Judgment : Challa Kodanda Ram, J. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal order passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, by its Judgment dated 16.10.2007 in Sessions Case No.86 of 2007. 2) The respondents herein were the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.156 of 2006 of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C., which was later altered to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). 3) The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that as per the case of the prosecution, deceased viz., Smt. Palika Vijaya, who was originally married to one Prasad, but due to differences separated from him and was living with her parents i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2 herein, at Kakinada, though originally they belong to Krishna District. The deceased Vijaya was working in a private dental hospital and A.1 came in contact with her and in the process they developed illegal intimacy and started living together at Ramaraopet, Kakinada in a rented house belonging to P.W.3 as tenants. On 15.07.2006, in the midnight encouraged by A.2, A.1 poured kerosene on the deceased Vijaya and set fire, and thereafter she was admitted in Sri Venkata Chalapathi Nursing Home, Ramaraopet, Kakinada and later she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On 16.07.2006 the statement of deceased Vijaya was recorded by Head Constable H.C. 1131-K.Rambabu and another statement was recorded at Government General Hospital, Kakinada on 19.07.2006 by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (PW13). Finally, the deceased Vijaya died on 31.07.2006 at about 11.45 p.m. After completion of the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the respondents-accused alleging that they are liable for punishable under Sections 302 rear with 34 IPC. 4) The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada took the case on file and committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Rajahmundry. The learned Sessions Judge took the same on file as Sessions Case and made over the same to the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge after following due procedure, framed charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the respondents, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge after following due procedure, framed charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the respondents, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5) During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined 16 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked in support of its case. On defence side, nobody was examined but Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. After appreciating the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, the trial Court rendered the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents-A.1 & A.2. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State. 6) Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 7) Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered with? POINT: 8) As per the evidence on record, there were no eyewitnesses in this case and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the dying declaration recorded by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada on 19.07.2006. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are father and mother of the deceased Vijaya, in their evidence though had deposed that A.1 was harassing the deceased, but there were no concrete instances which have been brought on record. P.W. 1 came to be aware of the deceased suffering from burning injuries, when P.W.4-neighbour informed him, and on receiving intimation he ran to the tenanted portion of residence of P.W.3 and was informed that the deceased has already been taken to hospital. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that his daughter when questioned by himself and his wife, informed that A.1 and A.2 tied her with a rope and poured kerosene on her and set fire and she herself ran to the nursing home and joined in the nursing home. 9) P.W.2, in her evidence had stated that the deceased Vijaya told about A.2 catching of her and A.1 pouring kerosene on her and setting fire. The deceased-Vijaya also said to have told about A.2 coming to her house and abusing her and her informing A.1 about the same, later, A.1 and A.2 coming back together and A.1 setting fire when A.2 catching her. The deceased-Vijaya also said to have told about A.2 coming to her house and abusing her and her informing A.1 about the same, later, A.1 and A.2 coming back together and A.1 setting fire when A.2 catching her. 10) It may be noted at this juncture that there is a variation in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to narration of incident, which is supposed to have been told by the deceased Vijaya. P.W.2 does not state that the deceased Vijaya speaking about A.1 and A.2 tying her with a rope and on the contrary she had stated A.2 catching hold of the deceased and A.1 pouring kerosene. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence had deposed that the deceased Vijaya was set fire by the A.1 and A.2, which is in contradiction to the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, which were marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2, whereunder they had stated about her daughter informing them at the very first instance that she caught fire while preparing omelette. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that they were with her daughter from 16.07.2006 to 19.07.2006 when the deceased was at Government General Hospital, Kakinada. 11) P.W.3 in her evidence speaks about deceased informing her about deceased herself pouring kerosene and setting fire, and she speaks about A.1 being present and A.1 removing her clothes from the deceased, A.1 sustained injuries to his hands and further A.1 covering the body of the deceased-Vijaya with blanket and taking her to hospital. There is nothing in the cross-examination elicited to contradict the deposition of P.W.3. 12) Likewise, P.W.4, who is neighbour deposed that the deceased was residing in a tenanted portion of the property belonging to P.W.3 and also deposed A.1 being present and A.1 taking the deceased-Vijaya to the hospital, and in the cross-examination he had categorically said about the deceased-Vijaya telling of P.W.3 that she suffered injuries on account of herself pouring kerosene and setting fire. The evidence of P.W.4 also has uncontroverted. P.W.s 5 to 7 evidence is not much of important. P.W.7 was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor as he was not supporting the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.4 also has uncontroverted. P.W.s 5 to 7 evidence is not much of important. P.W.7 was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor as he was not supporting the case of the prosecution. 13) P.W.8, who is doctor and owner of Sri Venkata Chalapathi Nursing Home, had deposed that on 16.07.2006 A.1 admitted the deceased Vijaya with 55% of burn injuries and he intimated the same to II Town Police Station, Kakinada through Ex.P.2 and on 19.07.2006 the deceased-Vijaya was discharged against medical advice. He had categorically deposed that during the deceased- Vijaya’s stay in his hospital, she was conscious and the police had recorded her statement when she was in conscious state. 