Judgment :- N.V. Ramana, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 83 of 2007 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on 05-12-2008. The appellant herein is accused No.1 and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He along with accused Nos.2 and 3 was also prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. According to the prosecution, about five years prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. The deceased was blessed with a daughter and was five months pregnant by the date of incident. From the date of marriage, accused No.1 harassed the deceased physically by suspecting her fidelity. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also harassed her. All the three accused wanted to get rid of her and created a false story of missing of Rs.500/- from their house on 24-01-2006 and blamed the deceased, for which their neighbours chastised the accused. On the same day, while the deceased was laying firewood in front of the house for drying, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her. The deceased, having got frightened, started running towards the gate of the house and accused No.1 had lighted matchstick and thrown it on her as a result of which she was engulfed in flames. Thereafter, she ran towards the house of PWs 1 and 2 with flames and fell down near the water tub. On enquiry, the deceased narrated the incident to PWs 1 and 2. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. On intimation of the admission of the deceased in the hospital, PW 10 – Head Constable went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. He then sent the statement of the deceased and the intimation of the hospital on the point of jurisdiction to Tadepalli Police Station and a case in Crime No. 97 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was registered by PW 11 – Head Constable of the said police station. Thereafter, he inspected the scene of offence on 22-04-2006 and drafted panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators - PW 6 and another. Thereafter, he inspected the scene of offence on 22-04-2006 and drafted panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators - PW 6 and another. PW 11 also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P-9 and recovered burnt matchsticks, burnt cloth pieces and kerosene tin from the scene of offence. PW 8, the III Assistant Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 24-04-2006. On 28-04-2006, PW 12, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of death intimation of the deceased, altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. PW 13 – Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The court below has framed charges under Section 302 IPC against the appellant – accused No.1 and under Section 498-A IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-11 and MOs 1 to 3. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. The trial Court basing on the above said evidence found the appellant – accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and awarded a substantive sentence of three years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant - accused No. 1. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC against the appellant – accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no consistency in the dying declarations Exs.P-5 and P-7 recorded by PWs 8 and 10 respectively. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC against the appellant – accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no consistency in the dying declarations Exs.P-5 and P-7 recorded by PWs 8 and 10 respectively. The most important aspect to be considered by the Court is as to where actually the deceased received burns and who helped her in extinguishing the fire. He also contended that the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by PW 11 is not marked by the prosecution which amounts to suppression of evidence and therefore, accused No.1 is entitled to take shelter of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’) and hence, the other dying declarations cannot be relied upon. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in HarijanaMulinti Bhushanna vs. State of A.P (2004 (2) ALT (Crl) 571) and A. Savithramma and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009 (1) ALD (Crl) 515). Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the dying declaration recorded by PW 10 cannot be taken into consideration because he has not obtained the certificate of the doctor with regard to state of mind of the patient at the time of recording her statement, and there is no endorsement that the statement was recorded in the presence of the duty doctor or any doctor. Thus arguing learned Senior Counsel pleaded for acquittal of the appellant – accused No.1 of the above said charges. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court, contending that both the dying declarations are consistent. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 suspected the fidelity of the deceased and harassed her. All the accused with a view to get rid of her, created a false story of missing of Rs.500/- from the house on 24-01-2006 and blamed the deceased. On the same day, while the deceased was laying firewood in front of the house for drying, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, due to which she received burn injuries and died. On the same day, while the deceased was laying firewood in front of the house for drying, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, due to which she received burn injuries and died. To prove that the deceased died a homicidal death, as a result of the burn injuries sustained by her, the prosecution examined PW 7 - Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Science and Medicine, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-3 postmortem certificate. PW 7 deposed that, on receipt of requisition of police, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem external injuries: “94% burn injures with infection present over the neck, both the upper limbs, chest, abdomen and both lower limbs. On dissection I found no abnormalities.” PW 7 opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to burns and complication