JUDGMENT : K. J. ROHEE, J 1. The State has challenged acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.3/1982 decided on 30.8.1991. 2. The case relates to the unfortunate death of a newly wed bride within five days of her marriage. 3. Nemichand Hirachand Singhvi (PW5) is a businessman at village Nerparsopant, district Yavatmal. He was having four sons namely Shantilal (PW1), Dharamchand, Rikabchand, Vijaychand (PW4) and a daughter namely Chanda (the deceased). 4. Nathmal Chordiya is a businessman at Arvi, district Wardha. He is having a three storeyed house on the ground floor of which his hardware shop is located. On the first floor there is a drawing hall and a kitchen and on the second floor there are bed rooms and toilets. Nathmal has two sons namely Dilip (the accused) and Ramesh and a daughter namely Asha. His elder son Dilip (the accused) was married so also his daughter Asha. Nathmal, his wife, sons and daughter-in-law were residing jointly in the said house. 5. The marriage of Chanda (aged about 18 years) was settled with Ramesh, the younger son of Nathmal by giving sumptuous dowry. On 15.6.1981 the marriage was solemnized at Nerparsopant. After the marriage party arrived from Arvi to Nerparsopant, Dilip and others started creating scene by alleging that the arrangements were not proper. However, the marriage ceremony was over smoothly and the marriage party left for Arvi with Chanda (the bride). PW3 Kamlabai Fursule, the maid at the house of Chanda's parents, also accompanied Chanda to Arvi and stayed with her. On 19.6.1981 Kamlabai was sent back to Nerparsopant by telling her that a message was received from Chanda's parents to send back Kamlabai. On the same day PW4 Vijaychand reached Arvi for bringing Chanda to Nerparsopant as per the custom. PW4 Vijaychand received a very cool reception at the matrimonial house of Chanda. He was informed of the dissatisfaction of Chanda's in-laws about the inadequate dowry and inconvenience caused to marriage party at Nerparsopant. PW4 Vijaychand was asked to go back to Nerparsopant and he was told that Chanda would be sent after wards. Accordingly PW4 Vijaychand had to return to Nerparsopant without taking Chanda with him. 6. On the next day i.e. on 20.6.1981 in the afternoon and blunt rounded object. PW4 Vijaychand was asked to go back to Nerparsopant and he was told that Chanda would be sent after wards. Accordingly PW4 Vijaychand had to return to Nerparsopant without taking Chanda with him. 6. On the next day i.e. on 20.6.1981 in the afternoon and blunt rounded object. He opined that the probable cause of death was shock resulted by extensive burns. 7. It seems that after transfer from P.S. Rajapeth (Amravati), Crime No. 199/91 under section 302/34 was registered at P.S. Arvi against Chanda's father-in-law and his sons. Spot panchanama and various seizure memos were prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Several investigating officers were changed. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Dilip (the present respondent) and his father Nathmal under section 306/34 of IPC before JMFC Arvi on 20.11.1981 alleging that Chanda committed suicide by burning herself and that Dilip and his father Nathmal abetted her to commit suicide. 8. JMFC Arvi committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Wardha. On hearing the prosecution and the accused persons, the Sessions Judge discharged Nathmal and framed charge against Dilip under Section 302 of IPC. 9. Dilip as well as the State challenged the order of the Sessions Judge by preferring separate revisions before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the revision preferred by Dilip, quashed the charge framed against him, discharged him and dismissed the revision filed by the State. 10. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State as well as by Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad. In (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 715 (Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad .vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordiya and another) the Supreme Court allowed the appeals only against Dilip, dismissed the appeals against Nathmal and confirmed his discharge. Thereafter the trial proceeded only against Dilip. 11. In support of the charge against Dilip the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. Out of them PW5 Nemichand Hirachand Singhvi, PW1 Shantilal Nemichand Singhvi, PW4 Vijaychand Nemichand Singhvi, PW6 Bhavarilal Fulchand Kothari, PW9 Ramesh Surajmal Singhvi and PW7 Nandkishore Balmukund Agrawal deposed about demand of valuable articles by the in-laws of Chanda at the time of marriage and soon after marriage as well as their displeasure about the alleged mismanagement at the time of marriage. PW2 Ramdas Baliram Deulkar deposed about having seen Chanda burning on the second floor and shouting for help and having seen Dilip coming down from the second floor. PW8 Ashok Mahadeorao Shirbhate and PW12 Sitaram Tejmal Baccha deposed about oral dying declaration by Chanda in the hospital at Amravati to the effect that she was burnt. PW13 Vinayak Janardhan Patil, a rockel vendor, deposed about purchase of rockel by the servant of Dilip on the date of incident of burning. 