JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J.- Raja Ram (51) and his wife Shanti Devi (45) lived in 1860, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. Their daughter Usha was married to Shambu Yadav (25) deceased, who suffered bums on November 15, 1998 in an open park near 1860, Phase-II and died early on the following morning. 2. Raja Ram and Shanti Devi were convicted of their son-in-law’s murder by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, on July 19, 2000, primarily on the basis of two statements of the deceased exhibit PK/3 recorded at 3.28 p.m. by Shri K.C. Garg, Judicial Magistrate (PW-13) and exhibit PN recorded at 4.50 p.m. by SI Hari Prem (PW-16). 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the two statements, taken as dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, could not be the basis of conviction because these statements were demonstratively false, if attending circumstances and the evidence collected by the Investigator are accepted. The dying declarations lacked corroboration. Shambu Yadav’s death was suicide and not homicide. 4. We may briefly sum up the facts of the case. On the fateful day Raja Ram and Shanti Devi were present in the house when Shambu Yadav came there to take his wife Usha with him. Usha’s parents refused to let her go. There was a quarrel between them and the deceased. Thereafter, kerosene oil was poured on Shambu Yadav by Raja Ram and Shanti Devi and he was set aflame. All this happened in the park near their house. After Shambu Yadav caught fire he ran towards 1860. The police was called. Thereupon HC Sunder Dass (PW-5) reached the spot in a Gypsy CH-01-G­9639 and found Shambu Yadav lying burnt in front of 1908. Shambu Yadav was evacuated to PGI and admitted there. Police control room was informed. 5. The investigation of the case started with SI Hari Prem reaching PGI, and inquir­ing from the medical officer on duty if Shambu Yadav was fit to make the statement. Shambu Yadav was declared fit by Dr. Sarabjit Singh Chhibbar (PW-2), Junior Resi­dent, at 3.30 p.m. 6. Simultaneously, the Investigator had also requested the Duty Magistrate, Chandi­garh, to reach PGI to record the statement of the injured. Shambu Yadav was declared fit by Dr. Sarabjit Singh Chhibbar (PW-2), Junior Resi­dent, at 3.30 p.m. 6. Simultaneously, the Investigator had also requested the Duty Magistrate, Chandi­garh, to reach PGI to record the statement of the injured. This request was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate Shri K.C. Gang who reached the PGI at 3.15 p.m., a certificate of fitness was given at 3.20 p.m., whereupon Shambu Yadtav’s statement was concluded by the Magistrate at 3.28 p.m. This is the first time statement (Ex. PK/3), which is reproduced below: “My in-law set me on fire. All the people of the locality were looking. I have gone my in-law to see my wife. They told that they will marry their girl somewhere else. They did not send my wife with me and they poured kerosene on me and set me fire. My in-law were residing in House No. 1860, Ph-II, Ram Darbar, Chandi­garh. I was set fire by my father-in-law and oil was poured by my mother-in-law and my mother-in-law pushed me out. All the people had seen the occurrence. I do not know where my wife hidden when I was put to fire. After that police has brought me here. I do not know who had informed the police.” 7. We do not understand why the Investigating Officer felt the need to record a sec­ond statement of the deceased. Nevertheless, the Investigating Officer again recorded the statement at 4.50 p.m. This statement (Ex. PN) was in the following terms: “Stated that my father-in-law Raja Ram and mother-in-law Shanti poured kerosene oil on me in front of House No. 1860 Phase II Ram Darbar, both my father-in-law Raja Ram set me on fire because they do not want to send my wife with me.” 8. Shambu Yadav died of 98% burns at 1.45 a.m. on November 16, 1998. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Aditya Kumar Sharma (PW -15) at PGI, Chandigarh on November 17, 1998 at 11.45 a.m. The Medical Officer found the following injuries: “Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except for healthy skin present over sole of right and left foot (98% burns). Brain meninges, larynx and trachea, lungs, mouth pharynx and oesophagus, liver, spleen, kidneys, inter organs of generation were congested. The thorax was normal except skin and superficial facia burnt off. External genitalia burnt off at places, singeing of public hairs. Brain meninges, larynx and trachea, lungs, mouth pharynx and oesophagus, liver, spleen, kidneys, inter organs of generation were congested. The thorax was normal except skin and superficial facia burnt off. External genitalia burnt off at places, singeing of public hairs. In my opinion the cause of death in this case was irreversible hypovolemic shock as a result of extensive burns to the extent of 98%. The burns were ante mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was within 24 hours and between death and post mortem examination was 34 hours. 9. The accused were arrested and sent up for trial. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. Dinesh Kadan PW -1 (fitness certificate), Dr. Sarabjit Singh Chhibbar, PW-2 (fitness certificate), Chander Pal (PW-3), Lekh Raj (PW-4), HC Sunder Dass (PW-5), Shri K.C. Garg (PW-13), Dr. Aditya Kumar Sharma (PW- 15) and SI Hari Prem (PW -16). 