JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor who represents the State. 2. All 4 appellants herein have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, suffer further imprisonment for 1 (one) month by the judgment dated 2-12-2004 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Case No. 136{WT/A)/2002. Appellants Uttam Das, Dilip Das and Rina Das (Saha) are son and daughter of the appellant Maya Das. 3. The prosecution case as revealed from the F. I. R. lodged by mother of Shefali Das (deceased) is that Shefali Das who was residing in the house of one Sankar Das, left her employer's house on 3-5-2000 at about 10 o'clock in the morning telling that she will visit her mother. On 5-5-2000 at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the mother (informant) learnt that her daughter Shefali has fallen ill and is undergoing treatment in the G. B. Hospital. On getting the information, the mother rushed to the hospital and found that her daughter has been burnt by fire. She learnt after asking her daughter that, on 3-5-2000, Uttam Das (appellant No. 1) had taken Shefali to Gandhigram with allurement of marriage and in the early morning hours of 5-5-2000 at about 3.30 a.m. Uttam Das had set fire on Shefali after pouring kerosene on her and as a result, Shefali suffered severe burn injuries. It may be noted that the said F. I. R. was written by P. W. 3, Tushar Kanti Roy, who accompanied Shefali's mother when she rushed to the hospital on 5-5-2000 after learning that Shefali was admitted to the hospital. The scribe (P. W. 3) in his deposition stated that when they visited the hospital, the mother asked Shefali how she came to be burnt and on the basis of information furnished by Shefali, the mother asked the scribe to write down the F. I. R. 4. P. W. 1, Smt. Sushan Bala Das is the mother of the deceased. The scribe (P. W. 3) in his deposition stated that when they visited the hospital, the mother asked Shefali how she came to be burnt and on the basis of information furnished by Shefali, the mother asked the scribe to write down the F. I. R. 4. P. W. 1, Smt. Sushan Bala Das is the mother of the deceased. She in her evidence stated that after she received information about the admission of Shefali in hospital, she rushed to the hospital in the afternoon of 5-5-2000 and on query being made by the mother, Shefali stated how she was taken by Uttam to Gandhigram on 4-5-2000 and how in the later part of the night (in the early morning of 5-5-2000), Uttam, his mother, his aunt, his brother Dilip caught hold of Shefali and poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. The witness also stated that her daughter informed her that the father of Uttam shifted Shefali to the hospital. 5. P. W. 2 Smt. Fulan Bhattacharjee is the person, in whose house Shefali worked as a domestic help for several years and was residing during the period of the incident. P. W. 2 stated that because of her long association with Shefali, she knew Shefali well and was also acquainted with her family members. The witness stated that Shefali told her earlier that appellant Uttam Das who was employed as a driver, promised to marry to Shefali and P. W. 2 advised her to get married either by registration or by social marriage, but not merely by exchange of garland. P.W. 2. also deposed that Uttam after having fixed 3 different dates for marriage, failed to turn up on each of those dates. It is further stated by P. W. 2 that Shefali left her house on 3-5-2000 on the pretext of visiting her mother but instead (which was later learnt) Shefali left P. W. 2's house along with appellant Uttam, who took Shefali to his house at Gandhigram where his father resides. This witness stated that when she learnt about the admission of Shefali in the hospital she too rushed to the hospital and after inquiry from Shefali, she learnt that on 3-5-2000, Shefali had not gone to visit her mother as informed to the witness, but had gone to Gandhigram with appellant Uttam Das. This witness stated that when she learnt about the admission of Shefali in the hospital she too rushed to the hospital and after inquiry from Shefali, she learnt that on 3-5-2000, Shefali had not gone to visit her mother as informed to the witness, but had gone to Gandhigram with appellant Uttam Das. In the house of Uttam Das, at about 3 a.m. in the night on 5-5-2000, Shefali was caught by Maya, Rina, Rekha and Uttam poured kerosene oil on her body and Dilip put fire from a match box. Uttam's father tried to resist the assailants but in vain. The witness also stated that Shefali informed her that she was taken to the G. B. hospital by Uttam's father. 6. P. Ws. 4 and 5 are neighbour of Hara Kumar Das (Uttam's father) at Gandhigram. They stated that they learnt that one girl who visited Hara Kumar Das's house was set on fire and was thereafter shifted to the hospital by father of Uttam Das. P. W. 5 stated that at about 3 a.m. she heard the alarm of a girl within the Gandhigram house of Uttam Das but out of fear she did not come out in the night hours. But this witness later learnt that a girl in the house of Uttam Das sustained burn injuries. 7. P. W. 6 is Dr. Ashish Kumar Nath who was on duty in the Surgical Unit No. 1 in G. B. hospital. He stated that the dying declaration given by Shefali was reduced into writing by Dr. Pradip Sarkar (P. W. 8) in his own handwriting and witness P. W. 6 was present, when the statement of the dying girl was recorded. He stated that the recording by the other doctor, P. W. 8 was done in his presence and within his hearing and this witness also put his signature along with Dr. Arunava Sinha, on the dying declaration (Exbt. P-3) recorded by witness P. W. 8. P. W. 7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and he stated that it was a case of ante-mortem burn injury with above 80 per cent burning suffered by the victim. He stated that except the face and the hair, all the other body parts suffered burn injuries. 