JUDGMENT :- 1. This appeal arises out of the verdict of conviction in S.C.No.100 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Perambalur dated 27.01.2004, convicting the appellants/accused U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing them to undergo one year R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I for one month each and under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing them to undergo ten years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each in default to undergo R.I. for two months each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused A 1 married the deceased on 05.09.2001. A2 and A3 are parents of the accused A.1. On 13.7.2002, while P.W.1 was preparing tea for her husband, who was returned from the duty and planned to go for movie. At that time, while she was pumping the stove, the stove bursted and she sustained injuries. Thereafter, she was taken to the Tanjore Medical College hospital, where the doctor, P.W.14 recorded the statement from the deceased. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.15 recorded the dying declaration Ex P.21 and obtained signature of the duty doctor and it was confirmed while she was conscious. On 14.07.2002 when P.W.11 was in the Ariyalur Police Station, on receipt of the intimation, went to the Tanjore Government Hospital and received the statement from the injured and prepared F.I.R and registered the case in crime No.417/2002 under Section 309 I.P.C which was altered to Section 174 Cr.P.C. R.D.O. enquiry has been conducted. 3. P.Ws 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 are the neighbours, who turned hostile. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the friends of P.W.1 who speak about the small demands of house hold articles made by the accused. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are friends of P.W1. P.W.10 is the R.D.O, who conducted inquest. P.W.11 is the Head constable, who recorded the statement from the injured. P.W.12 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem. P.W.13 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who has registered the Fir. P.W.14 is the Doctor, who treated the deceased. P.W.15 is the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer, who laid the charge sheet before the Court. 4. P.W.11 is the Head constable, who recorded the statement from the injured. P.W.12 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem. P.W.13 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who has registered the Fir. P.W.14 is the Doctor, who treated the deceased. P.W.15 is the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer, who laid the charge sheet before the Court. 4. To substantiate charges against the accused, in the trial Court, prosecution examined, P.Ws-1 to 16, Exs.P1 to P22 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked and on the side of the accused no witness was examined. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. Upon analysis of evidence, the learned Trial judge, convicted the accused as stated above. Against which the present appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused contended that the accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused and they are residing elsewhere and they are in no way connected with the case. Hence, he prays for acquittal of the accused 2 and 3. The second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused is that there is a clear version that the deceased has declared the incident as an accident. He further submit that the prosecution relied on only a piece of evidence of P.W.11, who spoke about the third dying declaration, which is not reliable one, hence he prayed for allowing of the appeal and to set aside the sentence imposed by the trial court. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent contended that the statement that has been recorded from the deceased coupled with the letters, which was written by the deceased to the parents will indicate the offences against the appellants/accused has been proved. Hence, the appeal has to be dismissed. 8. Admittedly, the first accused married the deceased on 05.09.2001 and it is not in dispute that the said marriage is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the deceased and the first accused are residing at Ariyalur, whereas the parents of the first accused viz., accused 2 and 3, are residing at Lalgudi. From the careful perusal of the case, it is seen that no appreciable evidence has been let in to connect the crime with the accused 2 and 3. After the marriage, the deceased and the first accused are residing at Ariyalur, whereas the parents of the first accused viz., accused 2 and 3, are residing at Lalgudi. From the careful perusal of the case, it is seen that no appreciable evidence has been let in to connect the crime with the accused 2 and 3. Hence, I am of the view that no offence has been made out against the accused 2 and 3, except being the parents of the first accused. Hence, I am straightway acquitting the accused 2 and 3 from all the charges. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused vehemently contended that the prosecution has suppressed the two earlier dying declaration recorded by the Doctor and Judicial Magistrate ignoring these, they registered the complaint and hence he prayed that the appeal has to be allowed. Admittedly, the husband of the deceased was working in a private Bank. On 13.07.2002 at about 5.30 p.m., the occurrence took place. As per the evidence of P.W.14 Doctor and P.W.15 Judicial Magistrate, who have recorded the statement immediately after the admission of the injured, who deposed that while she pumping the kerosene stove to prepare a tea it bursted and at that time, her husband was getting ready after returning from his bank to go to a movie. The statement was recorded by the duty Doctor P.W.14 at 9.00 p.m. On the intimation was received from the General Hospital, P.W.15, Judicial Magistrate rushed to the hospital at 10.45 a.m. and recorded the statement on the same day. 10. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.11, who recorded the statement from the deceased on the next day viz., 14.07.2002 at about 12.00 noon. In the said statement, he has not obtained any signature from the Doctor or any other person to show that the statement has been recorded in the presence of the Doctor or any other persons. Even he has not chosen to verify from anybody that earlier statement has been recorded from the injured. If really he has recorded the statement as spoken by P.W.11 is correct, the injured must have informed that she was examined by Doctor and Judicial Magistrate on two occasions regarding the incident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.15 has to be scrutinised very carefully to know that whether the statement was given by the deceased or not. If really he has recorded the statement as spoken by P.W.11 is correct, the injured must have informed that she was examined by Doctor and Judicial Magistrate on two occasions regarding the incident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.15 has to be scrutinised very carefully to know that whether the statement was given by the deceased or not. Even if it is correct, P.W.11 has not taken any steps till night and he has not made any arrangement for recording the dying declaration or there is no evidence to show that he has made any enquiry about her health from the doctor. If really the P.W.11 has made any enquiry in the hospital, certainly he would have been informed or he must have been seen the entries that already dying declaration has been recorded by the Doctor and the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, I am of the view that the statement recorded by P.W.11, is a third statement. Further, it was not certified by the Doctor to show her mental capacity to give such statement. No one can say that the third statement can be said to be dying declaration of the deceased Vasuki. As per the evidence on record, three statements of the deceased Vasuki are available. The occurrence taken place on 13.07.2002 at 5.30 p.m. on her residence at Ariyalur. She was admitted in Tanjore Government College Hospital on the same day at 9.00 p.m. by her husband with burn injuries. The duty Doctor P.W.14 recorded the same Accident Register Ex.P20. Section 32 of the Evidence Act deals about the Statement of person who cannot be called as witness. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act are as follows:- (1) When it relates to cause of death – When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceedings in which the cause of his death comes into question. Therefore, the statement said to have been recorded by P.W.11 has to be thrown out. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceedings in which the cause of his death comes into question. Therefore, the statement said to have been recorded by P.W.11 has to be thrown out. Further, the prosecution placed reliance on Exs.P1 to 3, which are the letters said to have been written by the deceased to her parents. A perusal of the letters shows that she has made some demand of house hold articles and eatables such as wheat powder, coffee powder etc., Even though she has made one or two dis-respective words about her mother in law, she never mentioned in that letter that they are demanding any dowry or cash or any other articles from the parents of the deceased and for which she is suffering with cruelty. Therefore, the evidence given by P.W.6, 8 and 9 cannot be relied on, on the above said reasons. The trial Court giving importance to the evidence of these witnesses, convicted the accused under Section 304-B and sentenced to under go 10 years rigorous imprisonment, which was a severe punishment. From a reading the evidence of P.W.14 Doctor, who has admitted that when the deceased was in the hospital, the P.W.15, Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration from the deceased and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can safely be concluded that it is nothing but purely an accidental fire and no case has been made out against the accused/appellants. Hence, I am of the view that this appeal has to be allowed. In view of the above said discussions, this court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants/accused herein. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Perambalur dated 27.01.2004 made in S.C.No.100 of 2003 is hereby set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid, is directed to be refunded to the appellants/accused.