R. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, who recorded the dying declaration, was examined as PW-13. On behalf of the defence, the plea of alibi, in respect of A-1, was taken, and DW-1 was examined in this regard. 7. The documentary evidence before the trial Court comprised of the statements recorded by the Police, as PWs 1 and 2, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2, Mahazarnama, for the scene of offence, Ex.P-3; inquest report, Ex.P-4; post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-5; and wound certificate, Ex.P-7. 8. The statements from the deceased were recorded on three occasions. Soon after receiving intimation about the incident, the S.I. of Police, PW-11, recorded the statement at 7:00 a.m., in the village itself. It is marked as Ex.P-11. The same constituted the basis for registering the F.I.R., Ex.P-14. On noticing that the condition of the patient was serious, requisition was given to the Magistrate, to record the dying declaration. PW-13 reached the Area Hospital, Srikalahasti, at 8:30 a.m. Before his arrival, the Police recorded the statement of the deceased at 8:00 a.m., and the same is marked as Ex.P-9. PW-13 commenced recording of the statement at 8:40 a.m., duly disclosing his identity. The condition of the patient, at the time of examination, was certified to be conscious and coherent by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, of the Area Hospital. This dying declaration is marked as Ex.P.16. 9. Before the scrutiny of the evidence, adduced by the prosecution is undertaken, it is necessary to deal with the plea of alibi, urged on behalf of the accused. The incident took place at around 5:00 a.m. The deceased stated that the A-1 poured kerosene and set her on fire. DW-1 was examined, to establish that A-1 was not in the house at that time. The witness stated that he knows the accused and the deceased. According to him, he was proceeding to his agricultural land at 5:00 a.m., along with the bullocks, crossing the house of the accused. He is said to have noticed that A-2 was moving in front of her house in desperation, and on seeing him, he asked her to call her son, A-1, from the agricultural lands, situated at a distance of half-a-kilometer from the house. He is said to have noticed that A-2 was moving in front of her house in desperation, and on seeing him, he asked her to call her son, A-1, from the agricultural lands, situated at a distance of half-a-kilometer from the house. Accordingly, DW-1 is said to have reached the fields, informed A-1, that his mother wanted him to come urgently, and thereafter, he too accompanied him to the house. There, he is said to have seen large gathering, and the deceased sitting on the ground with burn injuries. Subsequently, A-1 is said to have shifted the deceased to the hospital. He is also said to have noticed a kerosene stove, falling on the ground in burning condition, and that when he went to the hospital, he found the deceased alright and her burns healing. 10. In his cross-examination, DW.1 stated that in addition to A-2, some other persons were also moving in front of the house, but he cannot reveal the names of those persons. He denied the suggestion that if, in fact, he proceeded in front of the house, he would have heard the cries of the accused. At another stretch, he said that 4 or 5 persons were inside the house, whereas A-2 alone was outside. While in the chief-examination, he said that he went to the fields, in the cross-examination he stated that he went towards the field of A- 1, and met him. As to the flames of the kerosene stove, noticed by him, he said that no one tried to extinguish it. 11. From the tenor of this witness, it is difficult to believe his evidence. If an individual receives burn injuries, whether accidentally or caused by someone, there will be cries from him, and it is unnatural that DW-1 did not hear the same. Further, there is a clear contradiction in the evidence of this witness, about the presence of others. At one stage, he said that they were outside, and at another, he stated that they were inside the house. Being the resident, at a place separated 4 or 5 houses from the scene of occurrence, he is supposed to be acquainted with the neighbours, who gathered there. Further, none of the persons, who were said to have gathered, soon after the occurrence, were examined, to prove this plea. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of alibi. 12. Further, none of the persons, who were said to have gathered, soon after the occurrence, were examined, to prove this plea. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of alibi. 12. The relationship of the deceased with A-1 is not disputed. The deceased stated that the first wife of A-1 left him, unable to bear the harassment, and she too left her to the house of her parents, due to the harassment caused by A-1. She further stated that one day before the date of occurrence, A-1 came to her mother's house, promised to treat her well, convinced her parents; and brought her to his house. 