12. The defence of the accused was that of simple denial. According to him he was falsely implicated. The accused examined three defence witnesses. DW1 HC Shriram Pajankar, DW2 Dr. Bagde, the then Medical Officer, Municipal Hospital, Arvi and DW3 Bhagat, the then Naib Tahsildar, Arvi. They deposed that on 20.6.1981 at 2 p.m. They were called to the house of Nathmal Chordiya where a mob had gathered. They were taken to a room on second floor where Chanda was lying in burnt condition. Chanda made a dying declaration (Exh.192) to the questions put to her by PSI Lal that “while preparing tea on Gas -stove she was accidentally burnt; that nobody else was there; that she shouted loudly and rushed to the upper storey”. 13. The learned trial Judge framed only one point as to whether the prosecution proved that Dilip killed Chanda by setting her on fire at his residential house on 20.6.1981 at 2 p.m. and it was answered in the negative. The trial Judge observed that the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the link in the chain of circumstances is not joined though as many as four investigating officers conducted investigation into the matter. There is no corroboration to the testimony of PW2 Ramdas Deaulkar as Bhaurao Bhikaji Katankar and Ballu were not examined. The trial Court further pointed out that there is no reliable evidence about the dying declaration alleged to have been made by Chanda while in the hospital at Amravati. The learned trial Judge opined that the dying declaration of Chanda (Exh.192) might be true. In the result the trial Judge acquitted the accused. 14. On hearing the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the accused, we passed an order on 5.4.2007 observing that some material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and were given up. In the result the trial Judge acquitted the accused. 14. On hearing the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the accused, we passed an order on 5.4.2007 observing that some material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and were given up. Even the case diary was not produced before the trial Judge as it was not traceable. In order to prevent miscarriage of justice, we directed the trial Judge under Section 391 of Cr. P. C. to record the evidence of the witnesses from Arvi who were cited in the charge sheet and remit the record to this Court within six months. 15. Accordingly the learned trial Judge examined PWs 19 to 38. They include PW20 Bhaurao Bhikaji Katankar, PW21 Mansingh Fattemal Chordiya, PW22 Ramesh Nathmal Chordiya, PW23 Sunita w/o Dilip Chordiya, PW24 Chandrasing Harising Chordiya, PW30 Nandu Marotrao Diwani, PW31 Atmaram Bhadusa Gulhane and PW35 Eknath Raghobaji Meshram who saw Chanda burning and who rushed to extinguish the fire. After receipt of the additional evidence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, we have heard Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the State and and Mr. A.S. Manohar, Advocate for the accused. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of the trial with the assistance of the learned counsel. 16. The learned APP vehemently urged that there is a chain of circumstances which has been proved by the prosecution which indicates the guilt of the accused. The learned APP submitted that the alleged dying declaration (Exh.192) stating about accidental burning of Chanda , is a document falsely prepared at the instance of the accused and his father and that no reliance can be placed thereon. The learned APP submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has arrived at a wrong conclusion. According to him the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from perversity. The same is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence with which he is charged. 17. The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand urged that there is no direct evidence in the present case and that it is based on circumstantial evidence only. The same is liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence with which he is charged. 17. The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand urged that there is no direct evidence in the present case and that it is based on circumstantial evidence only. The circumstances put forth by the prosecution are not proved, the chain of circumstances is not complete and that circumstances do not lead us to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused and they are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. He submitted that absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused is required in order to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. He further submitted that when two views are possible on the evidence adduced before the Court, the one that is favourable to the accused needs to be accepted. He cited a few cases in order to highlight appreciation of evidence in case of judgment against acquittal: i) In 1981 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 20- Dharam Pal .vs. State of U.P., it is held, “It is well settled that even if the High Court may not have agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, if the view taken by the trial Court was reasonably possible, that would be no ground