JUDGMENT (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This criminal appeal by the appellant-State is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2007, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, acquitting the respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 took place on 12.09.2004. After marriage, the deceased and accused Nos. 1 and 2 lived together at Venkatareddy Kandriga village in Vardaiahpalem Mandal. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a son (P.W.2). Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. Due to the said harassment, the relations between the accused and' the deceased soured. Ultimately, unable to bear the harassment, the deceased lodged a complaint before the police against the accused. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case, and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused. The case was taken on file as C.C. No. 53 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Satyhaveedu. During the pendency of the said case, with the intervention of elders, the matter was compromised and consequently, the case ended in acquittal of the accused. Thereafter, the deceased joined the company of the accused and lived with him in his matrimonial home. The accused bore grudge against the accused as she file criminal case against him, and waited for an opportunity to eliminate her. 3. On 12.09.2004, at about 6.00 p.m., while the deceased was in the house, the accused picked up a quarrel with her, poured kerosene on her person and set fir to her, and as a result thereof, she sustained severe burn injuries. On hearing the cries of the deceased, the neighbours gathered at the scene of offence and saw the deceased in flames. Accused No.2 shifted the deceased to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment. On receipt of intimation from the hospital about the admission of the deceased with severe burn injuries, P.W.10-Head Constable, attached to the police outpost, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, forwarded the statement of the deceased to Vardaiahpalem Police Station, for taking further steps. On receipt of intimation from the hospital about the admission of the deceased with severe burn injuries, P.W.10-Head Constable, attached to the police outpost, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, forwarded the statement of the deceased to Vardaiahpalem Police Station, for taking further steps. In the meantime, on receipt of requisition from the Hospital, P.W.12-First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. 4. Based on the intimation and the statement recorded by P.W.10, P.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.159 of 2004 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and took up investigation. On 17.09.2004, upon receipt of intimation from the hospital about the death of the deceased, P.W.8-Assistant Sub Inspector, altered the section of law in the FIR from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police; he went to the hospital, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws. 4, 7 and others, examined and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased to S.V. Medical College, for post mortem examination. On 18.09.2004, upon receipt of credible information, he arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sent them for remand. Thereafter, P.W.14-the Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by P.W.13 and then visited Kondama Nellore village, where the parents of the deceased reside, examine and recorded their statements, and from there, he went to Venkatareddy Kandriga village, examined and recorded the statements of some others. After receipt of post-mortem certification and FSL report, and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the respondents-accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and M.O.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 7. 6. To prove the guilt of the respondents-accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and M.O.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, having appreciated the entire evidence available on record, found the respondents-accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C., and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. 8. Questioning the said acquittal of the accused, the State has filed this criminal appeal. 9. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the judgment under appeal and the material available on record. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence of P.W.2, who is the minor son of the accused and deceased, in proper perspective. There are two dying declarations - one recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable under Ex.P8 and the other recorded by P.W.12 under Ex.P11, which are consistent with each other. However, the learned Sessions Judge without considering the said two dying declarations, which are consistent with each other, has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him. Thus, he prayed to convict the accused by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents-accused. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that the deceased had the tendency of committing suicide. She attempted suicide on the day of the incident in the morning, and later in the evening, she committed suicide. There is inconsistency in the two dying declarations –one recorded by P.W.10 under Ex.P8 and the other recorded by P.W.12 under Ex.P11. The presence of P.W.2, the minor son of the accused and the deceased at the scene of offence is itself doubtful, because in the dying declaration EX.P11, recorded by P.W.12, the deceased has categorically stated that P.W.2 was not present in the house at the time of incident. As the two dying declarations are inconsistent with each other, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges, and therefore, no interference is warranted with the judgment under appeal, and prayed that the criminal appeal be dismissed. 