14) P.W.12 had deposed that he had examined the patient by name Palika Raju and found the following injuries: i) Healed burn injury over the dorsum of left hand of size 5 c.ms. x 4 c.m., white in colour. ii) A healed burn over the left forearm of 5 c.m. x 3 c.m., anterior aspect, lower 1/3. iii) A healed burn injury over left forearm, lateral aspect lower 1/3. 15) P.W.13, the IV Judicial First Class Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration on 19.07.2006 at 0105 hours in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada. She has deposed that she had ascertained about the mental status of the deceased Vijaya and after being satisfied about her fit condition she recorded the dying declaration as in Ex.P.9. In her cross-examination she admitted that the certification of the doctor about the mental condition of the patient was pre-typed and in her presence certifying doctor did not examine before recording the Ex.P9. She further deposed that as the deceased Vijaya stated that she was harassed by Raviraju about two years prior to the incident; and about her working as nurse in Sarojini Dental Hospital, that her being previously married; that her questioning Raviraju about suppression of his previous marriage; about A.1 trying to kill her with nylon rope and about her escape and in another occasion where A.1 trying to kill her by bending her neck and at another time by pressing her neck. P.W.13 also deposed that the deceased-Vijaya had narrated about her being A.1 pulling her into the house by catching hold of tuff of hair, and in the meanwhile Suresh-A.2 came there, then A.1 instructed A.2 to catching hold of the deceased-Vijaya and setting fire by pouring kerosene on her. She also admitted that the duty doctor simply signed at the end of the statement of declaration without writing his opinion about fit state of mind of the declarant. 16) P.W.14, the Investigating Officer, who had conducted the investigation had deposed that it was only on 01.08.2006 for the first time basing on Ex.P.10 intimation a Crime was registered as Cr.No.156 of 2006 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the statement of deceased Vijay recorded by the Head Constable 1131Rambabu. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the deceased Vijay was allow from 16.07.2006 till 30.07.2006 and it is only after the death of the deceased-Vijay crime was registered. 17) P.W.16, who was Inspector of Police, had deposed that he referred A.1 to Government General Hospital, Kakinada as he found burnt injuries on A.1’s left hand. 1. 18) As can be seen from the evidence, in this case there were two dying declarations, the contents of which were not identical and not consistent. Further, the contents in both the dying declarations are in variance with the evidence on record. In view of the law laid down in Kamal Vs. State of Punjab ( (1993) 1 SCC 1 ), wherein it was held by the Supreme Court of India, as follows: “It is well settled that dying declaration conform the sole basis of conviction provided that it is free from infirmities and satisfies various tests (vide Khushal Rao V. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22 ; 1958 SCR 552 L 1958 Crl LJ 106). The ratio laid down in this case has been referred to in a number of subsequent cases with approval. It is also settled in all those cases that the statement should be consistent throughout if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent throughout if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without even any corroboration. In a case where there are more than one dying declaration if some inconsistencies are noticed between one and the other, the Court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies names whether they are material or not. In scrutinizing the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances. A dying declaration should satisfy all the necessary tests and one such important test is that if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent particularly in material particulars”. 19) It was also held by the Supreme Court in the case of Cinnamma Vs. State of Kerala [1] ( (2004) 12 SCC 244 ), wherein it was held that when there were two dying declarations with contradictions and creating doubt whether the injury suffered by deceased was really because of the act of the accused or was a figment of her imagination and when there was no strong motive for accused to commit such a heinous crime, then it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 20) A perusal of the evidence would reveal that there are number of contradictions about the narration of the incident as told by the deceased Smt. Vijaya to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also as narrated in the dying declaration recorded in Ex.P.9, P.W.1 speaks about A.1 and A.2 tying the deceased Vijaya with rope, whereas P.W.2 states A.2 catching hold of the deceased and A.1 pouring kerosene, likewise in Ex.P.9, as recorded by P.W.13, A.1 pulling deceased into the house by catching hold of the tuft of hair and A.1 instructing A.2 to hold deceased was in total variance. The alleged attempts of killing on earlier occasions by A.1 were narrated to P.W.13 is again new version. On the other hand the dying declaration recorded on 16.07.2006 by the Head Constable (Rambabu-H.C.1311) records the deceased suffering burn injuries as self inflicted on account of accident. In the face of these contradictions absolutely it is not safe to rely on the dying declaration recorded on 19.07.2006 in Ex.P9 by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. On the other hand the dying declaration recorded on 16.07.2006 by the Head Constable (Rambabu-H.C.1311) records the deceased suffering burn injuries as self inflicted on account of accident. In the face of these contradictions absolutely it is not safe to rely on the dying declaration recorded on 19.07.2006 in Ex.P9 by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. It is also scant to note that that the dying declaration recorded by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada was not in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer even as on 01.08.2006 when the Crime No.156 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, which is uncontroverted about the deceased Vijaya stating to P.W.3 that she poured kerosene on herself remains unchallenged, which leave any amount of doubt about the incident having taken place in the manner as narrated by the deceased Vijaya in Ex.P.9. 21) In the circumstances, and in the light of the discussion above, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution while acquitting the accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it does not call for any interference with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 22) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Sessions Case No.86 of 2007. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.