of the said burn injuries. Ex.P-3 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. Thus, the prosecution could prove that the deceased died a homicidal death. To prove that accused No.1 used to harass the deceased and that he caused the homicidal death, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.P-5 and P-7, her dying declarations recorded by PWs 8 and 10 respectively. PW 1, who is maternal aunt of the deceased, stated that accused No.1 and the deceased led happy marital life for about four months after their marriage. Thereafter, all the accused started ill-treating the deceased by beating her, due to which the deceased used to go to her parents house. Again, at the intervention of elders, she used to join the society of accused No.1. She stated that on the date of incident, at about 1.00 PM or 1.30 PM while she was in her house, the deceased came with flames and fell at the water tub. Then, herself and PW 2 who is her husband came to the tub and put off flames on the body of the deceased with the help of clothes. Then, the deceased told her that accused No.1, suspecting that she might have stolen Rs.400/- or Rs.500/- from the house, poured kerosene on her and set fire with a match stick. Then, herself and PW 2 who is her husband came to the tub and put off flames on the body of the deceased with the help of clothes. Then, the deceased told her that accused No.1, suspecting that she might have stolen Rs.400/- or Rs.500/- from the house, poured kerosene on her and set fire with a match stick. PW 1 stated that they shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment and that the deceased died after one week. PW 2 is the maternal uncle of the deceased, who supported the version of PW 1 with regard to the harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands accused No.1 and the deceased coming to their house with flames on her body and informing them about accused No.1 pouring kerosene on her and setting fire to her, suspecting that she is responsible for missing of Rs.400/- or Rs.500/-. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, which is consistent with each other, indicates that accused No.1 used to quarrel with the deceased and on the day of incident, the deceased came to their house with flames on her body and informed them that accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Though PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve their evidence. PW 3, who is the mother of the deceased, stated that the accused looked after the deceased affectionately for only a period of four months after their marriage. Thereafter, all the accused harassed the deceased to bring money and sent her to their house. At the intervention of elders, she gave Rs.2,000/-to the accused and sent the deceased back to the house of the accused. The deceased was sent to her house for about three times for the same reason and on every occasion she made small payments to the accused and sent the deceased back to the house of the accused. On the date of incident, at about 4.00 PM or 5.00 PM, she received a phone call from Vijayawada that the deceased was ill and admitted in the Government General Hospital. Thereafter, she immediately rushed to Vijayawada and found the deceased with burn injuries in the hospital. On the date of incident, at about 4.00 PM or 5.00 PM, she received a phone call from Vijayawada that the deceased was ill and admitted in the Government General Hospital. Thereafter, she immediately rushed to Vijayawada and found the deceased with burn injuries in the hospital. On enquiry, the deceased told her that all the accused blamed her that she has stolen Rs.400/- or Rs.500/- from the house and quarreled with her and on the date of incident, when she was drying firewood, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and set fire to her and then immediately she rushed to the house of PW 1, where PW 1 and neighbours put off the fire and shifted her to hospital. Though PW 3 was cross examined at length nothing adverse was elicited from her evidence. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 also corroborated the version of PWs 1 and 2 that accused No.1 has poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. PW 4, who is a villager of the accused, stated that the deceased reported to him three or four times that the accused was ill-treating her as the accused does not like her, and that he acted as mediator for two or three times and admonished the accused. He further deposed that on the date of incident at about 1.30 PM or 2.00 PM while he was at his house, he received information that the deceased sustained burn injuries. He went to the house of PW 1 and found the deceased with burn injuries. On enquiry, the deceased told him that at about 1.00 PM or 1.30 PM, at her house her husband poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with matchstick. Himself, relatives of the deceased and others shifted the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. PW 8 was the then III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. He stated that on receipt of intimation from Government Hospital, Vijayawada, he reached the hospital on 21-04-2006 at 5.30 PM to record the statement of the deceased and the duty doctor identified the deceased. PW 8 was the then III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. He stated that on receipt of intimation from Government Hospital, Vijayawada, he reached the hospital on 21-04-2006 at 5.30 PM to record the statement of the deceased and the duty doctor identified the deceased. After satisfying that the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement and also after certification of the duty doctor that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a good state of mind to give a statement, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded wherein the deceased has stated that on the date of incident when she was drying firewood in the house, accused No.1 came there and poured kerosene on her with a tin. She got frightened and came out and reached gate of the house but found that the same was closed. When she tried to open the gate, accused No.1 came and set fire with a matchstick. She raised cries but mother-in-law did not come out from