JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.05.2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 1/98, 38/2004, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2.Case of the prosecution, in a net-shell, is that Smt. Meena Devi, D/o Sh. Chandermani (PW-2) and Smt. Hardei (PW­4), was married with accused Rattan Lal on 15.02.1996. She started living in her matrimonial house alongwith the accused. Smt. Meena Devi, for the first time in the month of June/July, 1996, told her father (PW-2) that the accused were making illegal demand of dowry as they were demanding Godrej Almirah, Coloured T.V. and Washing Machine etc. Thereafter, the accused started maltreating and harassing Smt. Meena Devi to force her to meet their illegal demand of dowry. This fact was also disclosed by her to her mother Hardei (PW-4), uncle Jeevan Verma (PW-8) and Ravi Verma (PW-15). 3. On 10.07.1996, PW-2, Sh. Chandermani received an information through the police that Smt. Meena Devi had received burn injuries on 09.07.1996 and she has been admitted in Chatrokhari, Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. Thereafter, PW-2 alongwith one Rewati Lal went to Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. His daughter was not there. He was told that she has been taken either to Shimla or to the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, PW-2 got his statement recorded vide Ex. PW-2/A, on the basis of which, an F.I.R. Ex. PW-12/A was recorded by PW-12, Sh. Narain Singh. The Medical Officer, Sh. Ramesh Gupta telephonically informed the police, on the basis of which, rap at Ex. PW- 11/A was entered in the daily diary by PW- 11, Sh. Bhed Singh. Thereafter, PW- 11, Sh. Bhed Singh moved an application Ex. PW-1 1/B for recording the statement of Smt. Meena Devi, but she was declared unfit to give statement at 9:00 p.m. PW­11 again inquired from the doctor and the doctor opined that the patient was conscious to verbal commands. Thereafter, PW- 11 recorded the statement of Smt. Meena Devi, Ex. PW-1 1/C in the presence of PW-18, Dr. Hari Priya. The statement was thumb marked by Smt. Meena Devi and attested by PW-18. The medical examination of Smt. Meena Devi was got conducted by PW-19, Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra. Thereafter, PW- 11 recorded the statement of Smt. Meena Devi, Ex. PW-1 1/C in the presence of PW-18, Dr. Hari Priya. The statement was thumb marked by Smt. Meena Devi and attested by PW-18. The medical examination of Smt. Meena Devi was got conducted by PW-19, Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra. He issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-19/A, according to which, Smt. Meena Devi has suffered burn injuries to the extent of 92%, which were grievous in nature. Thereafter, Meena Devi was referred to I.G.M.C., Shimla. PW-2 came to know about the same from accused Tara Devi. Thereafter, PW-2 alongwith PW-4, Smt. Hardei and Rewati Lal went to Shimla. They found Smt. Meena Devi in serious condition. 4.On 11.07.1996, PW-9, Kedir Ali, the then Investigating Officer in Police Station, Sundernagar went to I.G.M.C., Shimla to record the statement of Smt. Meena Devi. He moved an application Ex. PW-9/A to the Medical Officer, named Rajat Gupta. He gave his opinion that Meena Devi was fit to give statement. On this, PW-9 recorded the statement of Smt. Meena Devi, Ex. PW-9/B, which was thumb marked by the deceased Meena Devi and attested by Dr. Rajat Gupta, PW-20. 5. On 15.10.1996, PW-8 Jeevan Verma went to I.G.M.C., Shimla to inquire about the health of Meena Devi. He moved an application Ex. PW-3/A alongwith an affidavit Ex. PW­8/A before the District Magistrate, Shimla for recording the statement of Smt. Meena Devi. On 17.07.1996, the application was forwarded to PW-3, Sh. B.L. Raghav, the then Tehsildar Urban, Shimla for necessary action. Thereafter, PW-3 proceeded to I.G.M.C., Shimla and contacted PW-16, Dr. Ramesh Bharti, who was treating Smt. Meena Devi. He made queries from Dr. Ramesh Bharti as to whether Smt. Meena Devi was in a fit condition to give statement. PW- 16 clarified that Meena Devi was fit to give statement at about 4:45 p.m. Thereafter, PW-3 recorded the statement of Smt. Mena Devi, Ex. PW-2/B in the presence of PW-5 Rakesh Tejpal, PW-16 Dr. Ramesh Bharti and PW-2, Chandermani, the father of Smt. Meena Devi, which was also signed by PW-2 and PW-5, Sh. Rakesh Tejpal. Smt. Meena Devi later on succumbed to her burn injuries on 23.07.1996 at about 5:15 a.m. 6. PW-2 1, Mohinder Pal conducted the inquest proceedings. The post mortem was conducted by PW-17, Dr. B.K. Mishra. He issued the post mortem report Ex. Rakesh Tejpal. Smt. Meena Devi later on succumbed to her burn injuries on 23.07.1996 at about 5:15 a.m. 6. PW-2 1, Mohinder Pal conducted the inquest proceedings. The post mortem was conducted by PW-17, Dr. B.K. Mishra. He issued the post mortem report Ex. PW-17/A. According to the post mortem report, Smt. Meena Devi died due to Asphyxia and aspiration of gastric contents secondary to ante mortem burn injuries. 7. PW-22, Amba Dutt, the then Additional S.H.O., Police Station, Sundernagar investigated the case. He visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex. PW-22/C. The photographs of the spot were taken. He has taken into possession can, kerosene oil, stove, match stick alongwith inner portion of match box, soil sample of earth, inner portion of lid of can, burnt pieces of paper, pieces of bangles, burnt hair, dupata and burnt clothes vide memos Ex. PW-1/G, Ex. PW-1/H, Ex. PW-1/D, Ex. PW­1/E, Ex. PW-1/F, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. A letter Ex. P-1 was produced by accused Tara Devi, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW- 1/A. The case property was deposited by him with M.H.C. and was sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. Junga. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 8. The prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure were recorded. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The trial Court acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal by the State. 9. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. According to him, the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. 10. Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 28.05.2004. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 12. The marriage of Meena Devi was solemnized with accused Rattan Lal on 15.02.1996. PW-1, Smt. Kanta Devi has deposed that she was Ward Member of Gram Panchayat, Mahadev in the year 1996. She knew all the accused persons. She was associated by the police during the course of investigation alongwith one Krishana, Hari Ram and Daulat Ram. According to her, accused Tara had produced letter Ex. PW-1, Smt. Kanta Devi has deposed that she was Ward Member of Gram Panchayat, Mahadev in the year 1996. She knew all the accused persons. She was associated by the police during the course of investigation alongwith one Krishana, Hari Ram and Daulat Ram. According to her, accused Tara had produced letter Ex. P­1, which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. Pieces of bangles, burnt hair and dupatta were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/B and sealed in a packet. The burnt cloths were also taken into possession vide Ex. PW-1/C and were sealed in a separate parcel. The match sticks alongwith box were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/D and were sealed in a separate parcel. The earth soiled with oil and sample earth were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW- 1/E and were separately sealed in two parcels. Some burnt pieces of papers and piece of paper of lid were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/F and sealed in separate packets. The can of kerosene oil was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/G and an iron stove was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/H after sealing the same in a separate parcel. All the memos were signed by her. These articles were taken into possession from the second storey of the house. According to her, the day wife of Rattan Lal was burnt, Hari Ram came to him at about 7 or 7:30 p.m. and told her that wife of Rattan Lal has been burnt. She accompanied him to the house of accused person. When she reached their house, she saw the wife of Rattan Lal, whose name she did not remember, was standing in a burnt condition in the courtyard. Thereafter, she was removed to the hospital by the villagers and accused persons on a cot. On a specific query put by her, she told that she caught fire while preparing tea on stove, but she did not remember how she caught fire. In her cross-examination, she stated that letter Ex. P-1 was brought by Tara Devi to her one day prior to this occurrence. On the same day, she visited the house of accused and enquired about letter Ex. P-1. Deceased Meena Devi admitted the fact of writing letter Ex. P-1. In her cross-examination, she stated that letter Ex. P-1 was brought by Tara Devi to her one day prior to this occurrence. On the same day, she visited the house of accused and enquired about letter Ex. P-1. Deceased Meena Devi admitted the fact of writing letter Ex. P-1. She apprised her that her father usually in drunken state visit her in-laws house and insist her to leave the house of her in-laws and to live in her parental house. According to her, on one or two occasions, accused Tara Devi had sought her intervention in the matter as deceased Meena Devi have been threatening to commit suicide. She advised deceased Meena Devi to live peacefully and not to commit suicide. According to her, deceased told her that her father was creating unnecessary interference in her marital life and as such she was fed up of her life and wanted to bring the same to an end. She further stated that at the time of alleged incident, accused Tara Devi and accused Rattan Lal were not present in the house and they reached the house later on. According to her, accused Soma Devi, Narbada Devi and Kesar Singh, who were present outside the house at the time of incident, had extinguished the fire by throwing water and also with the help of quilts. According to her, Can, Ex. P-2 was also recovered from the kitchen of the house lying near the stove. 