JUDGMENT P. V. HARDAS, J.:- This appeal has been filed by the appellants/original accused nos.1, 2 & 3 challenging their conviction for offence punishable under section 302 read with secs.34 and 498-A read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life and each of the appellants to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default stipulation of undergoing further R.I. of three months in the event of non payment of fine and R.I. for one year and each accused to pay fine of Rs.5001- with a default condition of undergoing further R.I. for three months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat, by judgment dated 15.2.2007, in Sessions Trial No.18 of 2005. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus :- Police Head Constable Trimbak Kautekar, who was attached to Basmath Police Station, received communication from the Rural Hospital, Basmath about admission of one lady by name Radhabai Jadhav because of burns. He was, therefore, directed by his superiors to record the statement of injured Radhabai. He, therefore, went to the Rural Hospital, Basmath and was informed that Radhabai had been shifted to Nanded Hospital. Thereafter he proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Nanded and on reaching the hospital, proceeded to the Burn Ward and contacted Radhabai. He ascertained from her name and address and thereafter contacted P.W.9 Dr. Sangita Gavit, who was the Resident Medical Officer on duty, to ascertain the condition of Radhabai. Thereupon P.W.9 Dr. Gavit examined Radhabai and informed P.W.3 Police Head Constable Kautekar that Radhabai was in a fit mental condition to give her statement. Accordingly endorsement to that effect was made by P.W.9 Dr. Gavit on the statement of Radhabai. Statement of Radhabai, therefore, came to be recorded by Police Head Constable Kautekar. He obtained her thumb impression and thereafter issued communication to the Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of Radhabai. The dying declaration recorded by P.W.3 Police Head Constable Kautekar is at Exh.22. On the basis of the said dying declaration, an offence punishable under section 307, 498-A read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the appellants vide Crime No.51 of 2005. The dying declaration recorded by P.W.3 Police Head Constable Kautekar is at Exh.22. On the basis of the said dying declaration, an offence punishable under section 307, 498-A read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the appellants vide Crime No.51 of 2005. Meanwhile, it appears that P.W.8 Special Judicial Magistrate Suryawanshi, on receipt of the communication requesting him to record the dying declaration of Radhabai, proceeded to the hospital and contacted P.W.9 Dr. Sangita Gavit and apprised her that he had come to the hospital for recording the dying declaration of Radhabai. Thereupon P.W.9 Dr. Gavit examined Radhabai and endorsed on the dying declaration that Radhabai was conscious and, therefore, was in a fit condition to give her statement. P.W.8 Suryawanshi thereafter introduced himself and on questioning Radhabai recorded her statement as dying declaration which is at Exh.39. In the dying declaration at Exh.22 and the dying declaration at Exh.39, deceased had attributed overt acts to the present appellant/accused setting her on fire. 3. Upon registration of the offence, investigation came to be entrusted to P.W. 10 Ramsing Chiragiya, who was attached to the Basmath Police Station. He drew the scene of the offence panchnama at Exh.31 in the presence of the panch witnesses and seized pieces of burnt sari, one match-box and two burnt match sticks under the scene of the offence panchnama. He thereafter recorded the statements of witnesses. The appellants/ accused came to be arrested under arrest panchanamas at Exhs.44, 45 and 46, respectively. During custodial interrogation, accused Maroti expressed his willingness to point out the place where the kerosene Can was hidden. Accordingly the memorandum statement of accused Maroti came to be drawn and accused Maroti led the police and the panch to a heap of dust in front of the house of Sitaram Jadhav and accordingly produced the kerosene Can which contained half litre of kerosene oil, which came to be seized vide panchnama at Exh.33. After Radhabai had succumbed to her injuries, inquest panchnama came to be drawn at Exh.34 in the presence of P.W.7 Shriram. Dead body of deceased Radhabai was referred for post mortem examination and post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Radhabai came' to be performed by P.WA Dr. Hemant Godbole. P.WA Dr. Godbole noticed that deceased Radhabai had sustained 7 1 % burn injuries. Dead body of deceased Radhabai was referred for post mortem examination and post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Radhabai came' to be performed by P.WA Dr. Hemant Godbole. P.WA Dr. Godbole noticed that deceased Radhabai had sustained 7 1 % burn injuries. He, therefore, opined that cause of death was shock due to burns. The post-mortem report is at Exh.27. The seized articles came to be referred to the Chemical Analyser and upon completion of investigation a charge-sheet against the appellants came to be submitted. 4. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide charge Exh.11 framed a charge against the appellants/accused for an offence punishable under section 302 read with Secs.34 and 498-A read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses, while the accused in their defence examined two defence witnesses. The Trial Court accepted the two dying declarations at Exhs.22 and 39 and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to establish the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforestated. 