the house. The public on the road and her relatives PWs 1 and 2 came there and they put clothes on her body to extinguish the fire. Accused No.1 after litting fire calmly went into the house and sat on the bed and her father-in-law was not in the house as he was out of the village on that day. She further stated that accused No.1 suspected her fidelity/character since the inception of her marriage and used to demand her to bring money from her parents’ house and accused Nos.2 and 3 also demanded her to bring money. PW 10 is the then Head Constable who was on duty at Outpost of the Government Hospital, Vijayawada. He stated that on the date of incident on receipt of written intimation from the Casualty Medical Officer under Ex.P-6, he went to the casualty ward and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P-7 and after reading the contents of the statement, he obtained her left thumb impression. He sent Ex.P-7 with his endorsement to Tadepalli Police station through Machavaram Police Station on point of jurisdiction. He sent Ex.P-7 with his endorsement to Tadepalli Police station through Machavaram Police Station on point of jurisdiction. However, in the cross examination PW 10 admitted that he had not obtained certificate of doctor on Ex.P-7 with regard to the state of mind of the deceased and Ex.P-7 does not speak about the endorsement that he recorded the statement in the presence of duty doctor or any doctor. It is a settled principle of law that in cases resting on multiple written dying declarations, the Court cannot pick and choose any one dying declaration but all the dying declarations have to be consistent in respect of material aspects of the incident. If in the dying declarations the truthfulness of the narration itself is rendered doubtful, no reliance can be placed on the dying declarations. The dying declaration has to pass all the tests of reliability as the declarant is not available for cross-examination. In cases where there are multiple dying declarations and acceptance of one dying declaration falsifies the other, the dying declarations have to be necessarily rejected. In the backdrop of this settled law, it is pertinent to refer to Exs.P-5 and P-7, the dying declarations recorded by PW 8, the Magistrate and PW 10, the Head Constable respectively. Ex.P-5 was recorded by PW 8 on 21-04-2006 at about 5.30 PM. He stated that on receipt of intimation from Government Hospital, Vijayawada, he reached the hospital on 21-04-2006 at 5.30 PM to record the statement of the deceased and the duty doctor identified the deceased. After satisfying for himself that the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement and also after certification of the duty doctor that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a good state of mind to give a statement, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, wherein the deceased stated that in the month of April, 2002, she married accused No.1 and was blessed with a female child. She and accused No.1 lived together at Penumaka Village and that her father died. Since the inception of the marriage, the accused quarreled with her and harassed her. She stated that about four days prior to the date of incident, a sum of Rs.500/-was missing from their house and accused No.1 requested neighbours by touching their feet to see that he gets divorce from her. Since the inception of the marriage, the accused quarreled with her and harassed her. She stated that about four days prior to the date of incident, a sum of Rs.500/-was missing from their house and accused No.1 requested neighbours by touching their feet to see that he gets divorce from her. But, the neighbours advised accused No.1 not to go for divorce for the sake of money. Thereafter, accused No.1 uttered that he would get rid of her. On the date of incident, accused No.1 asked her not to attend to agricultural work and as such, she stayed at home. Her mother-in-law was sleeping in the house and she was drying firewood in front of the house. Meanwhile, accused No.1 came there and poured kerosene on her containing in the tin. She got frightened and came out of the house and reached the gate of the house, but the gate was closed. When she tried to open the gate, accused No.1 came and set fire to her with matchstick. She raised cries and accused No. 3 did not come out from the house, but the public on the road and her relatives PWs 1 and 2 came there and put clothes on her body to extinguish the fire. Accused No.1 after litting fire went into the house and sat on bed. Accused No.2 was not in the house as he was out of the village on that day. The deceased stated that accused No.1 was suspecting her fidelity and character since the inception of the marriage. Accused No.1 used to demand her to bring money from her parents house. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also used to demand her to bring money. PW 8 stated that after recording the dying declaration, he read over the contents and the deceased admitted them to be true and correct. He then obtained the left thumb impression on the dying declaration under Ex.P-5. PW 10 also recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P-7 wherein she has stated that her parents reside near Mani Hotel in the second lane of old Guntur and that her marriage was performed about five years back in the presence of elders with accused No.1, that she was blessed with a daughter and was carrying fifth month pregnancy. PW 10 also recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P-7 wherein she has stated that her parents reside near Mani Hotel in the second lane of old Guntur and that her marriage was performed about five years back in the presence of elders with accused No.1, that she was blessed with a daughter and was carrying fifth month pregnancy. Her husband used to quarrel with her from the beginning and now and then he used to beat her by picking up quarrel. Four days prior to the date of incident, Rs.400/- was lost in their house and accused No.1 abused her by saying that she took the said amount and when he would get rid of her. On the date of incident i.e., on 21-04-2006 in the afternoon at 2.00 PM while she sat in front of the oven, accused No.1 poured kerosene upon her. While