to reverse the order of acquittal.” ii) In 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2635 (SC) Kunju Muhammed and Khumani .vs. State of Kerala, it is held, “Order of acquittal can be interfered with only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record.” iii) In 2003 Cri.L.J. 3639(Bom) State of Maharashtra .vs. Haribhau Krishnaji Deshmukh, it is held, “In our opinion, the scope and extent of powers of the High Court under Section 379 of the 1978 Code is well defined and has been disclosed by the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court of India. In our opinion, the consistent and well settled law on the point is that the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only when: (1) The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse or the conclusion drawn by it cannot be drawn on any view of the evidence. (2) Where the application of law is improperly done. (3) Where there is substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record. (2) Where the application of law is improperly done. (3) Where there is substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record. (4) The view taken by the acquitting Court is impermissible on the evidence on record. (5) If the order of acquittal is allowed to stand it will result in the miscarriage of justice.” (iv) In 2004 Cri.L. J. 640 Ramanand Yadav .vs. Prabhu Nath Jha, it is held, “This Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom.” (v) In AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3754 State of Rajasthan .vs. Bhanwar Singh, it is held, “It is well settled that in a case where two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of conviction, the higher Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal impugned before it.” 18. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the wife of the accused, the brother of the accused (namely the husband of deceased Chanda) have been examined by the prosecution after the case was sent back to the trial Court. They were not declared hostile. Their evidence is binding on the prosecution and that the accused can rely on their evidence. The learned counsel for the accused lastly submitted that suspicion however strong does not take place of proof and what is required is legal and not moral conviction. He submitted that it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse so as to permit interference in the same by this Court. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. First point to be considered is whether Chanda met with homicidal death as contended by the prosecution or accidental death as suggested by the defence. It is not disputed that Chanda died of shock due to 90% burns. The P.M. Report (Exh.160) shows that in addition to the burn injuries, there were three contusions-one below left scapula, second below right scapula and third on front of mid left thigh. The P.M. Report shows that the contusions were caused due to hard and blunt rounded object. If Chanda had died of burns only , there was no reason for contusions on her body. This shows that she might have been beaten before burning. 20. The P.M. Report shows that the contusions were caused due to hard and blunt rounded object. If Chanda had died of burns only , there was no reason for contusions on her body. This shows that she might have been beaten before burning. 20. The alleged dying declaration (Exh.192) of Chanda shows that while she was preparing tea on gas-stove in the kitchen, her saree accidentally caught fire, as there was nobody else in the kitchen, she shouted loudly and rushed to upper story. Had this version been true, some traces of pieces of burn saree etc. should have been found in the kitchen. However, the spot panchanama (Exh.116) shows that nothing of that sort was found in the kitchen. The burn pieces of saree were found in the bathroom on the second floor. This clearly shows that the incident of burning did not happen in the kitchen but in the bathroom of her bed-room, rendering the story of catching accidental fire in kitchen false and untrustworthy. Kerosene residue on her clothes found in C.A. Report negates the story of burning due to gas. The accused who has admitted his presence in the house at the time of the incident, has not explained as to how contusions were found on the body of Chanda. It is thus apparent that Chanda must have met with homicidal death. 21. This leads us to examine whether the accused is involved in the homicidal death of Chanda. As stated earlier, there is no direct evidence to the incident of burning obviously because the incident took place inside the bathroom and family members only were present in the house and no outsider was present. 