12. As the two dying declarations are inconsistent with each other, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges, and therefore, no interference is warranted with the judgment under appeal, and prayed that the criminal appeal be dismissed. 12. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt? P.W.1 is the maternal aunt of the deceased, P.W.2 is the minor son of the accused and the deceased, P.W.3 is neighbour of the accused and the deceased, P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased, P.W.5 is mediator to Ex.P3-inquest report, P.W.6 is mediator to the observation report, P.W.7 is a resident of Kondama Nellore village in Tamilnadu State, who came to see the deceased at SVVR Hospital, P.W.8 is the Assistant Sub Inspector, who issued EX.P6 altered FIR, P.W.9 is the photographer, P.W.10 is the Head Constable, who recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P8, P.W.11 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.12 is Principal Junior Civil Judge, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P11, P.W.13 is the Sub Inspector who registered the FIR and P.W.14 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. 13. P.W.1, who is the maternal aunt of the deceased stated that she does not know whether any dowry was given to accused No.2 by the parents of the deceased at the time of her marriage with him. After marriage, family disputes arose between accused No.2 and the deceased with regard to some gold jewellery. In the year 1998, accused No.2 and the deceased separated from their marital life, and the deceased filed a criminal case against accused No.2. In the year 2000, they mediated the matter between accused No.2 and the deceased, and thereupon, the criminal case ended in acquittal due to compromise. Thereafter, they took the deceased and left her in the company of accused No.2. She stated on the day of the incident, between 8.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., they received a telephone call from the village of the accused stating that the deceased poured kerosene over herself and lit fire and she was admitted in SVRR Hospital, Tirupati. Thereafter, they took the deceased and left her in the company of accused No.2. She stated on the day of the incident, between 8.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., they received a telephone call from the village of the accused stating that the deceased poured kerosene over herself and lit fire and she was admitted in SVRR Hospital, Tirupati. Then herself and about 50 villagers came to the hospital and noticed that the deceased was not in a position to speak anything. Thereafter, they left to their village and after three days she came to know that the deceased died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. She does not know what happened between the accused and the deceased during the period between the date of acquittal in the criminal case due to compromise and till the date of death of the deceased. She stated that the police examined her. At that stage, she was declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she stated before the police as in EX.P1. She does not know whether Rama Murthy (L.W.10) came to the house of the accused a day prior to the incident at the instance of accused No.2 to advised the deceased not to visit her maternal house frequently. 14. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. He stated that the deceased is his mother and that accused No.2 who is present in the Court is his father. During her lifetime, quarrels took place between her and the accused. On the day of the incident, some quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused, and thereupon, the deceased went to a well situated at a little distance from their house, and when the deceased attempted to fall into the well, their neighbours, namely P.W.3 went and rescued her from jumping into the well and brought her and left her in their house. Thereafter, the deceased informed him that she will not go anywhere and asked him to go for playing and he went out for playing. At about 6.00 p.m., while he was playing, he heard the cries of some of their villagers from their house, and he immediately rushed to the house and noticed the deceased lying with burn injuries. Then their villagers shifted the deceased to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati for treatment, and he too accompanied them to the hospital. At about 6.00 p.m., while he was playing, he heard the cries of some of their villagers from their house, and he immediately rushed to the house and noticed the deceased lying with burn injuries. Then their villagers shifted the deceased to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati for treatment, and he too accompanied them to the hospital. The deceased died in the hospital after three days of her admission. On the second day of her admission into the hospital, the deceased informed him that accused No.2 poured kerosene over her body and accused No.1 lit fire to her, and that he was examined by the police. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on the day when the deceased tried to jump into the well, his maternal uncle, Rama Murthy (L.W.10), came to their house and advised something to the deceased. That he came to their house in the morning hours and left by about 12.00 noon. Thereafter, the deceased went to jump into the well. He denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident, the deceased sent him along with his maternal uncle. He admitted that since one or two days prior to the incident, himself and the deceased were intending to go to his maternal uncle's house. He also admitted that he stated before the police that his studies were discontinued due to the deceased's frequent visits to his uncle's house. 