5. Before we advert to the submissions advanced before us by Shri. S. J. Salunke, learned Counsel for the appellants, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution in order to support the charge for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has relied on the testimony of P.W.1 Digambar and P.W.2 Kushwartabai, parents of deceased Radhabai. P.W.l Digambar states that Radhabai was married to accused no.1 about 2 to 2-1/2 years prior to her death. He further states that the accused were i1J-treating Radhabai as he could not fulfil the illegal demand of Rs.5,000/-. He states that he had received information that Radhabai had sustained burn injuries and, therefore, was intending to go to the house of accused but he learnt from his brother Hari that Radhabai was taken to the Nanded Hospital in an injured condition and, therefore, went to the Nanded Hospital. On reaching hospital, he noticed that Radhabai was completely burnt and when he questioned about the incident she told that accused no.3 Renukabai had caught her and accused no.2 Kashinath had poured kerosene on her while accused no. 1 Maroti had set her ablaze. On reaching hospital, he noticed that Radhabai was completely burnt and when he questioned about the incident she told that accused no.3 Renukabai had caught her and accused no.2 Kashinath had poured kerosene on her while accused no. 1 Maroti had set her ablaze. Radhabai had also disclosed to him that the neighbours had extinguished the flames by pouring water on Radhabai. He states that Radhabai survived for about eight days and thereafter succumbed to her injuries. In cross- examination he has admitted that accused no.3 Renukabai is his real sister. He has also admitted that he possesses about 7 to 8 acres of agricultural land which is not irrigated and which he had given for cultivation on accepting certain premium. He has further stated that he is a poor person and this fact is known to the accused. He has also admitted that he had solemnized the marriage of Radhabai by selling two acres of land. In further cross-examination he has admitted that the accused are financially well off, in the sense that they have agricultural land which is irrigated. He has also admitted that the accused derived handsome income from their agricultural land. He has admitted that the accused had maintained deceased well initially for a period of two years and thereafter were subjecting her to cruelty. He has admitted that deceased used to visit his house on every festival and used to narrate to him that the accused were demanding Rs.5,000/-. He has further admitted that there is a Police chowki near the hospital. He has admitted that he had not gone to the Police chowki after Radhabai had narrated the incident to him. He has admitted not to have stated this fact even before the Medical officer. He was confronted with his previous statement recorded during investigation and has admitted not to have stated to the police that accused Maroti was demanding Rs.5,000/- and that he could not arrange to pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/-. He has admitted to have stated in his previous statement that because he could arrange for Rs.5,000/-, the accused were assaulting his daughter. He could not explain any reason as to why the aforesaid statements were not reflected in his previous statement. 6. Prosecution has also examined P.W. No.2 Kushawartabai, mother of deceased Radhabai. He has admitted to have stated in his previous statement that because he could arrange for Rs.5,000/-, the accused were assaulting his daughter. He could not explain any reason as to why the aforesaid statements were not reflected in his previous statement. 6. Prosecution has also examined P.W. No.2 Kushawartabai, mother of deceased Radhabai. She also deposes that she had gone to the hospital accompanied by her husband P.W.1 Digambar and on questioning Radhabai. Radhabai had informed that accused No.3 Renukabai had caught Radhabai while accused No.2 Kashinath had poured kerosene and accused No.1 Maroti had set her ablaze. She also states that the accused were harassing deceased Radhabai as the parents of Radhabai could not fulfil the illegal demand for Rs.5,000/-. This witness was also cross-examined at length. in which she has admitted not to have stated before the police that accused No.2 Kashinath and accused No.3 Renukabai had instigated accused No.1 Maroti to harass deceased Radhabai. However, it appears that such a statement was recorded in her previous statement and a note to that effect has been put by the trial court. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that the evidence in respect of the allegations that deceased Radhabai was subjected to cruelty on account of failure of her parents to meet the illegal demand of Rs.5,000/- is extremely vague. No instances of any cruelty or cruel treatment is deposed to by the witnesses. The witnesses in a vague manner state that deceased Radhabai was harassed and subjected to cruelty because of failure of the father of deceased Radhabai to fulfill the demand of the accused. On such vague allegations, no finding about guilt of the accused can be arrived at. In that light of the matter, therefore. the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants/accused is unsustainable in law. 8. Turning to the evidence of dying declaration, it is urged by Shri. Salunke, learned Counsel for the appellants that neither P.W.3 Police Head Constable Kautekar nor P.W.8 Special Judicial Magistrate Suryawanshi have deposed about the contents of the dying declarations, particularly dying declarations at Exh.22 and Exh.39. 