22. According to the learned APP there was a motive for the accused to kill Chanda. In this respect the learned APP invited our attention to the testimony of PW5 Nemichand Hirachand Singhvi (father of deceased Chanda); PW1 Shantilal Nemichand Singhvi and PW4 Vijaychand Nemichand Singhvi (brothers of deceased Chanda); PW6 Bhavarilal Fulchand Kothari and PW9 Ramesh Surajmal Singhvi (relatives of deceased Chanda) and PW7 Nandkishore Balmukund Agrawal (the neighbour of accused Dilip). Their evidence shows that since the settlement of marriage, the father-in-law of Chanda demanded valuable articles. Their evidence shows that since the settlement of marriage, the father-in-law of Chanda demanded valuable articles. As the demand was not fulfilled to the fullest extent, the marriage party on arrival for the marriage at Nerparsopant created scene by complaining that no proper arrangements for their stay and meals was made by the father of Chanda. The accused and his father had a leading role in complaining about the alleged mis-management and inconvenience caused to them. In this respect it is important to note that during crossexamination PW5 Nemichand Singhvi admitted that there was no bargain (agreement) of dowry. Nathmal (father of accused) did not make demand of particular quantum of dowry. He (PW5 Nemichand) did not assent for it. PW5 Nemichand voluntarily proposed to present articles worth Rs.35,000/- to Chanda and her husband. This is corroborated by PW6 Bhavarilal Kothari who admitted during crossexamination that there were no negotiations of giving and taking of dowry. PW7 Nandkishore Agrawal also reiterated that no talk of giving and taking dowry in the proposed marriage was settled in his presence. It is not unknown that though at the time of settlement of marriage the bridegroom party does not put forth demand of dowry, it may after settlement of marriage raise new demands and may insist for compliance of those demands. The possibility of such happening in the present circumstances cannot be overlooked. 23. The evidence of PW4 Vijaychand Singhvi shows that when on 19.6.1981 he had gone to Arvi to bring Chanda to Nerparsopant, he received a very cool reception at Chanda's matrimonial house. The accused and his father reiterated their demands for silver ornaments also expressed their resentment over the alleged lack of proper arrangement of marriage party at the time of marriage at Nerparsopant. They did not accept the presents such as steel glasses brought by Vijaychand. On some pretext Chanda was not sent with Vijaychand. While Vijaychand was leaving their house, the accused and his father said that Vijaychand may not see Chanda again. 24. The evidence of PW3 Kamlabai Fursule shows that when she accompanied Chanda after Chanda's marriage to Arvi and stayed at her house, Chanda was not treated properly by her in-laws and others. All the while Chanda was being taunted about the mismanagement in entertaining the marriage party and in not giving valuable articles. 24. The evidence of PW3 Kamlabai Fursule shows that when she accompanied Chanda after Chanda's marriage to Arvi and stayed at her house, Chanda was not treated properly by her in-laws and others. All the while Chanda was being taunted about the mismanagement in entertaining the marriage party and in not giving valuable articles. The accused even did not treat Kamlabai well and tried to humiliate her. On 19.6.1981 PW Kamlabai was sent back to Nerparsopant by telling her falsely that the father of Chanda called her back. We see no reason to disbelieve all these witnesses. Thus there appears a motive for the in-laws of Chanda including the accused to take revenge for nonfulfillment of their demand for valuable articles. 25. The next circumstance which is put forth by the learned APP is that the accused was seen coming down from the staircase of the second floor when Chanda was burning. In this respect reliance is placed on the testimony of PW2 Ramdas Deulkar. The testimony of PW2 Ramdas shows that in 1981 he used to sell leaves plates (Patravali) in front of the house of Nathmal till noon and afternoon he used to sell those leaves plates behind the house of Nathmal. On the date of incident at about 1.45 – 2 p.m. , he was selling leaves plates behind the house of Nathmal. There were 2-4 customers at his shop. The wife of Ramesh was seen in the gallery of second floor of the house of Nathmal moving here and there in burnt condition and shouting for help. At that time accused Dilip was seen coming down from second floor by the staircase. PW2 Ramdas shouted inviting attention of the people for saving the burning girl. Bhaurao (PW20) and Ballu entered the house of Nathnmal through back side door of the house. PW2 Ramdas noticed Bhaurao and Ballu extinguishing the fire. At that time PW2 Ramdas was at a distance of 40-50 ft. towards north (back side) of the house of Nathmal. 26. During cross-examination PW2 Ramdas stated that Police recorded his first statement 15 days after the incident of burning. His second statement was recorded after 2-4 days after recording the first statement. He further stated that he voluntarily did not approach the Police and did not disclose that he noticed Dilip coming down from the second floor of his house by the staircase. His second statement was recorded after 2-4 days after recording the first statement. He further stated that he voluntarily did not approach the Police and did not disclose that he noticed Dilip coming down from the second floor of his house by the staircase. He further stated that statements of himself, Bhaurao and Ballu were recorded on the same day. He further stated that prior to recording of his statement, he did not disclose anybody about the incident. He stated that he did not rush to the house of Chanda on hearing her shouts, because there were customers in his shop. He further stated that he saw Chanda burning while sitting in his shop and denied that the gallery of second floor as well as staircase leading to third floor is not visible from the spot where he was sitting at the time of the incident. PW2 Ramdas admitted that he has been convicted and sentenced four times under Section 85 of the Prohibition Act. He further admitted that 2-3 prohibition cases under Section 85 of the Prohibition Act are pending against him in Arvi Court. 