13. PW-2, Sh. Chandermani, father of Meena Devi, deceased, has testified that she was educated up to 7th standard. She was married on 15.02.1996 with accused Rattan Lal. He visited the house of accused on 23.02.1996 and found everything normal. His daughter continued to meet her and other family members and she for the first time, told her about the illegal demand of dowry by the accused persons in the month of June/July, 1996, when she met him. His daughter informed him that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother- in-law were demanding a godraj almirah, coloured T.V. and washing machine etc. According to him, she has not named her husband for demanding dowry. Thereafter, the accused persons started maltreating and harassing his daughter in order to force her to meet their illegal demand of dowry. He could not meet the demand of dowry being poor. According to him, she has not named her husband for demanding dowry. Thereafter, the accused persons started maltreating and harassing his daughter in order to force her to meet their illegal demand of dowry. He could not meet the demand of dowry being poor. He went personally to the house of accused persons and requested them not to harass his daughter as he was not in a position to meet their illegal demands of dowry. On 10th July, 1996, he got information through police that her daughter received burn injuries on 9th July, 1996. He was informed that his daughter has been admitted in Chatrokhari Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. None of the accused persons informed him about the burn injuries of his daughter, though they wee were residing 10-12 kms. away from his residence. He alongwith Revati Lal went to Civil Hospital, Sundernagar to locate his daughter, but she was not there. He was told that his daughter either has been taken to Shimla or to her in-laws house. Accused Tara Devi told him at Mahadev that his daughter has been taken to Shimla for treatment. Thereafter, he, his wife and Revati Lal immediately left for Shimla. According to him, his wife and Revati Lal returned next day, however, he remained there with his daughter in the hospital till she died. She was badly burnt and was in serous condition. On 17th July, 1996, the statement of his daughter was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. He was also present when the statement of his daughter was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The statement Ex. PW-2/B was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of doctors. According to him, before the statement Ex. PW-2/B was recorded, police also made an effort to record the statement of his daughter, but it could not be recorded as she became unconscious. Police tried to record the statement about 3-4 days before Ex. PW-2/B was recorded. According to him, his daughter in the hospital used to tell him that she will disclose the entire facts provided her husband was protected. She used to suppress facts from him. Initially, his daughter was reluctant to tell him the cause of her burn injuries, however, before her statement Ex. PW-2/B was recorded, she told him that she was asked to prepare tea by accused Kesar Singh, Soma and Narbada Devi. She used to suppress facts from him. Initially, his daughter was reluctant to tell him the cause of her burn injuries, however, before her statement Ex. PW-2/B was recorded, she told him that she was asked to prepare tea by accused Kesar Singh, Soma and Narbada Devi. When she started preparing tea, accused Narbada brought kerosene oil and Kesar Singh threw it on her body and Soma Devi lighted the match stick, as a result of which, she caught fire and received burn injuries. According to him, document Ex. P-1 was not in the hand writing of her daughter. According to him, his daughter did not name her husband, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law Naresh having participated for causing burnt injuries to her. However, she told him that they were also instrumental in harassing her for illegal demand of dowry. She expired on 23.07.1996 at about 5:15 a.m. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that it was for the first time in the month of June that his daughter told him about the illegal demands of dowry by the accused persons. Thereafter, after three days, he went to the house of accused persons and requested them that he was not in a position to meet the demands of dowry. According to him, Rewati Ram accompanied him to the house of accused person. However, he did not report the matter either to the police or to the Panchayat about the facts brought to him by his daughter. According to him, his daughter came to their house alongwith her husband in the month of June, 1996 only for one night when she told him for the first time about the illegal demand of dowry by the accused person. His daughter used to tell him during his inquiries when he inquired from her about the cause of her injuries. He did not know at whose instance Tehsildar was brought to the hospital for recording the statement of his daughter, though he formally requested his brother that statement of his daughter should be recorded by some responsible officer. According to him, he did not ask any doctor attending his daughter for recording her statement. He did not know at whose instance Tehsildar was brought to the hospital for recording the statement of his daughter, though he formally requested his brother that statement of his daughter should be recorded by some responsible officer. According to him, he did not ask any doctor attending his daughter for recording her statement. He further stated that three persons from Human Rights Commission visited I.G.M.C., Shimla and they intended to record his statement, however, he told them that they should record the statement of victim if at all they are interested to record the statement. He also deposed that on 17.07.1996, when the statement of his daughter was recorded by Tehsildar, probably her thumb impression was not taken on the statement. According to him, his daughter was totally unconscious and she used to regain her consciousness at regular intervals of times. He also admitted that after the death of his daughter, the police also started fresh inquiry and his statement was also recorded. He also stated that he alongwith Human Right Commission people visited the spot. According to him, they also visited the house of Ratti Devi and also met Krishna Devi witness. He has denied the suggestion that neither the accused persons have made any demand for dowry nor maltreated or harassed her. According to him, he has told Smt. Ratti Devi regarding the demand of dowry and maltreatment by the accused persons. 14. PW-3, Sh. Bihari Lal Raghav has testified that he was posted as Tehsildar (Urban), Shimla in the year, 1996. According to him, on 17.07.1996, Ex. PW-3/A was forwarded by the S.D.M., Shimla (Urban) for necessary action. He proceeded for I.G.M.C., where Meena Devi (deceased) was admitted. He contacted Dr. Ramesh Bharti, who was attending to the patient. He went to the patient alongwith the doctor. He enquired from the doctor as to whether the patient, i.e., deceased Meena Devi was in fit condition to give statement. The doctor after examining her, declared her to be fit to give statement. She was identified by her father Sh. Chandermani. He recorded the statement Ex. PW-2/B at 4:45 p.m. on the same day in the presence of her father, doctor and one Rakesh Tejpal. The statement was in his hand and bears his signature. The opinion of the doctor was in circle ‘A’ on Ex. She was identified by her father Sh. Chandermani. He recorded the statement Ex. PW-2/B at 4:45 p.m. on the same day in the presence of her father, doctor and one Rakesh Tejpal. The statement was in his hand and bears his signature. The opinion of the doctor was in circle ‘A’ on Ex. PW-2/B. This statement was also signed by Chandermani and also identified by Rakesh Tejpal. The statement Ex. PW-2/B alongwith application Ex. PW-3/A was submitted to the S.D.M. (Urban) for necessary action. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he personally did not make attempt to ascertain the mental state of the patient to make statement. According to him, he believed and acted upon the opinion of the doctor. He did not remember whether he introduced himself to the patient or not or disclosed his purpose of visit to her. According to him, her powers of hearing and speech were not that of a normal healthy man, however, the same was audible and understandable. He further deposed that statement Ex. PW-2/B was obtained by him in the explanatory form, however, it was recorded by him in verbatim. The statement Ex. PW-2/B was made by the patient continuously without any pause or break and the same was accordingly reduced into writing by him. He further stated that it took only five minutes to record the statement of the deceased after doing other formalities. According to him, the patient made the statement in exact language in which it was written by him in Ex. PW-2/B. The certificate of doctor on Ex. PW-2/B was obtained immediately after recording the statement Ex. PW-2/B, but the mental health of the patient was ascertained by him from the doctor before recording the statement. He denied the suggestion that statement Ex. PW-2/B was prepared by him in his office. He further stated that as far as he remember, the whole of the body of the deceased including her fingers were bandaged and as such, he could not get her thumb impression on Ex. PW-2/B. He has admitted that he has not assigned any reason in Ex. PW-2/B for not getting the thumb impression of Smt. Meena Devi. 15. PW-4, Smt. Hardei is the mother of deceased Meena Devi. According to her, about six years back, she was married to accused Rattan Lal and after her marriage, she started living in her matrimonial house at Mahadev. PW-2/B for not getting the thumb impression of Smt. Meena Devi. 15. PW-4, Smt. Hardei is the mother of deceased Meena Devi. According to her, about six years back, she was married to accused Rattan Lal and after her marriage, she started living in her matrimonial house at Mahadev. According to her, after the marriage of her daughter, she went two to three times to their house and for about 2-3 months they lived peacefully. She deposed that after 3-4 months of the marriage, when Meena visited their house, she disclosed her that the accused persons were harassing her on account of demand of dowry. According to her the daughter told that they were demanding godrej almirah, T.V. & Fridge. She told her that they were poor persons and cannot arrange the things immediately and will supply the same slowly and slowly. She further stated that her mother-in-law was demanding the amount collected at the time of marriage as Shagun. She pacified her and sent her back to her matrimonial house at the advise that she will tell about these things to her husband and after that her husband has purchased one iron- press and had given the same to the accused persons. According to her on 6th, she was invited alongwith her husband on the birth day of her son, but she was not allowed to visit their house. On 10th, some police person visited their house and told that Meena has suffered burn injuries and had been shifted to Shimla. She went to Shimla and found her admitted in burnt condition. She made inquiry from her daughter as to what had happened to her. She told her that she was sent to prepare tea by her sister-in-law (Nand) and she was yet to lit the stove and somebody from behind sprinkled kerosene oil and lit the fire and she could not know who lit the fire upon her. She has returned back from Shimla on the next day and her husband remained there. In her cross-examination, she has stated that they had not referred the matter to the local Panchayat or to the police, orally or in writing. According to her, the marriage was arranged through Smt. Ratti Devi of village Mahadev. She further deposed that Smt. Ratti Devi was informed by them about the demand of dowry, maltreating and harassment to their daughter on this account. According to her, the marriage was arranged through Smt. Ratti Devi of village Mahadev. She further deposed that Smt. Ratti Devi was informed by them about the demand of dowry, maltreating and harassment to their daughter on this account. She further stated that none-else was informed by them on this account. She did not tell the police about the cause of burns suffered by her daughter and disclosed to her by the daughter at I.G.M.C., Shimla. The accused person have not put forward any demand of dowry at the time of arranging the marriage or at the time of wedding ceremony. She further admitted in her cross-examination that deceased Meena Devi was admitted in Civil Hospital, Sundernagar for her treatment by her in-laws and thereafter, she was taken to I.G.M.C., Shimla for further treatment by them. She also admitted that witness Revati Lal and her husband were present in the hospital on 11.07.1996, when Meena Devi narrated to him the cause of her burning. She disclosed this information to Jeewan Lal, Dalip Verma, Ravi Verma and Daulat Ram within two three days 16. PW-5, Sh. Rakesh Tejpal has testified that in the middle of July, 1996, he was in I.G.M.C. in the Female Surgical Unit. According to him, at about 4:30 p.m., PW-3, Sh. B.L. Raghav came to the unit and requested him to be present as he was going to record the dying declaration of Smt. Meena Devi. On his request, he accompanied him. According to him, the father of the girl and doctor attending to her were also present. The deceased made statement Ex. PW-2/B in their presence and the same was reduced into writing by Sh. B.L. Raghav. According to him, the statement Ex. PW-2/B also bears his signatures as a witness. According to him, Meena Devi was badly burnt and was not in a position to write/sign. He further stated that her condition was certified by the doctor. According to him, the certificate of the doctor for mental fitness of the patient to make statement was obtained in writing prior to writing down the statement as far as he remembers. According to him, he did not remember as to whether it was written on the separate paper or not. Mr. Raghav asked the girl what she wanted to say and whatsoever she uttered, it was reduced into writing. According to him, he did not remember as to whether it was written on the separate paper or not. Mr. Raghav asked the girl what she wanted to say and whatsoever she uttered, it was reduced into writing. According to him, the patient has made her statement in Hindi. He has also admitted that after recording of the statement of the deceased, he on behalf of the organization had moved an objection petition in the Court of learned C.J.M., Mandi, objecting the bail applications of the accused persons. He did not remember whether the thumb impression of the patient was obtained on Ex. PW-2/B or not. According to him, the Union for Civil Liberties and Human Rights is a non-Government Organization. According to him, it was registered with Govt. of H.P. 17. PW-6, Smt. Krishna Devi has testified that the accused were her neighbours. According to her, about six years back, she was present in the house at about 7:30 p.m. Her husband has not come back from duty. He heard the cries at the site of the accused persons. He rushed to their house and saw that the deceased was sitting in Verrandah of the house in the ground floor of her house with burn injuries on her body. She further stated that she asked the deceased as to what happened to her, but she did not tell anything to her and said that she did not know what has happened and asked a glass of water from her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the person claiming himself to be an office bearer of some Human Rights Commission, has visited his house after 10-12 days of occurrence and tried to persuade him to make statement against the accused persons before the police. He has insisted upon her to level charges of demand of dowry, harassment and putting deceased Meena on fire against the accused persons. She refused to oblige him. According to her, when she reached the spot of occurrence, S/Sh. Kesar Singh, Soma and Narvada were present there and they were also making hue and cry. She further stated that she did not know who had extinguished the fire, but she had found water scattered at the spot. She refused to oblige him. According to her, when she reached the spot of occurrence, S/Sh. Kesar Singh, Soma and Narvada were present there and they were also making hue and cry. She further stated that she did not know who had extinguished the fire, but she had found water scattered at the spot. She has admitted that at times, the father of the deceased visited the house of accused in drunken state during her life time and picked up unnecessary quarrels with her in-laws. She further admitted that he is badly addicted to liquor and he deals in illicit liquor. 18. PW-7, Sh. Inder Singh has stated that application Ex. PW-3/A and other record was received in the office of D.M., Mandi, H.P. vide letter dated 20.07.1996, the copy of which is Ex. PW-7/A. According to him, the original record was sent to S.P., Mandi, H.P. from their office. 