Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21-6-2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 268/99 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. ( 2. ) IN short the prosecution case is that Goura Bai (deceased) was the neighbour of Dhammu Choudhary. There had been some dispute between them as Goura Bai used to dig earth from the pond situated in front of house of dhammu Choudhary. This was objected by Dhammu Choudhary. Relations between them were therefore strained. About 8-10 days before the occurrence, sons of appellant ate away the plums of Goura Bai whereupon there occurred a quarrel and Dhammu and his wife abused and intimidated Goura Bai that they would set her on fire. It is said that on 14-3-1999 at about 5 oclock in the morning when Goura Bai went to urinate in her "badi", Dhammu Choudhary suddenly poured kerosene over her and ignited her by throwing a burning match stick, as a result, her back, chest, abdomen, hands and legs got burnt. On her raising hue and cry, her husband and son reached there and extinguished the fire. Their neighbours also reached there, to whom she narrated the occurrence. Goura Bai was admitted to Medical College, Jabalpur. In the hospital, she gave Dehati nalishi report (Exh. P- l) to police at 6. 30 p. m. She was medically examined by dr. Sandhya Nema (P. W. 11 ). On 15-3-1999 at about 11 a. m. her dying declaration was recorded by Naib Tehsildar R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9 ). On the same day, she expired. Her body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. J. L. Sehgal (P. W. 2) performed the post-mortem examination and vide his report (Exh. P-4) opined that Goura Bai died of burn injuries. In Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-1) and the dying declaration (Exh. P-8) Goura Bai stated that appellant set fire to her. After requisite investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. ( 3. ) DEFENCE of the accused was of denial. According to him, about 8-10 days before the occurrence, Sunita, daughter of deceased, had eloped with basant. Since he had a talk in that regard with Hallu, her husband, he was falsely implicated. ( 4. ) IN the trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. ( 3. ) DEFENCE of the accused was of denial. According to him, about 8-10 days before the occurrence, Sunita, daughter of deceased, had eloped with basant. Since he had a talk in that regard with Hallu, her husband, he was falsely implicated. ( 4. ) IN the trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Accused also examined two witnesses in his defence viz. , Mahesh Prasad Chadar (D. W. 1) and had Ram Kanojia (D. W. 2 ). Trial Court relying on the evidence of oral dying declaration made by Goura Bai to her daughter Sunita Bai (P. W. 3), her father tulai (P. W. 4) and the written statement given by her in Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-l) and the dying declaration (Exh. P-8) recorded by Naib Tehsildar, R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9) held the accused guilty of causing death of Goura Bai and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 5. ) SHRI K. L. Soni, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court committed error in holding the accused guilty on the basis of the alleged dying declarations. In the circumstances of the case, the evidence of oral as well as written dying declarations was not reliable. Though the incident occurred at about 5 oclock in the morning yet the written report (Exh. P- l) which was treated as a dying declaration was given by deceased at 6. 30 p. m. Similarly the dying declaration (Exh. P-8) was recorded by Naib Tehsildar on the next day, i. e. , on 15-3-1999. In view of the report (Exh. D/2-C) lodged by Hallu (P. W. 5), the husband of Goura Bai, that he did not know as to how Goura Bai suffered burn injuries, the aforesaid dying declarations were suspicious and wholly unreliable. Dying declarations were not corroborated by any independent evidence. The independent witnesses examined by the prosecution in the case did not support its case. On the other hand, Smt. Chanchal Sharma, Government Advocate submitted that by the evidence of dying declaration which was in the form of Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P- 1) lodged by the deceased and the dying declaration (Exh. P-8) recorded by Naib Tehsildar, it was clearly established that it was the accused who caused her death by setting fire to her. She justified the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. ( 6. P- 1) lodged by the deceased and the dying declaration (Exh. P-8) recorded by Naib Tehsildar, it was clearly established that it was the accused who caused her death by setting fire to her. She justified the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. ( 6. ) WE have heard Counsel of both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. ( 7. ) TRIAL Court held that since the information in respect of the incident (Exh. D/2-C) had been lodged by Hallu (P. W. 5) with the police earlier to Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-l) lodged by Goura Bai. Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-l)could not be treated as First Information Report. However, it could be treated as a statement of Goura Bai recorded by police during investigation. Trial Court further held that the report (Exh. D/2-C), proved by accused, was in fact the First information Report though it was not proved by the prosecution in the case. ( 8. ) THERE is no dispute that the statement of a person recorded by police by way of First Information Report or under Section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure, can be treated as dying declaration if it is made by that person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his death, in a case in which the cause of that persons death comes into question. Such statement is relevant whether the person who made it was or was not, at the time when it was made, under expectation of death. Thus, the statement made by deceased in Exh. P-l can be treated as dying declaration. In Exh. P-1, Goura Bai clearly stated that Dhammu choudhary suddenly poured kerosene on her and threw a burning match stick on her as a result of which she got burnt. Similarly, in another dying declaration (Exh. P-8) which was recorded by Naib Tehsildar R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9), she stated that Dhammu poured kerosene on her from a lamp and ignited her. The question, however, is whether the aforesaid dying declarations are reliable and can be acted upon. ( 9. Similarly, in another dying declaration (Exh. P-8) which was recorded by Naib Tehsildar R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9), she stated that Dhammu poured kerosene on her from a lamp and ignited her. The question, however, is whether the aforesaid dying declarations are reliable and can be acted upon. ( 9. ) SUB Inspector, C. R. Patel (P. W. 10) deposed that on 14-3-1999, hallu lodged a report at Police Station, Bhedaghat on the basis of which he went to Medical College, where Goura Bai was admitted. Goura Bai made him to write Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-1 ). She put her thumb impression on it and he also signed it. He sent this Dehati Nalishi to police station for registration of First information Report. He admitted that he did not obtain certificate about the condition of Goura Bai from the doctor. He also admitted that two or three relatives of Goura Bai were present when the said report was given by her. Though it cannot be doubted that C. R. Patel (P. W. 10) recorded Exh. P-l as it was given by Goura Bai, yet the presence of her friends or relatives at the time of recording of said report, in our opinion, throws some doubt about the truthfulness of the version given by her in the said report. At this juncture, it is also significant to note that C. R. Patel (P. W. 10) admitted that husband of goura Bai viz. , Hallu Ram also lodged a report at the police station, but he did not disclose as to who set fire to Goura Bai. The report lodged by Hallu was not produced by the prosecution and it was got proved by the accused. Head constable Hari Ram Kanojia (D. W. 2) deposed that on 14-3-1999 he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Bhedaghat. Halluram came to police station and lodged report (Exh. D-2) which he recorded in Roznamcha Sanha no. 552. Carbon copy of Roznamcha was Exh. D/2-C According to him, he recorded the said report verbatim as given by Hallu. On perusal of report (Exh. D/2-C), it is revealed that on 13-3-1999 there had been an altercation between accused and Goura Bai and on 14-3-1999 when Goura Bai went to answer the call of nature, he heard her shrieks. He went near her and extinguished the fire. People of the neighbourhood also reached there. On perusal of report (Exh. D/2-C), it is revealed that on 13-3-1999 there had been an altercation between accused and Goura Bai and on 14-3-1999 when Goura Bai went to answer the call of nature, he heard her shrieks. He went near her and extinguished the fire. People of the neighbourhood also reached there. It was clearly mentioned in the report that he did not know as to who ignited her or how she caught fire. This report was lodged at 1. 30 p. m. From this report, it can readily be inferred that till 1. 30 p. m. Hallu who happened to be the husband of Goura Bai did not know how she caught fire. ( 10. ) FROM the medical examination report (Exh. P-12) of Goura Bai, it is seen that she was brought to hospital at 9. 