8. Turning to the evidence of dying declaration, it is urged by Shri. Salunke, learned Counsel for the appellants that neither P.W.3 Police Head Constable Kautekar nor P.W.8 Special Judicial Magistrate Suryawanshi have deposed about the contents of the dying declarations, particularly dying declarations at Exh.22 and Exh.39. It is urged before us that both these witnesses only state that they had recorded the dying declarations and have not deposed to nor have they proved the contents of the written dying declarations. In such circumstances, it is urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants that no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid dying declarations. In support of this proposition, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Deorao s/o. Sonbaji Bhalerao & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1921 and Jivan Tulsirarn Dhavali & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2018. The Division Bench in Deorao & Anr. (supra), at paragraph 22 has held that since the Executive Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration in his substantive evidence before the Court did not depose a single word as to who were the offenders who had poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and had set her on fire. No reliance could be placed on the said dying declaration. The Division Bench further came to the conclusion that no presumption under Section 80 of the Evidence Act could be attached to the dying declaration as it was neither a confession nor the testimony of a witness. The Division Bench of this Court in Jivan Tulsiram Dhavali, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2018 (supra) has also taken a similar view. The Division Bench further observed that merely exhibiting the document of the dying declaration its contents and in particular the names of the offenders and the role played by them in committing the offence of murder is not proved unless such witness or Magistrate vouchsafes before the Court as to whom did the dying person named as offenders. 9. Shri. S. K. Kadam. 9. Shri. S. K. Kadam. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State has urged before us that it is no doubt true that both the witnesses who had recorded the dying declarations at Exh.22 and Exh.39 have not deposed about the contents of the dying declaration, yet a categorical statement has been made by the eye-witnesses when they had recorded the statement of Radhabai as per what Radhabai had told them and, therefore, these dying declarations at Exh.22 and Exh.39 would be admissible in evidence. 10. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence of P.W.3 Police Head Constable Kautekar and P.W.8 Special Judicial Magistrate Suryawanshi. Both these witnesses have not deposed to about the contents of the dying declarations. All that these witnesses deposed to is the fact of going to the hospital, obtaining endorsement from the Medical Officer and then recording the statement of injured and thereafter obtaining the thumb impression of the injured on the statement. Both these witnesses have not even made any oblique reference to what Radhabai had told them. In the absence of any substantive evidence in respect of the contents of the dying declarations, relying on the two Division Bench Judgments of this Court, we unhesitatingly (sic) come to the conclusion that the dying declarations have not been proved at all. Since the dying declarations have not been proved, we are left with the solitary evidence of P.W.1 Digambar and P.W.2 Kushawartabai in respect of the oral dying declarations alleged to have been made to them by deceased Radhabai. 11. As pointed out by us above, P.W.l Digambar has admitted that after Radhabai had made the disclosure to him, he had not reported the matter nor had he informed this fact to the Police although the Police chowki was located in the hospital. The unnatural and stoic silence of this witness does not inspire confidence of Court for accepting oral dying declarations. Even otherwise, we find that there is no other evidence in support of the oral dying declarations. Apart from this, the prosecution is confronted with the evidence of the two defence witnesses who claim that immediately after the incident deceased Radhabai had told them that she had accidental1y caught fire while she was lighting the hearth. In such circumstances, according to us the appel1ants would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 12. Apart from this, the prosecution is confronted with the evidence of the two defence witnesses who claim that immediately after the incident deceased Radhabai had told them that she had accidental1y caught fire while she was lighting the hearth. In such circumstances, according to us the appel1ants would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 12. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties, according to us prosecution has failed to establish the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2007 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants/ accused are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted. Bail bonds of appellant no.3 Sow. Renukabai w/o. Kashinath Jadhav stand cancelled. Fine, if paid by the appellants, be refunded to them. Since appellant no. 1 Maroti s/o. Kashinath Jadhav and appellant no.2 Kashinath s/o. Ramji Jadhav are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.