27. While criticizing the evidence of PW2 Ramdas, the learned counsel of the accused submitted that no proper explanation has been given by the prosecution for the delay in recording the statement of PW2 Ramdas and as such the evidence of PW2 Ramdas is rendered unreliable. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the conduct of PW2 in not disclosing to anybody what he has seen till recording of his statement by Police indicates that he had not witnessed the incident. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the accused relied on the following cases: (i). In A. I. R. 1971 Supreme Court 804 Balakrushna .vs. State of Orissa it is held, “Unjustified and unexplained long delay on the part of investigating officer in recording statement of material eye witness during investigation of murder case will render evidence of such witness unreliable.” (ii) In 1992 Supp. In A. I. R. 1971 Supreme Court 804 Balakrushna .vs. State of Orissa it is held, “Unjustified and unexplained long delay on the part of investigating officer in recording statement of material eye witness during investigation of murder case will render evidence of such witness unreliable.” (ii) In 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 539 State of Karnataka .vs. Venkatesh and ors, it is held, “Ace prosecution witness not disclosing relevant information to anyone at the earliest opportunity-- held – this created serious doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution case.” iii) In (1996) 5 SCC 369 – Alil Mollah and another .vs. State of W.B. , it is held, “Conduct of the witness in not telling anyone about the occurrence till next date found unnatural creating an impression that he had not witnessed the incident- No conviction can be based on his uncorroborated testimony.” iv) In A. I. R. 2004 Supreme Court 4607 – Vijaybhai Patel .vs. Navnitbhai Patel, it is held , “Two days' delay in questioning widow and son of deceased, who were eye witnesses, by Investigation Officer- No proper explanation given for the delay- Evidence of other eyewitnesses also tainted with certain embellishments- No interference with order of acquittal.” 28. From the map (Exh. 142) on record , it appears improbable that PW2 would have noticed the incident from the place where he was sitting. Secondly even after seeing such a serious incident, he did not leave his shop and customers but rested by raising shouts. It is strange that he did not disclose to anybody that he witnessed such a ghastly incident. All these circumstances throw serious doubt on truthfulness of the testimony of PW2 Ramdas. Finding of the trial Judge in this respect appears to be correct and needs no interference. 29. The testimony of PW20 Bhaurao Katankar shows that at the relevant time he saw people gathered near the shop of Taori. He saw that one woman was moving in a burnt condition on the second floor of the house of the accused. PW Bhaurao rushed to the second floor by back side door of the house and tried to extinguish the fire. He stated that when he extinguished the fire, Chanda was alive. She did not tell anything to him. During cross-examination he stated that Ballu Chaiwala had also come after he had gone to douse the flames. PW Bhaurao rushed to the second floor by back side door of the house and tried to extinguish the fire. He stated that when he extinguished the fire, Chanda was alive. She did not tell anything to him. During cross-examination he stated that Ballu Chaiwala had also come after he had gone to douse the flames. Ballu also helped him in dousing the flames. Chanda was crying “Mala Vijhwa, Mala Vijhwa”. 30. PW20 Bhaurao nowhere stated that his attention was attracted to the burning woman on hearing the shouts of PW2 Ramdas. In fact PW20 Bhaurao did not refer to PW2 Ramdas at all. PW20 also did not tell that the accused was seen coming down from the second floor when the woman was burning. This shows that there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW2 Ramdas. Thus an important circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution. 