10. The accused when examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C, gave the following identical defence: “My son-in-law namely Shambu Yadav used to quarrel with my daughter Usha in the state of intoxication as he was heavy drunken. He also used to beat her without any reason and ultimately due to the atrocity of her husband, she left her matrimonial house and came to us and started to live in our house. We tried to persuade the deceased Shambu Yadav, with the help of members of locality as well as of other relatives, but he did not listen to us. My daughter did not want to go back to her matrimonial house, as she used to say that she had a danger to her life, at the hands of deceased Shambu Yadav. We also asked the deceased Shambu Yadav, that our daughter would not go to back with him, until he mend himself. My daughter did not want to go back to her matrimonial house, as she used to say that she had a danger to her life, at the hands of deceased Shambu Yadav. We also asked the deceased Shambu Yadav, that our daughter would not go to back with him, until he mend himself. On 15.11.1998, when I was coming from a clinic alongwith my wife and daughter, on my rickshaw Shambu Yadav met us there near a park to our house, where he had also come there on his own rickshaw and started to abuse all of us without any reason and tried to take my daughter forcibly with him to which we all objected it and then he said that if his wife would not accompany him, then he would set himself on fire, for which he considered as a mere threat and did not care of it, but he poured kerosene which he had carried alongwith him in a plastic can in his own rickshaw and set himself on tire. The deceased Shambu Yadav has committed suicide and my wife has not any hand to set on fire to the deceased Shambu Yadav. The deceased Shambu Yadav has committed suicide and thereafter. I alongwith my wife were falsely implicated in the present case. I am innocent.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the defence case has all along been that Shambu Yadav had committed suicide. Reliance was placed on several documents recorded during the investigation which supported the suicide theory. In DDR 16 recorded on November 15,1998 at 1.40 p.m., the information received at Police Station, Sector 31, Chandigarh, was that “one person himself has lit up fire...” meaning thereby someone had committed suicide. In the inquest report made by SI Hari Prem on November 17, 1998, it was recorded that someone set himself on fire. However, later in this document, it was recorded that as per the statements of the witnesses, he was set on fire by Shanti and Raja Ram. Further, in the inquest report as well, while recording brief facts the Investigating Officer had recorded that “one man had set himself on fire.” Although later the names of Raja Ram and Shanti Devi were also mentioned. The learned counsel has relied upon the two statements made to the police by two witnesses Chander Pal (PW-3) and Lekh Raj (PW-4). Further, in the inquest report as well, while recording brief facts the Investigating Officer had recorded that “one man had set himself on fire.” Although later the names of Raja Ram and Shanti Devi were also mentioned. The learned counsel has relied upon the two statements made to the police by two witnesses Chander Pal (PW-3) and Lekh Raj (PW-4). Both of whom had stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that someone had burnt himself. 12. The learned counsel further argued that both dying declarations were contradictory, In the first he was set on fire in the house and then pushed out of the house. In the second he was set on fire in front of the house. Actually, the deceased immolated himself in the park, about 58 meters from the house, near the house No. 1908. This is the spot where the fire had been lit. 13. The Investigator had prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence very carefully, at the instance of Chander Pal (PW-3). Photographs of the place of occurrence were also taken. A plastic cannister, kerosene stained earth and burnt pieces of clothes were also taken into possession from the spot. The rough site plan of the oc­currence is Ex. PO, while the recovery memo of the cannister is Ex PF. The site plan shows that the spot was about five steps from the road and 21 steps from house No. 1908. The site plan shows that the place where Shamhu Yadav had fallen after receiving burns was in front of house 1860. This seems to indicate that after he set himself on fire, he walked to house 1860, where he eventually fell before being evacuated. The recovery memo re: cannister, which still contained some kerosene oil, the kerosene soaked earth and burn pieces of clothes reveal that these items were found in front of house 1908. The burn clothes were a blue trouser, brown underwear, a purple shawl and a black cloth. The investigation carried out at the spot positively confirms that this is where the deceased was burnt either by the accused or by himself. 14. Therefore, we find that there is serious contradictions between the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate and the investigation at the spot. The investigation carried out at the spot positively confirms that this is where the deceased was burnt either by the accused or by himself. 