19. PW-8, Sh. Jeevan Verma has testified that deceased Meena Devi was his niece. She was married to accused Rattan Lal. She told him after 1-1 1/2 months of her marriage that accused persons were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. On 10.07.1996, while he was present in his house during morning time, at about 7:00 a.m., he had come to know through police that Meena Devi had been burnt. Thereafter, the parents of Meena alongwith others had gone to the house of accused person. According to him, he did not remember exactly but perhaps, it was 15th or 16th that he went to enquire about the health of Meena Devi to I.G.M.C., Shimla. He further stated that during his meeting with her, she expressed her desire to make statement regarding the occurrence. Thereafter, he went to the official of Human Rights and also went to D.C. Shimla and moved an application Ex. PW-3/A alongwith affidavit Ex. PW­8/A for recording the statement of Meena Devi. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that he had not gone to I.G.M.C., Shimla to enquire about the health of Meena Devi prior to 15.07.1996 despite the knowledge of her burning. He has admitted that he was living separately from his brother Chandermani for the last 15 years. According to him, when deceased Meena Devi expressed her desire to make a statement, he contacted the local police at Shimla, but they did not take any action for two days. He has admitted that he was living separately from his brother Chandermani for the last 15 years. According to him, when deceased Meena Devi expressed her desire to make a statement, he contacted the local police at Shimla, but they did not take any action for two days. Then, he approached Human Rights Commission people. According to him, one of them was Mr. Rakesh Tejpal and a sikh gentleman and a girl named Ashu, resident of Mera Masit Tehsil Sundernagar, who is related to him. According to him, an application Ex. PW-3/A was scribed by the Human Rights Commission persons. Thereafter, they all went to D.C. Shimla and from there, they all alongwith Tehsildar went to I.G.M.C., Shimla. He could not recollect the time of their arrival at I.G.M.C., Shimla. According to him, the Tehsildar also associated two or three local police personnel. On his enquiry on 15th or 16th, Meena Devi had revealed to him that she has been put on fire by her sister-in-law and the husband of her nanad. He has disclosed this fact to the local police, Human Right Commission people and Tehsildar. He was not aware that Meena Devi has already made two statements to the police earlier. 20. PW-9, Sh. Kadir Ali has carried out the investigation. During investigation on 11.07.1996, he went to I.G.M.C., Shimla to record the statement of deceased Meena Devi, who was admitted there with burn case history. He moved an application Ex. PW-9/A to the Medical Officer attending to her. Doctor Rajat Gupta gave opinion in circle ‘A’ on Ex. PW-9/A that she was fit to give statement. He recorded her statement Ex. PW-9/B, which was thumb marked by the deceased and attested as a witness by Dr. Rajat Gupta. He also recorded the statement of Chandermani, Dr. Rajat Fupta and Revati Lal under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 21.PW-10, Sh. Gandhi Ram has moved an application Ex. PW- 10/A for conducting the post mortem examination of deceased Meena Kumari to Medical Officer, Medico-Legal Department, I.G.M.C., Shimla. 22.PW- 11, Sh. Bhed Singh has deposed that he received a telephonic message of Mr. Ramesh Gupta, M.O., Civil Hospital, Sundernagar that one Meena, R/o Mahadev was admitted in the hospital as a burn case. He alongwith constable Bansi Lal proceeded to hospital, where Meena Devi was admitted. He moved an application Ex. 22.PW- 11, Sh. Bhed Singh has deposed that he received a telephonic message of Mr. Ramesh Gupta, M.O., Civil Hospital, Sundernagar that one Meena, R/o Mahadev was admitted in the hospital as a burn case. He alongwith constable Bansi Lal proceeded to hospital, where Meena Devi was admitted. He moved an application Ex. PW-1 1/B to the Medical Officer for recording the statement of victim, but she was declared unfit to give statement at 9 p.m. and at 11:15 p.m., he again inquired from the doctor and the doctor opined that the patient was conscious to verbal commands. The opinion of the doctor is in circle ‘A’ and ‘B’ on Ex. PW-1 1/B. He recorded the statement of Meena Devi, Ex. PW-1 1/C in the presence of doctor attending to her, i.e., doctor Hari Priya as per the version given by Meena. The statement was thumb marked by Meena Devi and attested by the doctor as witness. 23.PW-12, Sh. Narayan Singh has recorded the F.I.R., Ex. PW-12/A on the basis of rukka Ex. PW-2/A, dated 10.07.1996. 24. PW-13, Sh. Dhani Ram has testified that he was posted as constable in Police Station, Sundernagar in the year 1996. On 05.09.1996, MHC Roop Lal had handed over to him five sealed parcels of this case for depositing the same in F.S.L., Junga. He deposited the same on the same day and handed over the receipt to MHC. According to him, the parcels remained intact so long as they remain in his custody. 25. PW-15, Shri Ravi Verma has stated that deceased Meena Devi was his niece. She was married about 5/6 months prior to his death. According to him, Meena Devi many times used to come to her parental house and also used to come to see him. According to him, whenever she visited him, she always complained of her in-laws that they were demanding dowry and were asking her on this account. He further stated that she had disclosed that they were particularly demanding T.V. and Almirah etc. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not make any complaint either to Panchayat or Police of the disclosure of Meena Devi made to him. 26. PW-16, Dr. Ramesh Bharti has deposed that he remained posted as Registrar, Surgery Unit-III, I.G.M.C., Shimla in the year, 1996. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not make any complaint either to Panchayat or Police of the disclosure of Meena Devi made to him. 26. PW-16, Dr. Ramesh Bharti has deposed that he remained posted as Registrar, Surgery Unit-III, I.G.M.C., Shimla in the year, 1996. He further stated that Smt. Meena Devi, W/o Rattan Lal remained admitted in Surgery Unit-III, I.G.M.C., Shimla for treatment. According to him, on 17.07.1996, her statement was recorded by Shri B.L. Raghav, Executive Magistrate, Shimla in his presence and in the presence of Chandermani and Shri Rakesh Tejpal after he certified her to be fit to give statement at that time, i.e., 4:45 p.m. His opinion is in circle ‘A’ on the statement Ex. PW-2/B. In his cross- examination, he stated that he did not remember how much time was consumed in recording the statement of Smt. Meena Devi. According to him, statement Ex. PW-2/B was in explanatory form. He did not remember, if any oath was administered to the patient or not. He did not remember whether the patient made statement in local dilect or in Hindi. He did not remember whether the person other than the signatory were present there or not. 27. PW-17, Dr. V.K. Mishra has deposed that on 24th July, 1996, on the request of police of Police Station, Sundernagar, a team of doctors have conducted the post­mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Meena Devi. According to him, the cause of death was asphyxia and aspiration of gastric contents secondary to ante mortem burn injuries. 28. PW-18, Dr. Hari Priya has testified that deceased Meena Devi was admitted in the hospital in the month of July, 1996 and on 09.07.1996 at 9 p.m., the investigating officer, Police Station, Sundernagar has moved an application Ex. PW­11/B to know as regards the fitness of the patient. He examined the condition of the patient at 9:15 p.m. and at that time, she was not fit to give statement. He gave his opinion in circle ‘A’ on the said application. Thereafter, he again examined her at 11:15 p.m. and at that time, she was found responding to verbal command. He further gave his opinion in circle ‘B’ on the above application. Thereafter, the statement of Meena Devi was recorded in his presence which is Ex. PW-1 1/C. In his cross- examination, he has stated that statement, Ex. Thereafter, he again examined her at 11:15 p.m. and at that time, she was found responding to verbal command. He further gave his opinion in circle ‘B’ on the above application. Thereafter, the statement of Meena Devi was recorded in his presence which is Ex. PW-1 1/C. In his cross- examination, he has stated that statement, Ex. PW-1 1/C was voluntarily made by Smt. Meena and was correctly recorded by the I.O. in his presence and she put her thumb impression in his presence. 29. PW-19, Dr. Arun Kumar Mishra has testified that he was posted as S.M.O. in Sub Divisional Hospital, Sundernagar since 1994. According to him, on 09.07.1996 at 8:30 p.m., he examined Meena wife of Shri Rattan Lal, who was admitted in the hospital in burnt condition. The information about this burnt condition was supplied by him to the police at Sundernagar. After examination, the case referred to the surgeon for further management. According to him, 92% injuries were caused by burns. The injuries were grievous in nature and caused within two hours. He issued M.L.C., Ex. PW-19/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the nature of burns on the body of the victim were such that they cannot be caused if kerosene is sprayed or thrown upon the body from the back side. He self stated that body was 92% burnt from front and back side. 30. PW-20, Dr. Rajat Gupta has stated that on 11.07.1996, the Investigating Officer, Police Station, Sundernagar moved an application Ex. PW-9/A for obtaining the opinion regarding recording of the statement of Meena Devi. He examined the patient and found her fit to make statement. He gave his opinion in this regard in circle ‘A’ on Ex. PW-9/A. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement Ex. PW-9/B in his presence. He further stated that whatever was stated by her, was recorded by the Investigating Officer in Ex. PW-9/B and she appended her thumb impression after making the statement. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of recording the statement Ex. PW-9/B, father of Meena Devi named Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal were also present. 31. PW-21, Shri Mohinder Pal has conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared inquest papers Ex. PW-2 1/A and Ex. PW-21/B. 32. PW-22, Shri Amba Dutt has carried out the investigation. He was posted as Additional S.H.O., Police Station, Sundernagar. PW-9/B, father of Meena Devi named Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal were also present. 31. PW-21, Shri Mohinder Pal has conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared inquest papers Ex. PW-2 1/A and Ex. PW-21/B. 32. PW-22, Shri Amba Dutt has carried out the investigation. He was posted as Additional S.H.O., Police Station, Sundernagar. On 10.07.1996, in the morning, he went to the spot and after inspecting the spot, recorded the statement of Chandermani Ex. PW-2/A and after making endorsement on it, sent the same to the Police Station through constable Bansi Lal for registration of the case. According to him, the spot was got photographed and the photographs are Mark X- 1 to X-6 and the negatives are X-7 to X- 12 and after inspection, he prepared the spot map Ex. PW-22/C. He also took into possession Can of kerosene oil, Ex. P-2, stove Ex. P-3, match sticks alongwith inner portion of match box Ex. P-4, soil Ex. P-5, sample earth, Ex. P-8, inner portion of lid of Can Ex. P-6 and burnt pieces of paper Ex. P-7, pieces of bangles, burnt hair and dupata Ex. P-9 and burnt clothes, Ex. P-10 vide memos Ex. PW-1/G, Ex. PW­1/H, Ex. PW-1/D, Ex. PW-1/E, Ex. PW-1/F, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW- 1/C, respectively from the spot. The case property was deposited by him with MHC. On 22.07.1996, on the information that the statement of injured has been recorded at Shimla where she was admitted in the I.G.M.C., he went to Shimla, where, D.M. Shimla handed over to him sealed envelop stated to be containing the statement of the deceased which he handed over to D.M., Mandi as per the directions of D.M. Shimla. Meena Devi died on 23.07.1996 at Shimla. He further stated that H.C. Gandhi Ram was deputed to collect the post-mortem report. On 04.08.1996, Sh. Gandhi Ram brought the post mortem report. According to him, all the articles seized at the spot and the articles handed over by the doctor were sent for chemical analysis to F.S.L. Junga and after the receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PW-22/D and Ex. PW-22/E and after completion of investigation, the case file was handed over to SHO Hans Raj (since deceased). According to him, all the articles seized at the spot and the articles handed over by the doctor were sent for chemical analysis to F.S.L. Junga and after the receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PW-22/D and Ex. PW-22/E and after completion of investigation, the case file was handed over to SHO Hans Raj (since deceased). According to him, the victim Meena Devi was removed to Civil Hospital Sundernagar by the accused persons Kesar Singh and Soma Devi immediately with the help of villagers and thereafter to I.G.M.C., Shimla. 33. Now, the Court will advert to the material witnessesproduced by the prosecution to prove the illegal demands of dowry and harassment of victim Meena Devi by the accused persons. The F.I.R., Ex. PW-12/A was registered on the basis of rukka. The F.I.R. was registered at the instance of PW-2, Sh. Chandermani, who is the father of deceased. According to the averments contained in the F.I.R., Chandermani went to the house of Meena Devi at Mahadev, where Smt. Tara Devi told him to make Meena understand that she should not spent money lavishly. It was further stated in the F.I.R that after some days, his wife Smt. Hardei (PW-4) went to the house of Meena Devi and at that time, the parents-in-law of Meena Devi again complained that Meena Devi was spending money lavishly. It is further mentioned that after some days, he went to the house of Meena Devi and at that time, Meena Devi was having pain in her leg and stomach and he asked the parents-in-law of Meena Devi to get her treated from the hospital. Thereafter, his maternal nephew informed him that Meena Devi was seriously ill. His wife went to the house of Meena Devi and on her return, she told that she was asked by the accused Tara Devi, Kesar Singh, Rattan Lal and his elder sister and brother to sit inside the room. Thereafter, they all started abusing her that they had not given any dowry at the time of marriage. Hardei came out of the house of the accused crying and told about the same to Ratti Devi. On hearing this, PW-2 alongwith his brother-in-law went to the house of Meena Devi and tendered an apology and come back. Thereafter, they all started abusing her that they had not given any dowry at the time of marriage. Hardei came out of the house of the accused crying and told about the same to Ratti Devi. On hearing this, PW-2 alongwith his brother-in-law went to the house of Meena Devi and tendered an apology and come back. On 5.7.1996, Meena Devi was called to his house by PW-2 on account of birthday of his son, but she was not allowed to visit the house of her parents. Later on, Meena Devi told him that the accused were in the habit of harassing her on trivial matters. When PW-2 has appeared in the Court, he has not stated that the parents-in-law of Meena Devi ever made complaint either to him or to his wife that Meena Devi was spending lavishly on 22.02.1996 and they also asked him to make Meena Devi understand. It is also not come in his statement that he went to the house of Meena Devi when she was suffering from pain and he has asked the parents-in-law of Meena Devi to get her treated from the hospital. He has also nowhere stated that his wife has visited the Meena Devi’s in- laws and she was abused by the accused on the pretext that no sufficient dowry has been given at the time of marriage. He has also not stated that Meena Devi was not allowed to attend the birth day of his son by the accused on 5.7.1996 and he has also no where stated that Meena Devi has disclosed him that accused were harassing her on trivial matters. 34. Similarly, PW-4, wife of the complainant has also not stated about these facts in her statement. She has only stated that Meena Devi was invited alongwith her husband on the birthday of her son. 35. According to PW-2, Meena Devi, for the first time told him in the month of June/July, 1996 that the mother-in- law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of Meena Devi were raising demand of Godrej Almirah, Colour T.V. and Washing Machine, but this fact is not mentioned in Ex. PW- 12/A. According to him, the accused persons started maltreating and harassing Meena Devi in order to coerce her to meet illegal demand of dowry, but such facts have nowhere been mentioned by PW-2 in the report Ex. PW- 12/A. According to him, the accused persons started maltreating and harassing Meena Devi in order to coerce her to meet illegal demand of dowry, but such facts have nowhere been mentioned by PW-2 in the report Ex. PW-12/A. The fact that PW-2 has visited the house of accused personally and told them that he could not meet the demand of dowry being poor is not mentioned in Ex. PW-12/A. 36. According to PW-4, Smt. Hardei, Meena Devi lived in her matrimonial house peacefully for about 2 or 3 months and it is thereafter when Meena Devi visited her house, she disclosed that the accused persons were harassing her on account of demand of dowry as they were demanding Godrej Almirah, Fridge and Colour T.V. etc. She has further stated that Meena Devi disclosed that the accused Tara Devi, who is mother-in-law of Meena Devi, was demanding amount collected at the time of marriage as ‘Shagun’ in order to make jewellery. According to her, she has narrated these facts to her husband PW-2. However, PW-2 has not stated anywhere that PW-4 has apprised her about this fact. 37. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-4 that the marriage of Meena Devi and accused Rattan Lal was arranged through Smt. Ratti Devi at village Mahadev and she was also informed about the demand of dowry, but Smt. Ratti Devi has not been produced by the prosecution. 