8. P. W. 8 is Dr. Pradip Sarkar who recorded the Exbt. He stated that except the face and the hair, all the other body parts suffered burn injuries. 8. P. W. 8 is Dr. Pradip Sarkar who recorded the Exbt. P-3 dying declaration given by the deceased Shefali. He stated that on 9-5-2000 he recorded the dying declaration at about 8.45 p.m., in presence of P. W. 6 Dr. Ashish Kumar Nath and another Dr. Arunava Sinha and all three doctors put their signatures in the statement recorded, as given by the victim girl, P. W. 8 denied the suggestion that the victim girl was not mentally fit, at the time of giving her statement. 9. P. W. 10 is the I. O. of the case who stated that on learning of admission of a burn victim girl in the hospital, he visited the G. B. hospital where he met the victim and also her mother (P. W. 1). He obtained a written F. I. R. from the mother of the victim, which was written by P. W. 3 Tushar Kanti Roy, on the basis of information furnished by Shefali to her mother. The I. O. also stated that since 5-5-2000 he had raided the house of the accused on several dates but found them absconding. Eventually on 10-5-2000 he arrested the appellants Maya Das and Dilip Das. The witness also stated that he filed chargesheet against appellants Uttam Das and Rina Das showing them as absconders. Appellant Uttam Das was arrested on 26-3-2001. 10. The defense introduced 2 witnesses to prove the innocence of the accused. D. W. 1 Hara Kumar Das is the father of Uttam and was the person who was residing at Gandhigram where Shefali was burnt. In his deposition, D. W. 1 stated that Shefali reached witness's Gandhigram house on her own, stating that she is looking for DWs son Uttam. As D. W. 1 expressed his inability to take the Shefali to Kumaritilla where Uttam resides, he permitted Shefali to spend the night in his house on 4-5-2000. Subsequently he had an altercation with Shefali as he told her that she cannot marry Uttam as his son's marriage has been fixed elsewhere. Late night or in the early morning hours of 5-5-2000, he heard a cry and he claims that he saw Shefali engulfed by fire, in the courtyard of his house. Subsequently he had an altercation with Shefali as he told her that she cannot marry Uttam as his son's marriage has been fixed elsewhere. Late night or in the early morning hours of 5-5-2000, he heard a cry and he claims that he saw Shefali engulfed by fire, in the courtyard of his house. The witness extinguished the fire by pouring water and shifted Shefali to the G. B. hospital by a rickshaw. The defense witness stated that on the night when the accident happened, none except him was present in the house. 11. D. W. 2 is Susanti Dasgupta, who is the next door neighbour of the D. W. 1 Hara Kumar Das in whose house Shefali got burnt. She stated that she did not hear any conversation of any woman, in the house of Hara Kumar Das in the evening of the incident and in her cross-examination, D. W. 2 stated that Hara Kumar Das did not tell her anything about the incident. 12. Exbt. P-3 is the dying declaration recorded by P. W. 8 Dr. Pradip Sarkar in his own hand writing and the said statement also contains the signatures of P. W. 6 Dr. Ashish Kumar Nath and also of Dr. Arunava Sinha who were present at the time of recording of the statement. In the dying declaration of the victim written down by the doctor, it is recorded that Shefali was brought from her home for marriage by appellant Uttam Das. At about 3 a.m. on 5-5-2000, Uttam Das forcefully poured kerosene oil on her body. His brother Dilip, mother and sister helped him. After that, Uttam set her on fire by a match box which caused her the burn injuries. The recording also indicates that father of Uttam, Hara Kumar Das (D. W. 1) tried to rescue Shefali by pouring water. 13. From the evidence found in this case, it is seen that the victim Shefali was in love with appellant Uttam and Uttam had also promised to marry Shefali. This is established from the evidence of the mother (P. W. 1) of Shefali and P. W. 2, in whose house Shefali worked as a domestic help. It is also established that Shefali left the house of her mistress (P. W. 2), by telling her a lie and she instead went with Uttam to his Gandhigram house as Uttam promised to marry her. It is also established that Shefali left the house of her mistress (P. W. 2), by telling her a lie and she instead went with Uttam to his Gandhigram house as Uttam promised to marry her. In the Gandhigram house of Uttam, where his father Hara Kumar Das resides, in the late night hours of 4-5-2000, Shefali was set on fire and she was brought to the G. B. hospital for treatment, by father of Uttam. In the hospital, Shefali narrated how she was burnt and on the basis of what Shefali told her mother, the F. I. R. was written out by the scribe P. W. 3, and was lodged with the police on the very afternoon of the day, when Shefali was admitted in the hospital. 14. It is seen here that apart from the F. I. R., which can be taken to be the first dying declaration as it was lodged on the basis of the information furnished by the victim girl to her mother, another dying declaration has also been recorded by the doctors, who attended to Shefali in the G. B. hospital, on 9-5-2000 at about 8.45 p.m. In the second dying declaration recorded by the doctor, 4 (four) days after she was admitted to the hospital and after lodging of the F.I.R. on 5-5-2000, apart from name of appellant Uttam, the names of other appellants have also been reflected, indicating their involvement with the burning of Shefali. 