15. P.W.3 is a native of Venkatareddy Kandriga village. He stated while he was playing near by their house, at about 3.00 p.m., he noticed the deceased going towards the well situated at a little distance away from their house. He also noticed P.W.2 proceeding behind the deceased weeping and he thought that something had happened and then he went near the deceased and rescued her from jumping into the well and then brought her to the house. He does not know the reason as to why she did so and that P.W.2 also did not inform him the reason as to why the deceased attempted to jump into the well. He was declared hostile by the prosecution, and in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P2. 16. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased. He was declared hostile by the prosecution, and in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P2. 16. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased. He stated that after marriage, the deceased and accused No.2 lived happily for one year and thereafter, accused No.2 started harassing the deceased by abusing and beating her now and then demanding her to get dowry from them. That once, accused No.2 tried to press the neck of the deceased and the villagers got filed a case against accused No.2. In the year 2000, the villagers of accused No.2 came to them and mediated upon the matter, and then they sent the deceased to the house of the accused. Subsequently, due to compromise, the case filed against accused No.2 was withdrawn, and thereafter, the deceased and accused No.2 lived happily for some time. That on the day of the incident, he received a telephone call stating that the accused set fire to the deceased, and she was being shifted to SVVR Hospital, Tirupati. Then, himself and his brothers went to Varadaiahpalem and from there to the hospital and notice the deceased in the hospital with burn injuries. On seeing them, the deceased called them near, but out of fear, he did not go near to her. But, his brother, R. Sreeramulu (L.W.11) and P.W.2 went near the deceased. Three days, thereafter, the deceased died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not witnessed the accused pressing the neck of the deceased and that he did not state before the police that earlier the accused harassed the deceased physically and mentally demanding her to get gold ornaments etc. He also admitted that he did not state before the police under Ex.D1 (went there, enquired, with my elder sister, a complaint was lodged by my elder sister against her in-laws and husband in Varadaiahpalem Police Station). He stated that he does not know whether when the deceased was reluctant to listen the advice of his brother Rama Murthy (L.W.10), he beat her and chastised her not to visit their house frequently and at the same time, informed her that she should stay or die in the house of the accused. He stated that he does not know whether when the deceased was reluctant to listen the advice of his brother Rama Murthy (L.W.10), he beat her and chastised her not to visit their house frequently and at the same time, informed her that she should stay or die in the house of the accused. He denied the suggestion that because of the words used by his brother Rama Murthy (L.W.10), the deceased had a feeling to commit suicide in such a manner. 17. P.W.5 is a resident of Kondama Nellore village of Tamilnadu State. He stated that on 17.09.2004, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence. After seeing Ex.P3-inquest report, he admitted that it contains the signatures of himself, P.W.7 and Venkatesuluh (L.W.19), as attesters. He further stated that after completion of the inquest, they as panchayatdars came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to burn injuries. 18. P.W.6 is also a resident of Venkatareddy Kandriga. He stated that the police obtained his signature on EX.P4 observation report at about 8.00 p.m., on the next day of the incident, but he does not know its contents. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the police seized M.O.1-kerosene plastic can from the spot in their presence under EX.P4. He stated that U. Indrasena Naidu (L.W. 5) came to the house at about 5.30 p.m. and kicked the door, and as a result, the inside bolt got bent and the door was opened. He went inside the house and extinguished the fire by covering a gunny bag around the body of the deceased, and at that time, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not present in the house and they were at their fields sorting out the groundnut crop. 20 or 25 minutes after the incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the spot. 19. P.W.7 who is a resident of Kondama Nellore village of Tamilnadu stated that in the year 2004, the brothers of the deceased informed him that accused Nos. 1 and 2 poured kerosene over the deceased and murdered her. On coming to know about the death of the deceased, he came to SVVR Hospital Tirupati, to see the dead body of the deceased. He stated that the police examined him. 1 and 2 poured kerosene over the deceased and murdered her. On coming to know about the death of the deceased, he came to SVVR Hospital Tirupati, to see the dead body of the deceased. He stated that the police examined him. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that from the date of their marriage, there were disputes between accused No.2 and the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. He denied the suggestion that the brothers of the deceased informed him that accused Nos. 1 and 2 poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and murdered her. He also denied the suggestion that he simply stated before the police as in Ex.D2 and that he did not specifically state therein as to who did such act. 20. P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police at CCS, Tirupati. Previously, he worked as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Varadaiahpalem Police Station. He stated that on 16.09.2004, while he was on duty, he received Ex.P5-death intimation from SVVR Hospital Tirupati about the death of the deceased. Basing on the same, he altered the section of law from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C. and issued altered FIR, and thereafter, P.W.14- Inspector of Police came and took the file from him for investigation. 21. P.W.9 is the photographer. He stated that on the request of the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Vardaiahpalem Police Station, he took the photographs of the scene of offence situated at the house of the accused and handed them over to the police along with the negatives. 22. P.W.10 at the relevant point of time was Head Constable of Alipiri Police Station and was attached to SVVR police outpost. He stated that on 12.09.2004, at about 10.10 p.m., on receipt of requisition from SVVR Hospital, Tirupati, about the admission of the deceased, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded her statement and obtained her thumb impression on it. Before recording the statement of the deceased, he obtained endorsement of the CMO to the effect that the patient is conscious and coherent and is in a fit state of mind to give statement. After recording the statement of the deceased under Ex.P8, he handed over the same to the relatives of the deceased with a request to deliver the same in Varadaiahpalem Police Station. After recording the statement of the deceased under Ex.P8, he handed over the same to the relatives of the deceased with a request to deliver the same in Varadaiahpalem Police Station. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not mention the time in EX.P8-statement of the deceased, but denied that he purposefully did not put the time. He also denied the suggestion that the thumb impression of the deceased on EX.P8 does not belong to her and that he incorporated the information furnished by the relatives of the deceased in Ex.P8, and that Ex.P8 is not the real statement of the deceased. 23. P.W.11 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon. He stated that he knows Dr. S.V. Phanindra and that he can identify his handwriting and signature. Dr. Phanindra previously worked as Associate Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine in S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, and that he resigned the job at the end of the year 2004 and now he is abroad. He saw Ex.P6-post mortem certificate issued by Dr. Phanindra, which bears his signature. Looking at the post mortem certificate, he stated that Dr. Phanindra conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on the requisition made by the S.I. of Police, Vardaiahpalem Police Station. As per the said certificate, the deceased died due to burns. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the post mortem certificate in column No.12, it is mentioned as uterus 100 gms c/s shows menstrual blood, and it means that the deceased sustained such burn injuries during her menstrual period. 24. P.W.12 at the relevant point of time was Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. He stated that on 12.09.2004, at about 10.50 p.m., on receipt of information from SVRR Hospital, Tirupati, he proceeded to the hospital and with the help of the duty doctor, identified the patient. Before recording the statement of the deceased, he put some preliminary questions to ascertain whether the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give her declaration, and based on the answers given by her, he concluded that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give her declaration. And after obtaining the signature of the duty doctor and his opinion as regards the condition of the deceased, recorded her statement. And after obtaining the signature of the duty doctor and his opinion as regards the condition of the deceased, recorded her statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased stated before him that her son Hemadri (P.W.2) went to her grandmother's house on that day. 25. P.Ws.13 is the Sub Inspector of Police. He stated that on 13.09.2004, at about 12.30 p.m., he received intimation from SVVR Hospital, Tirupati, that the deceased was admitted in the Burns Ward. Thereupon, he registered a case in Crime No. 159/2004 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and issued EX.P12-FIR. At about 1.30 p.m., he left the police at reached SVVR Hospital at 3.30 p.m. He found the deceased in the Burns Ward and recorded her statement. Then, he secured the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he went to Venkatareddy Kandriga of Varadaiahpalem. He examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch thereof under EX.P13 and seized M.O.1-partly burnt five litres white old can in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He also secured the presence of P.W.3 and others, examined and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.4, 7 and others, examined and recorded their statements and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination to SV Medical College. On 18.09.2004, he arrested the accused and sent them for remand on the next day. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the FIR reached the Court on 15.09.2004 at 3.30 p.m. 26. P.W.14-Inspector of Police stated that on 26.09.2004 after taking the case filed from P.W.13, he verified the investigation done thus far, and visited the house of the parents of the deceased at Kondam Nellore, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1, 4, 7 and others and proceeded to Venkatardddy Kandriga, examined and recorded the statements of some others. On 27.09.2004, he got the scene of offence photographed. On 30.09.2004, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.10, and after receipt of post mortem report, filed the charge sheet. 