14. Therefore, we find that there is serious contradictions between the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate and the investigation at the spot. The learned counsel has relied upon Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P., 2007(5) RAJ 291, Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., 1999(3) RCR(Crl.) 764 and State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan and others, 1989 A.I.R. (SC) 1519, to argue that there are cases where dying declarations are disbelieved because they do not fit into the police case, are not corrobo­rated by other evidence and otherwise looks suspicious. 15. In Nallapati S ivaiah (supra), the deceased had been attacked by the accused with knives at about 4 p.m., his dying declaration was recorded by a Sub Inspector at 6 p.m. in which the deceased implicated the accused. Later a Magistrate recorded his dying declaration at 6.35 p.m. However, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 9.30 p.m. The medical officer at the hospital had also certified that the deceased was fit to make the statement Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the historical and literary basis for recognition of dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule. It was ultimately held that the value to be given to a dying declaration be left to the court. The court on assessment of circumstances and the evidence on record can come to a conclusion on the truth or otherwise of the version which may be written, oral or verbal or by sign or by gestures. Many cases were considered and ultimately it was held that it was unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the dying declaration alone where suspicion was raised as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases the court may have to look for some corroborative evidence. The accused was acquitted. 16. In Dandu Lakshmi Reddy (supra), the deceased woman was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law. She was caught by her husband, her mother-in-law doused kerosene on her and her husband set her on fire. She was admitted to a hospital where her dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate and later by a Sub-Inspector. 16. In Dandu Lakshmi Reddy (supra), the deceased woman was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law. She was caught by her husband, her mother-in-law doused kerosene on her and her husband set her on fire. She was admitted to a hospital where her dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate and later by a Sub-Inspector. The court found material divergence between the two dying declarations which were ignored by the High Court. The Supreme Court felt that such noticeable discrepancies looming large between the two dying declarations could not be sidelined. Either of the two was a wrong statement, they could only be reconciled with each other with much strain. Adopting such a strain or stretching the point to the detriment of the accused in a criminal case was not a feasible course. Since the dying declaration did not stand scrutiny, it was felt that it would be unsafe to convict anyone on the strength of such a fragile and rickety dying declaration. The accused were acquitted, 17. In State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan (supra), one of the two deceased died a few days later. Before death, a dying declaration had been made by the second deceased. There were also eye witnesses to the occurrence. The eye witnesses were disbelieved and the court refused to accept the dying declaration since it contained a version totally different from the every witness account. 18. In the present case, there are many features which seem to indicate that the accused had not set the deceased on fire. The occurrence had taken place nearly 60 meters from the house of the accused. The prosecution had collected a cannister, kerosene soaking earth and burnt clothes from the spot. This confirms the place of occurrence. In the dying declaration, the deceased stated that he had gone to his in-laws to see his wife but they did not send his wife and poured kerosene oil on him and set him on fire. His in-laws resided in house No. 1860. After he had been set on fire, his mother-in-law pushed him out. The above extract from the dying declaration seems to indicate that he was set on fire inside the house but this is not at all the case as found by the Investigator. 19. Moreover, in the second dying declaration, the deceased says that he was set on fire outside the house. The above extract from the dying declaration seems to indicate that he was set on fire inside the house but this is not at all the case as found by the Investigator. 19. Moreover, in the second dying declaration, the deceased says that he was set on fire outside the house. This too is false as the occurrence had taken place elsewhere. There is no doubt contradiction between the two statements of the deceased but both statements are further contradicted by the circumstances found during the investigation. We, therefore, hold that the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate was a false statement, uncorroborated by independent witnesses and unworthy of credence. Both dying declarations are disbelieved. 20. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The accused are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail, their bail bond stand discharged. --------------------