38. PW-8, Sh. Jeevan Verma, who is uncle of deceased Meena Devi, has stated that Meena Devi has told him about 1 /2 months of her marriage that all the accused persons were harassing her for insufficient dowry. This statement cannot be believed, since according to PW-2 and PW-4, it was only in the month of June/July, 1996, Meena Devi dislocsed for the first time about the illegal demand of dowry by the accused persons. 39. PW-15, Sh. Ravi Verma has stated that Meena Devi used to visit him and she used to complain to him that her in- laws were demanding dowry, particularly Colour T.V., Godrej Almirah and Washing Machine etc. In his cross-examination, PW- 15 also stated that it was about 1 /2 months of her marriage that Meena Devi told him about the demand of dowry. This is also at variance with the statements of PW-2 and PW-4. In his cross-examination, PW- 15 also stated that it was about 1 /2 months of her marriage that Meena Devi told him about the demand of dowry. This is also at variance with the statements of PW-2 and PW-4. 40.PW- 1, Smt. Kanta Devi, Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat Mahadev has not stated that Meena Devi ever complained to her about any demand of dowry by the accused for ill-treatment or harassment caused to her by the accused. It has come in the statement of PW-6, Smt. Krishna Devi that the father of the deceased at times visited the house of the accused in drunken condition during the life time of Meena Devi and picked up a quarrel with her in-laws. She has not stated that Meena Devi has ever disclosed her about the demand of dowry on the part of the accused. It has also come in the statement of PW-4 that at the time of marriage, the accused had not raised any demand of dowry and even at the time of marriage. There are inherent discrepancies in the statements made by PW-2, PW-4, PW-8 and PW-15, as discussed hereinabove. PW-2 has not mentioned about the dowry demanded by the accused persons in F.I.R. These facts have been stated by him for the first time in the Court when he appeared as PW-2. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Meena Devi was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry by the accused. 41. Now, we will taken into consideration three dying declarations made by the deceased Meena Devi vide Ex. PW­9/B, dated 11.07.1996, Ex. PW-11/C, dated 09.7.1996 and Ex. PW-2/B, dated 17.07.1996 recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Shimla. 42.Statement Ex. PW-1 1/C was recorded by PW-1 1, Sh. Bhed Singh on 09.07.1996 at about 11:15 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. It was recorded in the present of Dr. Hari Priya. The statement reads thus: “State that I am inhabitant of Mahadev but I am having no knowledge as to how I got burnt. I had lit a stove and was preparing tea and at that time my sister-in-laws were sitting out side house. I do not know as to how I got fire. I do not know as to who had brought me to the hospital”. 43.The incident is dated 09.07.1996. This statement was recorded on 09.07.1996 at 11:15 p.m. when Dr. I had lit a stove and was preparing tea and at that time my sister-in-laws were sitting out side house. I do not know as to how I got fire. I do not know as to who had brought me to the hospital”. 43.The incident is dated 09.07.1996. This statement was recorded on 09.07.1996 at 11:15 p.m. when Dr. Hari Priya has certified that the statement of the victim could be recorded. According to PW- 11, Sh. Bhed Singh, he submitted an application Ex. PW- 11/B to the Medical Officer for recording the statement of victim, but she was declared unfit to give statement at 9 p.m.. At 11:15 p.m., he again enquired from the doctor and the doctor opined that the patient was conscious to verbal commands. Thereafter, the statement of Meena Devi was recorded vide Ex. PW-1 1/C. This statement was thumb marked by Meena Devi and attested by doctor as a witness. 44. PW-18, Dr. Hari Priya has deposed that he examined deceased Meena Devi at 11:15 p.m. and at that time, she was found responding to verbal command. He gave his opinion in circle ‘B’. Thereafter, the statement of Meena Devi (deceased) was recorded vide Ex. PW-1 1/C. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the statement Ex. PW-1 1/C was voluntarily made by Smt. Meena and was correctly recorded by the Investigating Officer in her presence. Thus, it is established that the statement was made by Meena Devi voluntarily on 09.07.1996 and correctly recorded by the Investigating Officer. PW-18, Dr. Hari Priya has certified that she was following the verbal commands. According to her statement Ex. PW- 11/C, she has not implicated the accused for the commission of offence. She has stated that she got burnt while she was preparing tea and at that time her sister-in-laws were sitting outside her house. 45. The second statement was recorded at I.G.M.C. on 11.07.1996 by PW-9, Sh. Kadir Ali. According to PW-9, he moved an application Ex. PW-9/A to the Medical Officer, who was attending Meena Devi (deceased). She was declared fit by Dr. Rajat Gupta. He gave his opinion in circle ‘A’ on Ex. PW-9/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Meena Kumari vide Ex. PW-9/B, which was thumb marked by her and attested by Dr. Rajat Gupta (PW-20) as a witness. PW-9/A to the Medical Officer, who was attending Meena Devi (deceased). She was declared fit by Dr. Rajat Gupta. He gave his opinion in circle ‘A’ on Ex. PW-9/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Meena Kumari vide Ex. PW-9/B, which was thumb marked by her and attested by Dr. Rajat Gupta (PW-20) as a witness. He also deposed that thumb impression of the patient and his endorsement in this regard is in circle ‘B’. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of recording the statement Ex. PW-9/B, father of Meena Devi, named Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal were also present. The statement Ex. PW-9/B reads thus: “I am inhabitant of village Mahadev. My marriage was solenised with accused Rattan Lal on 15.02.1996. On 09.07.1996 at 7 p. m., I was going to lit stove in order to prepared tea, but I all of sudden caught fire. I had not lit a match-stick but my whole body caught fire. However, I do not know as to how I caught fire. I also do not know as to how oil fell on me. This is my statement which has been heard by me and it is correct”. 46.It has come in the statement of PW-9 that the deceased was conscious and in senses when she made statement Ex. PW-9/B. The statement, Ex. PW-9/B was made in the presence of Dr. Rajat Gupta (PW-20). In this statement also she was going to lit stove in order to prepare tea, but all of a sudden, she caught fire. She did not know how she caught fire. It is, thus, evident from the statements Ex. PW- 11/C and Ex. PW- 11/B that she has not implicated the accused persons. 47. The third statement Ex. PW-2/B was recorded on dated 17.07.1996 at 4:45 p.m. by Dr. Bihari Lal Raghav, Executive Magistrate in the presence of PW-2, Sh. Chandermani and PW-5, Sh. Rakesh Tejpal. It was attested by PW-16, Dr. Ramesh Bharti. According to PW-3, he proceeded to I.G.M.C. He contacted Dr. Ramesh Bharti (PW-16). He enquired from the doctor as to whether the patient was in fit condition to give statement. She was identified by PW-2, Chandermani in the presence of doctor and one Rakesh Tejpal. Thereafter PW-3 recorded the statement Ex. It was attested by PW-16, Dr. Ramesh Bharti. According to PW-3, he proceeded to I.G.M.C. He contacted Dr. Ramesh Bharti (PW-16). He enquired from the doctor as to whether the patient was in fit condition to give statement. She was identified by PW-2, Chandermani in the presence of doctor and one Rakesh Tejpal. Thereafter PW-3 recorded the statement Ex. PW-2/B at 4:45 p.m. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he personally did not make attempts to ascertain the mental state of the patient. He believed and acted upon the opinion of the doctor. He further stated that he did not remember even whether he introduced himself to the patient or not or disclosed his purpose of visit to her. He further deposed that her powers of hearing and speech were not that of a normal healthy man, however, the same was audible and understandable. He further stated that the statement was recorded by him in explanatory form. 48. PW-16, Dr. Ramesh Bharti has testified that he was posted as Registrar, Surgery Unit-III, I.G.M.C., Shimla in the year, 1996. According to him, on 17.07.1996, the statement of Meena Devi was recorded by Sh. B.L. Raghav, Executive Magistrate, Shimla in his presence and in the presence of Chandermani and Shri Rakesh Tejpal. He certified her to be fit to give statement at 4:45 p.m. The statement was recorded on 17.07.1996, which reads thus: “Stated that there are two killers of me. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law Suman and Kesar Singh. They are inhabitants of Ladol. My mother-in- law Tara Devi and brother-in-law (Debar) Naresh Kumar used to ill treat me on account of dowry. On the last Tuesday when I was preparing tea then my sister-in-law and brother-in-law came there. I do not know who has sprinkled kerosene oil, but my sister- in-law lighted match stick and threw the same upon me and at once I caught fire. I came down and became unconscious and thereafter I do not know as to what happened. I used to love my mother-in-law more than my mother, but I do not know as to why she had become my enemy.” 