27. 1, 4, 7 and others and proceeded to Venkatardddy Kandriga, examined and recorded the statements of some others. On 27.09.2004, he got the scene of offence photographed. On 30.09.2004, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.10, and after receipt of post mortem report, filed the charge sheet. 27. D.W.1, who is the neighbour of the accused stated that one day, at about 8.30 a.m., the brother of the deceased Rama Murthy (L.W.10) beat the deceased stating that he cannot take her to his village as it was season for ground nut crop and left the house stating that he will come again after one week. On the same day, at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased went near the well situated near their house and attempted to jump into the well. A boy named Mallikarjun went and rescued the deceased and brought her back to the house. At that time, accused No.1 went to graze cattle and accused No.2 went to the fields to harvest the groundnut crop, and as nobody was present in the house, and the said boy brought the deceased to his house and left the place saying that the deceased was trying to jump into the well. Then he advised her that it was not good on her part to do so simply because her brother beat her. Then, he asked the deceased go to her house and she went away. Thereafter, he went to Sullurupet and returned to the house by about 5.00 p.m. Then on being informed by his son-in-law Indrasena Naidu, he rushed to the house of the deceased and found the door of the house bolted from inside. They forcibly opened the door and noticed the deceased in flames and extinguished the fire. In the meantime, accused No.2 came and with the assistance of Indrasena Naidu, Mushin Gentleman and one lady, shifted the deceased to SVVR Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment, and she succumbed to the burn injuries while undergoing treatment there. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 stated that his house is situated at a distance of 50 metres. He is aged about 75 years and has a proper vision. He can see things from a distance. He saw the brother of the deceased beating her at about 8.00 a.m. and at that time, he did not see her son. The brother of the deceased left the house at about 8.30 a.m. 28. He is aged about 75 years and has a proper vision. He can see things from a distance. He saw the brother of the deceased beating her at about 8.00 a.m. and at that time, he did not see her son. The brother of the deceased left the house at about 8.30 a.m. 28. From the evidence of the witnesses, as discussed above, it is evident that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the two dying declarations of the deceased, one recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable under Ex.P8 and the other recorded by P.W.12-Principal Junior Civil Judge. 29. The learned Sessions Judge, having regard to the statement made by the deceased in Ex.P11, dying declaration recorded by P.W.12, that P.W.2-her son was not in the house, disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 that he was at the house when the incident took place, and further considering the recitals in Ex.P8, statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable, read with the evidence of P.Ws.6 and D.W.1, acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. 30. Since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the two dying declarations of the deceased, one recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable under Ex.P8 and the other recorded by P.W.12 Principal Junior Civil Judge under Ex.P11, we have to examine their trustworthy in the light of the settled law that governs the dying declarations, so as to hold that the respondents-accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. 31. The law is well settled that dying declaration must be wholly reliable, and in case of suspicion, court should seek corroboration, and if the evidence shows that the statement of deceased is not wholly true, it can be treated only as a piece of evidence ,and conviction cannot be based solely upon it. 32. In Lakhan v. State of M.P. (1) 2011 (l) ALT (Crl.) 135 (SC) = (2010) 8 SCC 514 , the Apex Court, summarized the law governing the dying declaration, as follows: The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, which means, "a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth". The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as an exception to the general contained in Section 60 of the Evidence Act, which provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e. it must be the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it. The dying declaration, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements themselves are relevant facts in certain cases. The law on the issue of dying declaration can be summarized to the effect that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically ally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording conviction. In such an eventuality no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In case there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by the other evidence, the court has to scrutinize the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance. (emphasis supplied) 33. Now we shall consider the recitals in the two dying declarations, one recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable under Ex.P8 and the other recorded by P.W.12-Principal Junior Civil Judge, under Ex.P11. 