she flew, he lit a matchstick and threw it on her. Then, she ran to the house of her paternal aunt and fell down at the tub. Her paternal aunt and the neighbours came, poured water upon her and extinguished the flames. Then her uncle, one Shaik Peer Saheb and others shifted her to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada in a car and admitted her in the hospital. The deceased stated that accused No.1 poured kerosene upon her body and set fire and that her body was completely burnt. The deceased also made oral dying declarations to PWs 1, 2 and 3 wherein she stated that accused No.1 suspected that she might have stolen Rs.400/- or Rs.500/- from the house and on such suspicion, he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with matchstick. A comparative reading of the dying declarations makes it clear that except detailing the incident in the statement recorded by PW 8, there is no material variation in all the dying declarations. Thus, it cannot be said that there is inconsistency in both the dying declarations. There is no inconsistency with regard to the place where the kerosene was poured on the deceased. There is inconsistency only with regard to running of the deceased from her house to PWs 1 and 2. Thus, it cannot be said that there is inconsistency in both the dying declarations. There is no inconsistency with regard to the place where the kerosene was poured on the deceased. There is inconsistency only with regard to running of the deceased from her house to PWs 1 and 2. In the first dying declaration i.e., in Ex.P-5 recorded by PW 8, she stated that when she tried to open gate, accused No.1 lit a matchstick and threw it on her and that the flames raised upon her and on hearing her cries, people on the road came to her and PWs 1 and 2 also came and covered her body with clothes and tried to extinguish the fire. But in Ex.P-7 recorded by PW 10, the deceased stated that while she was fleeing due to fear after accused No.1 poured kerosene on her, accused No.1 lit the matchstick and threw it on her. Then she ran to the house of PW 1 and fell down at the tub and that PW 1 and neighbours came and poured water on her and extinguished the flames. Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: “32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. is relevant: -Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases. (1) When it relates to cause of death:-When the statement 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. (1) When it relates to cause of death:-When the statement 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 proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.” Thus, it is clear from a bare reading of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act that from the statement of the deceased the cause of the death has to be proved. In the present case, the cause of the death of the deceased is due to burn injuries received by her, on account of accused No.1 pouring kerosene and setting fire to her. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, there is no inconsistency in the dying declarations and consistently she stated that on the date of incident, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and lit fire. Hence, there is no reason to discard Exs.P-5 and P-7 dying declarations. Even though learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in HarijanaMulinti Bhushanna’s case and A. Savithramma’scase (1 and 2 supra) in support of his contention that the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by PW 11 is not marked by the prosecution which amounts to suppression of evidence and therefore, accused No.1 is entitled to take shelter of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, the fact remains that after elaborately discussing the precedents, both by this Court and the Supreme Court, we in Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2009 opined that whatever an important evidence is not produced by the prosecution, ipso facto, it will not give any right to the accused to seek shelter under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that an adverse inference should be drawn and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, PW 11, the Head Constable who recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased along with the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3, but nowhere in his cross examination, it was suggested to him that the above statement is in favour of the accused and that is why the prosecution has suppressed the said statement. Apart from this, there is consistency in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 with regard to the deceased stating to them about the harassment meted out to her in the hands of accused No.1 and his causing her death. The dying declaration Ex.P-7 recorded by PW 10 cannot be discarded simply for the reason that he has not obtained certificate of the doctor with regard to state of mind of the patient and also for the reason that there is no endorsement that the statement was recorded in the presence of the duty doctor or any doctor, because PW 10 has categorically stated he obtained the thumb impression of the deceased as she admitted the contents thereof as true after reading the contents to her. PW 8, the Magistrate has recorded the statement of the deceased after satisfying for himself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the declaration and after obtaining the certificate of the doctor with regard to her state of mind. Thus, it draws us to a conclusion that both the dying declarations are true, voluntary and trustworthy. Thus, the prosecution by the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and coupled with the dying declarations of the deceased under Exs.P-5 and P-7 recorded by PWs 8 and 10 respectively could prove that accused No.1 harassed the deceased and caused her death, by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the appellant-accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge warrants no interference in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant – accused No.1 by judgment dated 05-12-2007 passed in S.C No. 83 of 2007 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur is hereby confirmed.