15 a. m. She was examined by Dr. Sandhya Nema (P. W. 11 ). The requisition for medical examination of Goura Bai was sent by Station Officer of Police Station, Bhedaghat. In this requisition, it was nowhere mentioned as to how she suffered burn injuries. Dr. Sandhya Nema deposed that Goura Bai was brought by her husband. Goura Bai merely told her that she some how got burnt at about 5 oclock in the morning. When she was brought for the treatment she was conscious, but neither she asked her as to how she suffered burns nor she disclosed it to her. According to her, she enquired from Hallu about the occurrence but she did not mention it in her report, as he did not say anything. It is thus, amply established that till 6. 30 p. m. , when Dehati nalishi report (Exh. P-1) was given by Goura Bai, neither Goura Bai nor her husband Hallu disclosed to anybody that accused set fire to her. ( 11. ) DYING declaration (Exh. P-8) was recorded by Naib Tehsildar R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9) on 15-3-1999. In this also, Goura Bai reiterated the same thing. According to R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9), Goura Bai was in fit condition to give the dying declaration. He had also obtained the certificate from the doctor. ( 11. ) DYING declaration (Exh. P-8) was recorded by Naib Tehsildar R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9) on 15-3-1999. In this also, Goura Bai reiterated the same thing. According to R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9), Goura Bai was in fit condition to give the dying declaration. He had also obtained the certificate from the doctor. There appears nothing in the statement of R. K. Dhimole to doubt that he recorded the said dying declaration but the question remains to be answered, whether the statement given by the deceased in the dying declaration was truthful and could be relied upon. ( 12. ) AFTER bestowing our anxious consideration and pondering over the matter after considering all circumstances emerging from the record, we are of i he opinion that the dying declaration made by deceased in Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-l) and the dying declaration (Exh. P-8) recorded by Naib Tehsildar R. K. Dhimole (P. W. 9), do not inspire confidence. Though, technically, they do not appear to suffer from any infirmity in recording the same, yet in view of the fact that neither Goura Bai nor her husband disclosed to police that accused set fire to Goura Bai, till 6. 30 p. m. , i. e. , for about 13 hours after the occurrence which took place about 5 oclock in the morning, they do not appear truthful. The suspicion about truthfulness of the said dying declarations is further reinforced by the fact that in the report (Exh. D/2-C) lodged by Hallu at the police station at 1. 30 p. m. , he did not disclose that accused set fire to Goura Bai though he deposed in the Court that in the morning when he reached near Goura Bai, she told him that when she sat for urination, Dhammu poured kerosene and set fire to her. According to him, Kotwar and Sarpanch also reached there to whom she narrated the incident but surprisingly none lodged the report with the police naming the accused. Hallu admitted that he went to police station at about 12 oclock and lodged the report with the police naming the accused but he failed to explain as to why the name of accused was not mentioned in the report. Hallu admitted that he went to police station at about 12 oclock and lodged the report with the police naming the accused but he failed to explain as to why the name of accused was not mentioned in the report. Sunita (P. W. 3) and Tulia (P. W. 4), respectively, the daughter and father of Goura Bai, though deposed that Goura Bai told them that Dhammu set fire to her but the statement of these witnesses were recorded on the next day of the incident, i. e. , on \5-3-1999. Though according to them police recorded their statements on 14-3-1999, yet those statements were not found in the case diary. Other independent witnesses Kotwar-Holkar Prasad (P. W. 6) and Sarpanch Bharat lai (P. W. 7) did not support the prosecution case. According to them, on hearing the cries of Goura Bai, they went at the spot and saw her in burnt condition but Goura Bai did not tell anything to them. Since Hallu too did not disclose the name of the accused in the report (Exh. D/2-C), lodged by him at about 1. 30 p. m. , it castes serious doubt that Goura Bai, at the time of occurrence, disclosed to anybody that accused set fire to her. In our opinion, written as well as oral dying declarations are not worthy of reliance as they appear to have been conceived and constructed after due deliberation and delay and not free from suspicion which create doubt in our minds about their genuineness. ( 13. ) FOR the reasons stated above, we hold the evidence of dying declarations not sufficient for safely basing conviction of the appellant. ( 14. ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is set aside and he is acquitted. Appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.