34. The English translation of the dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable under Ex.P8, reads as follow: I am residing in the above address. My marriage took place about 13 years ago. We got one son. His livelihood is cultivation. My mother's village is Konda Nellore, hamlet of Gummadipudi, Tamil Nadu State. Since few days, my husband and mother-in-law are harassing unnecessarily and ill-treating me. Today i.e. 12.09.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., my husband and my mother-in-law. K. Jeevaratnamma together, with an intention to kill me, pushed me into a room and my husband and my mother-in-law poured kerosene on me and my husband set fire by lighting match. Since few days, my husband and mother-in-law are harassing unnecessarily and ill-treating me. Today i.e. 12.09.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., my husband and my mother-in-law. K. Jeevaratnamma together, with an intention to kill me, pushed me into a room and my husband and my mother-in-law poured kerosene on me and my husband set fire by lighting match. Immediately flames came out and my head, face, hands, chest and upto abdomen burnt away. I cried loudly. Before neighbors reached there, my husband admitted me in S.V.V.R.G. Hospital, Tirupati for medical treatment. During the course of treatment, you came and enquired me and I told the things happened. 35. The English translation of the dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by P.W.12 under Ex.P11, reads as follows: Tell what happened. My husband Subhramanyam and my mother-in-law Jeevarathnam were beating me since three days, asking me to go to parents house. Today at 5.00 p.m., my husband and mother-in-law kept me in a room in my husband's house, poured kerosene on me and set fire to me. I cried loudly and my neighbours Indraiah and Sreenivasulu came and put off fire on me. Later, Chandraiah, Indraiah, my husband's maternal aunt Jayamma, Saheb and Sreenivasulu brought me to hospital. My marriage was performed 15 yrs back. My husband and my mother-in-law with an intention to drive me and to perform second marriage to him, they have done like this. My mother and father are eking out their livelihood by doing coolie work. Since about 10 years, they are beating and harassing me for not bringing money. My son is aged 12 years. My son Hemadri went to my mother's house today. They are planning to kill him. Is there any more to say. Nothing. 36. A juxtaposed reading the above two statements given by the deceased to P.W.10 under Ex.P8 and P.W.12 under Ex.P11, disclose that they do not corroborate with each other, as to the number of days from which the accused harassed her, the purpose for which they harass and her and as to who after pouring kerosene lit fire to her. In Ex.P8-statement, given by the deceased to P.W.10-Head Constable, she stated that since few days accused Nos. In Ex.P8-statement, given by the deceased to P.W.10-Head Constable, she stated that since few days accused Nos. 1 and 2 were harassing unnecessarily and ill-treating her and that her husband and mother-in-law with an intention to kill her, pushed her into a room, and both of them poured kerosene on her and then her husband set fire to her by lighting a match stick, and that her husband admitted her into the hospital before the neighbours came. However, in Ex.P11-dying declaration, given by the deceased to P.W.12, she stated that since three days accused Nos. 1 and 2 were beating asking her to go to her parents house, and that her husband and mother-in-law kept her in a room in the house of her husband, poured kerosene on her and then set fire to her, and when she cried loudly her neighbours Indraiah and Sreenivasulu came and put off the fire on her, and later Chandraiah, Indraiah, her husband's maternal aunt Jayamma, Saheb and Sreenivasulu brought her to the hospital, and on that day, P.W.2-her son went to her mother's place. 37. Thus from the above, it is evident that there are variations in the two statements of the deceased. Ex.P8-dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable, does not contain the details, such as the date and time of recording it. The Chief Medical Officer, also did not put the time of making his endorsement. Even though P.W.10 in his evidence denied that they purposefully did not put the date and time, but in the absence of the details, such as the date and time in Ex.P8-dying declaration, and further having regard to the fact that after recording the statement of the deceased under Ex.P8, P.W.10 instead of carrying the same by himself to the police station, has handed it over to the relatives of the deceased, to give at the police station concerned, on the point of jurisdiction. This apart, P.W.1, who happens to be the brother of the deceased stated that on their reaching the hospital, they noticed that the deceased was not in a position to speak anything. Hence, the truthfulness of the statement given by the deceased to P.W.10-Head Constable under EX.P8 is doubtful. 38. This apart, P.W.1, who happens to be the brother of the deceased stated that on their reaching the hospital, they noticed that the deceased was not in a position to speak anything. Hence, the truthfulness of the statement given by the deceased to P.W.10-Head Constable under EX.P8 is doubtful. 