13. It has already been pointed out that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The first version as to the incident is contained in Ex.P-11, the statement recorded by PW-11 from the deceased. In this, she stated that when she was asleep on 30-10-2001, at 5:00 a.m., both the accused poured kerosene, and set her on fire. She further stated that when she tried to come out of the house, A-2 has prevented her by standing at the door. She is said to have removed the burning clothes and even by that time, she received burn injuries on her two legs and on the backside. She is also said to have narrated the occurrence to the persons, who gathered there, and only when all of them admonished the accused, that he has shifted her to the hospital in an autorickshaw. 14. An hour later, PW-11 recorded one more statement of the deceased. This is some- what brief in content and it is marked as Ex.P-9. This is in slight variation with Ex.P-11. The deceased stated that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire, while she was sleeping. She stated that her mother-in-law beat her. The third declaration recorded by PW-13, the Magistrate, at 8:40 a.m. The answer given by the deceased, to the question put by PW-13 is brief and it reads as under: "My husband used to consume liquor heavily. When I questioned, he used to beat me. Last Saturday, I went to my father. He came and promised that he would look after me well and brought me to my mother-in- law's house yesterday. Night done this". In this, no specific acts are attributed, but indirectly the accusation is against A-1. 15. When I questioned, he used to beat me. Last Saturday, I went to my father. He came and promised that he would look after me well and brought me to my mother-in- law's house yesterday. Night done this". In this, no specific acts are attributed, but indirectly the accusation is against A-1. 15. If the three dying declarations, referred to above, are compared with each other, one thing, which exists, in common, is that the deceased squarely accused her husband, A-1, of pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. The presence of A-1 at the seen of offence cannot be doubted. 16. Coming to the corroborative evidence, we have the deposition of PW-4. This, however is at variance with the evidence of PW-3, who is said to have settled, some disputes and advised the deceased and accused to live amicably, when both of them approached him. According to this witness, the deceased is said to have informed him in the hospital that A-1 poured kerosene and set her on fire. PW- 4, the brother of the deceased, who spoke to the manner in which the deceased and the A-1 came to marry each other. He is said to have come to the hospital where the deceased was admitted, soon after the incident, and she is said to have informed them that both the accused have poured kerosene and set her on fire. 17. No allegation was made against A-2. Therefore, one thing, which runs common to the oral and documentary evidence, is that A-1 is responsible for causing burn injuries to the deceased. 18. So far as A-2 is concerned, there is some inconsistency among the dying declarations, as well as the oral evidence. It has already been pointed out that though in Ex.P-11 the deceased attributed the injuries to her mother-in- law, A-2, in Ex.P-9, the only allegation made against her mother-in-law, is that, she beat her. It was not alleged that A-2 had played role in setting her on fire. Ex.P-1, does not contain make any allegation against A-2. While PW-4 spoke to the involvement of both the accused, PW-3 stated that the deceased complained to him, against A-1 alone, as to the person, who set her on fire. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt deserves to be extended to A-2. 19. We are convinced that the evidence against A-1 is consistent and cogent. While PW-4 spoke to the involvement of both the accused, PW-3 stated that the deceased complained to him, against A-1 alone, as to the person, who set her on fire. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt deserves to be extended to A-2. 19. We are convinced that the evidence against A-1 is consistent and cogent. Apart from there being as many as three dying declarations, there is the corroborative evidence of PWs 3 and 4, and the medical evidence. All the three dying declarations were property explained by the persons, who recorded them. No procedural illegality or infirmity is pointed out, in recording them. Except for slight variations, as to the involvement of A-2, the entire evidence is consistent, as to the role played by A-1. 20. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part, confirming the conviction and sentence against A-1, but setting aside the conviction and sentence against A-2, in S.C.No.97 of 2002, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Tirupati. Accused No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in any other case.