49.It is only in the third dying declaration recorded on 17.07.1996 after meeting her uncle, PW-8 and father PW-2 that Meena Devi (deceased) disclosed the names of accused persons. PW-8, Sh. I used to love my mother-in-law more than my mother, but I do not know as to why she had become my enemy.” 49.It is only in the third dying declaration recorded on 17.07.1996 after meeting her uncle, PW-8 and father PW-2 that Meena Devi (deceased) disclosed the names of accused persons. PW-8, Sh. Jeevan Verma, uncle of deceased has approached the D.C. Shimla for recording the statement of Meena Devi. PW-2 had been impressing upon Meena Devi (deceased) to disclose the reasons from 10th July, 1996 onwards. PW-2 had remained in Hospital from 10.07.1996. The date of death of his daughter is 23.07.1996. It is only on 17.07.1996 that Meena Devi has made the dying declaration, whereby she has implicated Suman, Kesar Singh, Tara Devi and Naresh Kumar. In the statement of PW-4, Smt. Hardei, it has come that when she went to I.G.M.C., Shimla and asked her daughter about the cause of burn injuries, Meena Devi told her that she was sent to prepare tea by her sister-in-law (Nanad). She was yet to lit the stove and somebody from behind sprinkled kerosene oil and lit the fire. Thus, even on 10.07.1996, she has shown ignorance, who has set her on fire and she has not implicated any of the accused even by disclosing this incident to her mother on 10.07.1996. Even in her statement made on 11.07.1996, she has not implicated any person. Even, Meena Devi has not disclosed the manner she caught fire to PW-1, Smt. Kanta Devi. PW-6, Smt. Krishna Devi has also visited the house of the accused. According to her, she alongwith her brother-in-law, sister-in-law removed Meena Devi to the hospital and on enquiry, Meena Devi had ample opportunities to disclose the manner in which she caught fire between 09.07.1996 and 17.07.1996. Thus, the deceased had given three versions the manner she caught file in Ex. PW-9/B, Ex. PW-1 1/C and Ex. PW-2/B. She met her mother on 10th July, 1996 and her father was with her on 10th July, 1996 onwards. The earlier statements were recorded on 9th July, 1996 and 11th July, 1996. The third statement has been recorded in the presence of PW-2, Sh. Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal as per the statement of PW-20. Thus, the possibility of the deceased being tutored by her father, uncle and Rakesh Tejpal cannot be ruled out. The earlier statements were recorded on 9th July, 1996 and 11th July, 1996. The third statement has been recorded in the presence of PW-2, Sh. Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal as per the statement of PW-20. Thus, the possibility of the deceased being tutored by her father, uncle and Rakesh Tejpal cannot be ruled out. 50.In this case, role of PW-5, Sh. Rakesh Tejpal is also suspect. What he was doing in I.G.M.C. is not clear. In her cross-examination, PW-6, Smt. Krishna Devi has admitted that accused Tara Devi, Rattan Lal and Naresh Kumar were not present on the spot. She has also admitted that the accused persons have provided every medical facility to Meena Devi. It has come in her statement a person claiming himself to be an office bearer of Human Rights Commission had visited his house after 10-12 days of occurrence and tried to persuade her to make statement against the accused person before the police. He had insisted upon her to level charges of demand of dowry, harassment and putting deceased Meena Devi on fire against the accused person. She refused to oblige him. PW-5, Sh. Rakesh Tejpal has also admitted that an objection petition was filed against the grant of bail to the accused before the learned C.J.M., Mandi. According to him, the Union for Civil Liberties and Human Rights is a non-Government Organization, which was registered under Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860. He was elected as President in the General House of the Society. According to him, he did not produce any proof before the police in support of his status as the President of the above Organization as police never ask for the same. He also stated that organizational expenses are met out from private members contributions and public donations. According to him, after recording the dying declaration, the father of the deceased approached them for assistance and they had not charged anything from the victim party. Sh. Rakesh Tejpal has also signed Ex. PW-2/B. It has come in the statement of PW-20, Dr. Rajat Gupta that the statement Ex. PW-9/B was recorded in the presence of PW-2, Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal. However, PW-2, in his cross-examination, has denied that the statement of Meena Devi was recorded in his presence. Sh. Rakesh Tejpal has also signed Ex. PW-2/B. It has come in the statement of PW-20, Dr. Rajat Gupta that the statement Ex. PW-9/B was recorded in the presence of PW-2, Chandermani and one Sh. Rewati Lal. However, PW-2, in his cross-examination, has denied that the statement of Meena Devi was recorded in his presence. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, no reliance can be placed on the third dying declaration made by Meena Devi vide Ex. PW-2/B. It has come in the cross- examination of PW- 1 that accused Kesar Singh, Soma Devi and Narbada Devi were present outside the house and they have extinguished the fire by throwing water and also with the help of quilts. Thereafter, she was removed to I.G.M.C., Shimla by the accused. The said conduct of the accused persons is also to be taken into consideration. According to Ex. PW-22/E, Chemical Examiner’s report, though the traces of kerosene oil were found on the pieces of broken bangles and pieces of burnt Dupta of the deceased, but no kerosene oil was found in the burnt Salwar and shirt of the deceased. It also made the prosecution version doubtful. 51. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujrat Vs. Khumansingh Karsan Singh and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1641 have held that inconsistency between two dying declarations suggesting possibility of tutoring and false involvement due to strained relations with accused, conviction cannot be based on such inconsistent dying declarations. In this case, in first dying declaration, mother-in- law was implicated, however, in subsequent dying declaration after meeting with the father, husband was also implicated. Their Lordships have held as under: “2. There is no doubt that the relations between the deceased on the one hand and her husband and her mother-in-law on the other were strained and she had made an application to Jyoti Sangh at Ahmedabad alleging mental and physical torture. It is not necessary to go into the details but suffice it to say that prior to the occurrence the relations were strained. The prosecution case is that on the morning of 4th July, 1976 when the deceased was attending to some kitchen work her mother- in-law sprinkled kerosene on her from a small lamp and set her on fire. In the first dying declaration she stated that her husband was in the house asleep. The prosecution case is that on the morning of 4th July, 1976 when the deceased was attending to some kitchen work her mother- in-law sprinkled kerosene on her from a small lamp and set her on fire. In the first dying declaration she stated that her husband was in the house asleep. The courts, below looked for corroboration in view of the inconsistency in the first dying declaration and the subsequent two dying declarations. The courts below came to the conclusion that in the view of the said inconsistencies and in, view of the bad blood between the deceased and the mother-in-law, it was not possible to place implicit reliance on her dying declaration in the absence of some assurance from! any other independent evidence. The High Court pointed out a number of short comings, so far as the first dying declaration Ex. 54 is concerned. The High Court was also of the view that the possibility of an accidental death could not be ruled out. In that view of the matter the High Court felt it unsafe to base a conviction merely on the aforesaid three dying declarations. 3.We do not think that the view taken by the courts below is so erroneous as would require interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution. There is no doubt that there is inconsistency between the first dying declaration and the subsequent two dying declarations which betrays the possibility of her being amenable to tutoring. It is quite clear the relationship was strained due to the bad blood between her and her mother-in-law. The possibility of false involvement could not be ruled out and the High Court, therefore, thought that in the absence of corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to rely mainly on the inconsistent dying declarations. We do not think that this case demands our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds to be stand cancelled.” 52.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 130 have held that the conviction can be recorded on the basis of dying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds to be stand cancelled.” 52.