15. The involvement of the other appellants in addition to Uttam is also stated to have been informed by the dying victim, to her mother (P. W. 1) and to her mistress (P. W. 2). But the neighbours of Hara Kumar Das in whose house the incident occurred do not name those other members of Hara Kumar Das's family as being involved with burning of Shefali. 16. From the evidence of D.W. 2, a neighbour of Hara Kumar Das and also the evidence of P.W. 4 & P.W. 5, it is crystal clear that the incident occurred in the Gandhigram residence of Hara Kumar Das. 16. From the evidence of D.W. 2, a neighbour of Hara Kumar Das and also the evidence of P.W. 4 & P.W. 5, it is crystal clear that the incident occurred in the Gandhigram residence of Hara Kumar Das. From the evidence of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2, which is based on information furnished to them by Shefali from her hospital bed and which are corroborated in material particulars to each other, it can be gathered that Shefali left the residence of her mistress (P.W. 2) with Uttam as the appellant promised to marry her and the incident of burning happened thereafter. 17. If appellant Uttam was innocent and he did not have any role to play in the burning of Shefali, it is difficult to comprehend as to why he absconded and remained missing for several months after the incident occurred on 5-5-2000. He could be arrested several months later by the police on 26-3-2001. 18. Since we are required to consider herein the dying declaration of the victim girl, it would be appropriate to examine the principles of law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court to appropriately apply the evidence of the dying declaration to the facts of this case. 19. The Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Omprakash reported in 2001 CriLJ 3302 recorded as follows: Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire - no one at the point of death is presumed to lie. A man will not meet his maker with a lie in his month" - is the philosophy in law underlying admittance in evidence of dying declaration. A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the cause or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the cause or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the Courts, it become a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment, such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. Is the statement of law summed up by this Court in Kundule Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P. 1993 CriLJ 1635. The law is well settled : dying declaration is admissible in evidence. The admissibility is founded on the principle of necessity. A dying declaration, if found reliable can form the basis of conviction. A Court of facts is not excluded from acting upon on uncorroborated dying declaration for finding conviction. A dying declaration, as a piece of evidence, stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence. It has to be judged and appreciated in the light of the surrounding circumstances and its weight determined by reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. It is as if the maker of dying declaration was present in the Court, making a statement, stating the facts contained in the declaration, with the difference that the declaration is not a statement on oath and the maker thereof cannot be subjected to cross-examination. If in a given case a particular dying declaration suffers from any infirmities, either of its own or as disclosed by other evidence adduced in the case or circumstances coming to its notice, the Court may as a rule of prudence look for corroboration and if the infirmities be such as render the dying declaration so infirm as to prick the conscience of the Court, the same may be refused to be accepted as forming a safe basis for conviction.... 20. 20. Similarly the Supreme Court in Muthu Kutty v. State reported in (2005) 9 SCC 113 , by referring to the provisions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act stated the following: At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") which deals with cases in which statement of relevant fact by a person who is dead or cannot be found etc. is relevant. The general rule is that all oral evidence must be direct.... The eight clauses of Section 32 are exceptions to the general rule against hearsay just stated. Clause (1) of Section 32 makes relevant what is generally described as dying declaration, though such an expression has not been used in any statute. It essentially means statements made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death. The grounds of admission are : firstly, necessity for the victim being generally the only principal eye-witness to the crime, the exclusion of the statement might deflect the ends of justice; and secondly, the sense of impending death, which creates a sanction equal to the obligation of an oath. The general principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that they are declaration made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth; a situation so solemn and so lawful is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a Court of justice. 21. Therefore, it can be seen from the above decisions of the Supreme Court that if dying declaration is found to be truthful, it can be acted upon without corroboration. The only caution the Court has to exercise while scrutinizing dying declaration is to ensure that declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination and that the deceased was in a fit state to make a declaration. However, when there is suspicion about dying declaration, without corroborative evidence, it would be risky to act on such suspicious dying declaration. 