38. The evidence of P.W.2 that on the day of incident, at about 6.00 p.m., while he was playing, he heard the cries of some of their villagers from their house, and he immediately rushed to the house and noticed the deceased lying with bum injuries, and that himself along with 50 other villagers carne to the hospital in a tractor, and on the second day of her admission into the hospital, the deceased informed him that accused No.2 poured kerosene over her body and accused No.1 lit fire to her. In Ex.P11-dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by P.W.12 Principal Junior Civil Judge, the deceased stated that P.W.2-her son went to her mother's house that day. D.W.1, the neighbour of the deceased, also stated that he did not see P.W.2 on the day of incident. The fact that accused were not present in the house at the time of incident, is also evident from the evidence of P.W.6, who in his cross-examination stated that at the time of incident accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not present at the house and they were at their fields sort the groundnut crop. This version of P.W.6, is corroborated by the evidence of D.W.1, who stated that that while they were extinguishing the fire, in the meantime, accused No.2 came to the spot and then with the assistance of one Indrasena Naidu, Mushin Gentleman and another lady, shifted the deceased to hospital. In Ex.P8-dying declaration recorded by P.W.10, the deceased stated that her husband brought her to the hospital. This statement made by the deceased read with the evidence of P.W. 6 and D.W.1 indicates, that the accused were not present in the house at the time of incident, and they were at the fields sorting out the groundnut crop, and on coming to know of the incident, accused No.2, the husband of the deceased came and shifted her to the hospital. The fact that the accused No.2, brought the deceased to the hospital, gains support from the statement of the deceased herself in the dying declaration given to P.W.12 under Ex.P11 wherein she stated that when she cried loudly her neighbours Indraiah and Sreenivasulu came and put off the fire on her, and later Chandraiah, Indraiah, her husband's maternal aunt Jayamma, Saheb and Sreenivasulu, brought her to the hospital, but the prosecution did not examine any of these persons to prove that at the time of incident, the accused were in the house. 39. In view of above contradictions in the dying declarations EX.P8 and P11, recorded by P.W.10 and 12 respectively, ware of the considered opinion that it would not be safe to rely upon the said dying declarations of the deceased, to hold that the respondents-accused are responsible or the death of the deceased. 40. It is the case of the respondents-accused that the deceased at the time of incident, was in her menstrual cycle, she intended to go to her parents house, and on the day of incident, in the morning, her brother Rama Murthy (L.W.10) came, and when he refused to take her along with him and beat her, the deceased attempted suicide by jumping into the well, but she was rescued by P.W.3. The fact that the deceased was in her menstrual cycle at the time of incident, is evident from the evidence of P.W.11-Doctor, who upon looking at Ex.P9-post mortem certificate, issued by Dr. S.V. Phanindra, stated that as per column No.12 of the post mortem certificate, it is mention as uterus 100 gms c/s shows menstrual blood, which means the deceased sustained the burn injuries during her menstrual period. It is quite normal that some women suffer premenstrual syndrome, resulting in depressed mood etc. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the deceased one or two days prior to the incident, himself and the deceased intended to go to his maternal uncle's house. On the day of incident, in the morning, his maternal uncle Rama Murthy (L.W.10) came and advised the deceased and left at 12.00 p.m., and thereafter, the deceased went to jump into the well, and then P.W.3, his neighbour rescued her an brought her and left her in the house. On the day of incident, in the morning, his maternal uncle Rama Murthy (L.W.10) came and advised the deceased and left at 12.00 p.m., and thereafter, the deceased went to jump into the well, and then P.W.3, his neighbour rescued her an brought her and left her in the house. P.W.3, who rescued the deceased from jumping into the well supported the version of P.W.2, that he rescued the deceased from jumping into the well. D.W.1, the neighbour of the deceased also corroborated the version of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that P.W.3 rescued the deceased from jumping into the well, and further stated that he advised the deceased that it was not good on her part to commit suicide simple because her brother beat her. Thus, it becomes evident that the deceased, who was in her menstrual cycle, was in a depressed mood, and on the day of the incident, in the morning, she attempted suicide by into the well, which was thwarted by P.W.3. This circumstance, would suggest that there was every possibility of the deceased again resorting to commit suicide, and therefore, the respondents-accused should be given the benefit of doubt. 41. This apart, there is long delay in registering EX.P12-FIR. Even though the incident took place on 12.09.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., Ex.P12-FIR, based on Ex.P8-dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by P.W.10, was registered on the next day at 13.09.2004 at 12.30 p.m. and it reached the court on 15.09.2004. Ex.P8-dying declaration, does not disclose the date and time to know as to when it was recorded. The distance between the place of occurrence is about five kilometers from the police station, and even though the distance between the police station and the court, is not elicited in the evidence, the distance would not be more than 50 Kms. Even if one is to travel such distance, it would not take more than two hours to reach. In the absence of any explanation as regards the delay in registering EX.P12-FIR and the delay in EX.P12-FIR reaching the court, we are of the considered opinion that the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 42. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the criminal appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.