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 130 have held that the conviction can be recorded on the basis of dying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable. Their Lordships have further held that it is also well known that in a case where inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the active role played by one or the other accused persons, exist, the court shall lean more towards the first dying declaration that the second one. 53.In the present case, the deceased has not implicated the accused in two dying declarations made vide Ex. PW-1 1/C and Ex. PW-9/B and, thus, we are more inclined to lean towards the earlier two dying declarations made by the deceased. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. It is now well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of a dying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable, but in the event there exists any suspicion as regards correctness or otherwise of the said dying declaration, the courts in arriving at the judgment of conviction shall look for some corroborating evidence. It is also well known that in a case where inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the active role played by one or the other accused persons, exist, the court shall lean more towards the first dying declaration than the second one.” 54. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2666 in a case where four dying declarations were made by the deceased have held that in these cases, caution is required to be applied. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. Conviction can indisputably be based on a dying declaration. But, before it can be acted upon, the same must be held to have been rendered voluntarily and truthfully. Consistency in the dying declaration is the relevant factor for placing full reliance thereupon. In this case, the deceased herself had taken contradictory and inconsistent stand in different dying declarations. They, therefore, should not be accepted on their face value. Caution, in this behalf, is required to be applied.” 55.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Chand Vs. Consistency in the dying declaration is the relevant factor for placing full reliance thereupon. In this case, the deceased herself had taken contradictory and inconsistent stand in different dying declarations. They, therefore, should not be accepted on their face value. Caution, in this behalf, is required to be applied.” 55.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Chand Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 506 have held that when there are more than one dying declarations, the intrinsic contradictions in those dying declarations are extremely important and it cannot be that a dying declaration which supports the prosecution alone can be accepted while the other innocuous dying declarations have to be rejected. Their Lordships have further held that such a trend will be extremely dangerous. Their Lordships have held as under: “ 15.The Courts below have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the cross- examination which poses a great difficulty to the accused person. A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The Court has to examine a dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in the success of investigation or which may be negligent while recording the dying declaration. Number of times, a young girl or a wife who makes the dying declaration could be under the impression that she would lead a peaceful, congenial, happy and blissful married life only with her husband and, therefore, has tendency to implicate the inconvenient parents-in-law or other relatives.16.Number of times the relatives influence the investigating agency and bring about a dying declaration. The dying declarations recorded by the investigating agencies have to be very scrupulously examined and the Court must remain alive to all the attendant circumstances at the time when the dying declaration comes into being. When there are more than one dying declarations, the intrinsic contradictions in those dying declarations are extremely important. It cannot be that a dying declaration which supports the prosecution alone can be accepted while the other innocuous dying declarations have to be rejected. Such trend will be extremely dangerous. When there are more than one dying declarations, the intrinsic contradictions in those dying declarations are extremely important. It cannot be that a dying declaration which supports the prosecution alone can be accepted while the other innocuous dying declarations have to be rejected. Such trend will be extremely dangerous. However, the Courts below are fully entitled to act on the dying declarations and make them the basis of conviction, where the dying declarations pass all the above tests.17.Again, it is extremely difficult to reject a dying declaration merely because there are few factual errors committed. The Court has to weigh all the attendant circumstances and come to the independent finding whether the dying declaration was properly recorded and whether it was voluntary and truthful. Once the Court is convinced that the dying declaration is so recorded, it may be acted upon and can be made a basis of conviction. The Courts must bear in mind that each criminal trial is an individual aspect. It may differ from the other trials in some or the other respect and, therefore, a mechanical approach to the law of dying declaration has to be shunned. We have tested the dying declaration with all these factors in mind and we are satisfied that even the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have fully satisfied themselves in respect of the acceptability of this dying declaration. 18.The law is now well settled that a dying declaration which has been found to be voluntary and truthful and which is free from any doubts can be the sole basis for convicting the accused. This Court in Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 13 SCC 165] has taken stock of the following cases where the principles governing dying declaration have been laid down: (i)Paniben v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC474; (ii) Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. [(1976) 3 SCC 104; (iii)State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav [1985] 1 SCC 552; (iv) Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar [(1983) 1 SCC 211 (v)K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor [(1976) 3 SCC 618] (vi)Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 264; (vii)Kake Singh v. State of M.P. [(1981) supp. SCC 25; (viii)Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 654; (ix) State of Maharashtra vs. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu [(1980) Supp. SCC 25; (viii)Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 654; (ix) State of Maharashtra vs. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu [(1980) Supp. SCC 455; (x)Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar [(1980) Supp SCC 769] (xi)Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P. [(1988) Supp. SCC 152 (xii)State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan [(1989) 3 SCC 390; (xiii)Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra [(1982) 1 SCC 700]19.In para 12 of the abovesaid judgment, this Court has held that dying declaration is the only piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. This Court has further reiterated that if after careful scrutiny the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it a basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. In that behalf, this Court has referred the reported cases of Gangotri Singh v. State of U.P. [(1993) Supp (1) SCC 327]; Goverdhan Raoji Ghyare v. State of Maharashtra [(1993) Supp (4) SCC 316]; Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of A.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 182]; and State of Rajasthan v. Kishore [(1996) 8 SCC 217]. We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down and would hasten to add that in the present case the dying declaration of Santosh passes all the tests referred to by us above.” 56.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in summarized the following principles regarding the dying declaration:“22. The analysis of the above decisionsclearly shows that: (i)Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the Court.(ii)The Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.(iii)Where the court is satisfied that the declarationis true and coluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.(iv)It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.(v)Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.(vi)A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.(vii)Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.(viii)Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.(ix)When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.(x)If after careful scrutiny, the court issatisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shll be no legal impediment to make ti the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.” 57.In view of the abovesaid position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.