22. However, when there is suspicion about dying declaration, without corroborative evidence, it would be risky to act on such suspicious dying declaration. 22. The Supreme Court in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1982 CriLJ 630 also laid down that "where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred." 23. The above case of Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani (supra) is noted because in the present case, we have two sets of dying declaration, one as recorded, leading to lodging of the FIR and other leading to recording of the Exbt. P3 statement, by the doctors in the hospital. The version given in the FIR was at the earliest point of time after the accident namely on 5-5-2000 afternoon and the Exbt. P-3 statement was recorded 4 days later, at 8.45 p.m. on 9-05-2000 by the doctors in the hospital. Shefali died at 4.55 p.m. on 10-5-2000. 24. Between the two versions of the dying declaration, we feel that greater weightage should put in the dying declaration, recorded at the first point of time since It was based on statement given by the victim without there being any time for an improved version. 25. Therefore, if we consider the FIR to be more acceptable version of the victim's statement, it is of some significance that the name of appellant Uttam, figures in both sets of dying declaration and also in the evidence given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, whereas names of the other three appellants barring Uttam, does not figure in the first dying declaration i.e. the FIR lodged on 5-5-2000. 26. Shefali died on 10-5-2000 at 4.55 p.m. after surviving under hospital care for 5 days from 5-5-2000 and although she suffered 80 per cent burn injury, from the evidence of the doctors, we find that she was in a sound physical and mental condition, to give information on the circumstances of her burning, perhaps more rationally on the first day i.e. 5-5-2000. On the first days she indicated, (as revealed from the FIR) that it was appellant Uttam who enticed Shefali to his Gandhigram residence and thereafter set her on fire after pouring kerosene over her body at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of 4-5-2000. On the first days she indicated, (as revealed from the FIR) that it was appellant Uttam who enticed Shefali to his Gandhigram residence and thereafter set her on fire after pouring kerosene over her body at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of 4-5-2000. We are of the opinion that conviction of Uttam can be sustained, only on the basis of this evidence in the nature of dying declaration, as we have every reason to opine that it is reliable and truthful. 27. We must also note that Uttam absconded soon after Shefali was burnt and could be arrested by police several months later. This conduct of Uttam helps us to conclude along with the dying declaration, the guilt of Uttam. 28. But as regards the other three appellants i.e. Dilip Das, Maya Das and Rina Das, although we find that their names along with Uttam have been reflected In the second dying declaration (Exbt. P-3) recorded by the doctors, the addition of the three appellants names appear to us, to be an improvement and in the absence of any corroborative evidence to explain the improvement and in the absence of any other evidence to show the involvement of these three appellants, we cannot conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that, appellants Dilip Das, Maya Das and Rina Das were involved with the burning assault on Shefali. 29. In so far as the defense version of Shefali suffering self inflicted burn injuries, we are unable to give any credence to this version, since we find that the father of Uttam, Har Kumar Das (D.W. 2) who took Shefali to the hospital after dousing her fire, had not given any information to the police about the suicide attempt of Shefali at night hours, in the courtyard of his Gandhigram house. If Shefali had indeed suffered burn injuries in a suicide attempt, there should have been no reason for Hara Kumar Pas, not to inform the police about the said incident especially when, he single-handedly took the victim to the hospital. He perhaps shied away from informing the police, to protect his family and give them time to flee. 30. Having regard to the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the 3 appellants i.e. Dilip Das, Maya Das and Rina Das as we are of the opinion that they are entitled to benefit of doubt. He perhaps shied away from informing the police, to protect his family and give them time to flee. 30. Having regard to the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the 3 appellants i.e. Dilip Das, Maya Das and Rina Das as we are of the opinion that they are entitled to benefit of doubt. But in so far as the appellant Uttam is concerned, we find that he is the common name in all the evidence introduced by the prosecution, including in the two recorded statements given by the dying girl Shefali, i.e. the FIR and the Exbt. P-3 statement and therefore we nurture no doubt about his culpability with the death of Shefali. 31. In view of our above conclusion, we interfere with the impugned judgment dated 2-11-2004 of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, to the extent indicated above. 32. Consequently, while sustaining the judgment of conviction with regard to appellant Uttam Das, we set aside the judgment of conviction inflicted on the appellants Dilip Das, Maya Das and Rina Das. We are informed that the appellant Rina Das is on bail and accordingly her bail bond is discharged. In so far as appellants Dilip Das and Maya Das are-concerned, they be set at liberty if they are not wanted in any other case.