31. Another circumstance put forth by the learned APP is that the accused did not make any attempt to extinguish the fire to save Chanda whereas other persons extinguished the fire. Thus the accused did not want to save Chanda. In this respect it may be seen that PW20 Bhaurao did not say that the accused was present when he and Ballu Chaiwala went to the rescue of Chanda. However, PW23 Sunita (wife of accused Dilip) admitted during cross-examination that when she saw Chanda burning, she shouted and called her husband (the accused). Her husband came and also saw Chanda burning. Thereafter her husband started coming down to tell his father. This clearly shows that the accused was present in the house when the incident of burning took place. He also saw Chanda burning, however, instead of going up-stairs in order to extinguish the fire to save her, the accused went down stairs to inform his father. In fact the father could have been informed after wards. This clearly shows that the accused did not take any step to save Chanda when he saw her burning. The conduct of the accused is very suspicious and indicates that he might have been involved in the burning of Chanda. In fact the father could have been informed after wards. This clearly shows that the accused did not take any step to save Chanda when he saw her burning. The conduct of the accused is very suspicious and indicates that he might have been involved in the burning of Chanda. Similarly the version of PW23 Sunita that deceased caught fire in kitchen and thereafter she ran upstairs does not inspire any confidence because in case of accidental fire Chanda could have very well extinguished the same by using water readily available in the kitchen and there was no need for her to run to second floor from first floor kitchen. 32. It was further submitted by the learned APP that as many as three contusions were noted on the dead body of Chanda in addition to the burn injuries. The accused has not given any explanation for those injuries. This shows that before setting her on fire, Chanda was beaten. This appears to be true, but it cannot be said that it was the accused and accused alone who might have beaten Chanda. 33. The learned APP further submitted that on the day of incident in the morning the servant of the accused purchased kerosene from a rockel vendor namely PW13 Vinayak Patil. The testimony of PW13 Vinayak shows that he was selling kerosene as a hawker in the year 1981. On the date of incident at about 12 in the noon, the servant of the accused purchased one litre of rockel from him when he had taken his handcart with barrel in front of the shop of the accused. The servant of the accused carried the rockel in the hardware shop of the accused. During cross-examination PW Vinayak admitted that he does not remember the names of the persons who purchased rockel on that day at Arvi. He denied the suggestion that the servant of the accused did not purchase rockel from him on the date of incident. The fact that PW Vinayak does not state the name of the servant of the accused and he does not recollect the names of other customers who purchased rockel from him on that day, shows that no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The fact that PW Vinayak does not state the name of the servant of the accused and he does not recollect the names of other customers who purchased rockel from him on that day, shows that no reliance can be placed on his testimony. Even-if it is presumed for a moment that the servant of the accused did purchase rockel from PW Vinayak, it cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance against the accused because the accused had his hardware shop and in hardware shop rockel is needed. So this cannot be a circumstance against the accused. 34. The learned APP further submitted that after Chanda was admitted to Government Hospital at Amravati she stated that she was burnt. This was heard by the relatives of the patients who were in the same ward. In this respect the learned APP invited our attention to the evidence of PW8 Ashok Shirbhate and PW12 Sitaram Baccha. However, a perusal of their evidence simply shows that at the relevant time Chanda was uttering “Water, Water”. They did not state that Chanda expressed that the accused burnt her. Thus, this circumstance cannot be taken to have been proved. 35. The learned APP further submitted that a false defence of accidental death of Chanda has been raised by the accused and this forms an important chain in the circumstances against the accused. He submitted that the alleged dying declaration (Exh.192) shows that while Chanda was preparing tea on the gas-stove her saree caught fire and she was burnt. It may be noted that the hair of deceased Chanda were found in the bedroom and bathroom of second floor so also burnt pieces of clothes were also found in the bathroom, whereas no incriminating article was found in the kitchen. This shows that the incident must have taken place on the second floor and not in the kitchen on the first floor. Secondly residues of kerosene were detected on the saree , petticoat and jangya of Chanda by the Chemical Analyser. If she was burnt accidentally due to the flames of gas-stove, residues of kerosene could not have been detected on her clothes. The learned APP also pointed out that the evidence of the defence witnesses does not show that the alleged dying declaration was read over to Chanda and it does not bear the signature of Chanda. If she was burnt accidentally due to the flames of gas-stove, residues of kerosene could not have been detected on her clothes. The learned APP also pointed out that the evidence of the defence witnesses does not show that the alleged dying declaration was read over to Chanda and it does not bear the signature of Chanda. The testimony of defence witnesses DW1 HC Shriram Pajankar, DW2 Dr. Bagde and DW3 V.S. Bhagat and PW29 Dr. Kadam about the alleged dying declaration (Exh.192) by Chanda is not at all satisfactory. It seems that because of the influence of the father of the accused and Shiocharan Chudiwale, the then MLA, PSI Lal rushed to the house of the accused and made a show of writing her dying declaration. Two private doctors namely Dr. Kdam and Dr. Dahake treated Chanda. Dr. Bagde, the Medical Officer also came there and in their presence PSI Lal questioned Chanda and HC Shriram Pajankar wrote down the answers. It is surprising that DW3 Bhagat, (Naib Tahsildar) though arrived after recording of the alleged dying declaration, signed the said dying declaration at the instance of PSI Lal. PW19 Maheshchand Mehta though signed dying declaration as attesting witness, deposed that he cannot tell what was stated by Chanda. Thus we are fully convinced that PSI Lal, DW2 Dr. Bagde (M.O.) and DW3 Bhagat, (Naib Tahsildar) went out of way in preparing Chanda's false dying declaration (Exh.192) in order to help the accused for which stringent action needs to be taken against them by their respective departments namely Police Department, Health Department and Revenue Department. Thus preparing a false dying declaration as one of the circumstances against the accused has been established. 36. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the seizure panchanama of the clothes of deceased Chanda does not mention about the smell of kerosene so also there was no seal to the bundle of clothes. Though only six articles were sent to Chemical Analyser, nine articles were received by Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser immediately wrote (Exh.110) to the PSO about this discrepancy in the number of articles, but no reply was given to it. In view of these circumstances, the Chemical Analyser's report about the traces of kerosene on the clothes of the deceased cannot be relied upon. The Chemical Analyser immediately wrote (Exh.110) to the PSO about this discrepancy in the number of articles, but no reply was given to it. In view of these circumstances, the Chemical Analyser's report about the traces of kerosene on the clothes of the deceased cannot be relied upon. We find considerable force in these submissions and hence we take that this circumstance has not been established. 37. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW23 Sunita (the wife of the accused) was not declared hostile by the prosecution and as such her evidence is binding on the prosecution and the accused can rely on it. In this respect the learned counsel for the accused relied on (2005) 5 SCC 258 (E) Mukhtial Ahmed Ansari .vs. State in which it is held, “Evidence of prosecution witness not supporting the prosecution case- However, the said witness not declared hostile- Held, accused can rely on that evidence- Binding on prosecution.” 38. We find force in this submission also. On considering the entire evidence on record, we find that though the prosecution has failed to prove each and every circumstance forming a chain, strong suspicion about the involvement of the accused and other inmates of the house in the death of Chanda, is created in our mind. But in order to convict the accused what is required is legal and not moral conviction as held in AIR 1952 SC 343 - Hanumant Nargundkar .vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. It is held in 2007 Cr. L. J. 1000 – Vikramjit Singh .vs. State of Punjab as under:- “A well-settled principle of law that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for proof. A moral conviction, however, strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law.” 39. It was lastly urged by the learned APP that the incident of burning of Chanda happened in the four-corners of her matrimonial house. The presence of the accused at the time of the incident is also established. However, no explanation is adduced by the accused as to how Chanda was burnt. In fact the accused is the best person to know as to what had happened to Chanda, but he has not given any explanation. True it is. The presence of the accused at the time of the incident is also established. However, no explanation is adduced by the accused as to how Chanda was burnt. In fact the accused is the best person to know as to what had happened to Chanda, but he has not given any explanation. True it is. But it must be remembered that not only the accused but his father, mother, wife and sister were also present in the house at the time of incident. As such all of them were liable to explain as to how the incident occurred. Since others are not co-accused, the accused alone cannot be held guilty for non-explanation of the incident of burning. 40. Thus we find that the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence which was available before him and there is no perversity in the finding. Hence no interference in the judgment is called for. We , therefore, pass the following order: The appeal is dismissed. 41. In view of our findings in this judgment and particularly in paragraph 35 as we have noticed glaring defects in the investigation, we direct appellate/State Government through its appropriate authority to initiate departmental action against the officers/persons named in paragraph 35 in accordance with law and relevant rules in this respect. Appeal dismissed.