JUDGMENT M.T. Joshi, J. 1. Heard both sides. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and consequent sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and lastly, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively, for the respective offences, the present appeal is preferred. 2. The original accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Accused No. 4 Kisan died during the pendency of case. 3. P.W. 2 Kisan S/o. Rangnath Mate is the father of the deceased Chandrakala. The deceased was given in marriage to the present appellant on 15/4/1993. The appellant as well as his family members reside at Aurangabad. According to the complainant, Chandrakala was treated well for a period of one year from the date of marriage. Thereafter, on 15/2/1995, deceased Chandrakala and the present appellant visited the complainant at his house situated at Toka, Pravarasangam village. At that time, appellant made a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of jeep. The complainant paid him Rs. 30,000/- and, thereafter, the couple returned to their village. Thereafter, on 27/2/1995, brother of the deceased i.e. P.W. 3 - Bharat came to visit her at Aurangabad. At that time, the deceased told him that as her father had not paid the full amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the appellant started beating her. Besides this, rest of the accused i.e. his parents had grievance that less dowry was paid in the marriage and now even the full payment of Rs. 50,000/- is not made. All of them i.e. the appellant as well as his parents told P.W. 3 Bharat that unless the additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- is paid, he should not enter the house. Accused No. 4 Kisan instigated them. All these facts were told by P.W. 3 Bharat to his father i.e. the complainant. In the circumstances, on 31/3/1995, the deceased died due to the burn injuries and in the circumstances, the complaint came to be filed on 31/3/1995. 4. The investigation in the case was carried by P.W. 5 A.P.I. Sudarshan Mundhe. Accused No. 4 Kisan instigated them. All these facts were told by P.W. 3 Bharat to his father i.e. the complainant. In the circumstances, on 31/3/1995, the deceased died due to the burn injuries and in the circumstances, the complaint came to be filed on 31/3/1995. 4. The investigation in the case was carried by P.W. 5 A.P.I. Sudarshan Mundhe. Initially, Accidental Death case was registered in which inquest panchanama as well as panchanama of spot of occurrence at Exhibit 13 was recorded. Thereafter, the compliant of P.W. 2 Kisan was recorded at Exhibit 17, on the basis of which the crime, as detailed supra came to be registered. During investigation, statement of the witnesses came to be recorded. All the three accused were arrested. Articles were sent to the chemical analyzer. Post-mortem examination report from P.W. 4 Dr. Anil Jinturkar, the Medical Officer was collected, which is at Exhibit 22. After the investigation was over, the chargesheet came to be filed. 5. Before the learned Sessions Judge, in all five witnesses were examined. Out of them, P.W. 1 Ashok Jain is the panch witness to the recording of the panchanama of the spot of occurrence at Exhibit 13. P.W. 2 Kisan is the father of the deceased, P.W. 3 Bharat is the brother of the deceased, P.W. 4 Dr. Anil Jinturkar is the Medical Officer who has examined the deceased and passed the postmortem examination report at Exhibit 22. P.W. 5, the A.P.I. is the Investigating Officer. 6. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 spoke on the line of the prosecution case. The evidence of the Medical Officer alongwith the post-mortem examination note would show that the deceased had suffered 100% ante mortem burn injuries and the death has occurred due to those injuries. 7. The learned Sessions Judge believed the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- on 15/2/1995 at the house of the complainant by the present appellant and the complainant gave only Rs. 30,000/-, which was the cause of the grouse for the present appellant. Ultimately, when on 27/2/1995, P.W. 3 Bharat went to the house of the present appellant to meet the deceased, at that time, the disclosure of the ill-treatment was made. This disclosure was ultimately intimated by P.W. 3 to P.W. 2 and, therefore, believing the prosecution case, the conviction came to be recorded. 8. Ultimately, when on 27/2/1995, P.W. 3 Bharat went to the house of the present appellant to meet the deceased, at that time, the disclosure of the ill-treatment was made. This disclosure was ultimately intimated by P.W. 3 to P.W. 2 and, therefore, believing the prosecution case, the conviction came to be recorded. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Shelke submits that the learned Sessions Judge has relied over the secondary evidence regarding the dying declaration i.e. the alleged statement made by the deceased to P.W. 3 Bharat, which was ultimately intimated to complainant-P.W. 2. He further submits that the evidence on record would show that while the cooking was in progress and deceased was all alone in the house, the incident of catching the fire has occurred. It therefore, cannot be called as suicide. He submits that even there are no allegations that any ill-treatment in relation to dowry was caused and, therefore, the charge for the offence punishable under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could not have been even framed. Further, he took me through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and more particularly, of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have extended the benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that the evidence on record would clearly show that the unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made on the specific date, out of which only part could not fulfilled and the unfulfilled demand was the cause of ill-treatment to the deceased. In the circumstances, she submits that the sound reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge should not be interfered with. 10. Upon hearing both the sides, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have granted the benefit of doubt to the present appellant and should have acquitted him, for the reasons to follow. REASONS 11. The panchanama of the spot of occurrence at Exhibit 13 will show that dough of wheat was already prepared for making rotis in one plate, the vegetable of brinjal was kept diced and over the electric stove, onion was seen which was being fried and certain spices were prepared in the dish. Further, the house was bolted from inside and the deceased Chandrakala was all alone in the house. Electric wire was seen burnt. Further, the house was bolted from inside and the deceased Chandrakala was all alone in the house. Electric wire was seen burnt. In the circumstances, there would be a suspicion, as to whether the deceased has committed suicide or it was a case of accidentally catching the fire. Besides this, it should be noted that P.W. 2 the complainant i.e. the father of the deceased was witness to the incident of making a demand of Rs. 50,000/- but he was not witness to the statement, allegedly made by the deceased to P.W. 3 regarding the ill-treatment over the unlawful demand of Rs. 20,000/-. Further, the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that accused No. 2 i.e. father of the present appellant holds 18 acres of land in village Karanjgaon. The family is having their own pakka house and all the accused were financially sound. Further, he admitted in the cross-examination that for the first two years, the deceased was treated well and there was no dispute till that time. It should be noted that the marriage had taken place on 15/4/1993 and the death has occurred on 30/3/1995 i.e. within two years of the marriage. 12. It is to be noted that the complaint of the ill-treatment was not made by the deceased to P.W. 2 Kisan but was allegedly made to P.W. 3 Bharat who in turn told about the same to P.W. 2. In the circumstances, what is heard through a third person by P.W. 2 cannot be treated as oral dying declaration. 13. This takes us to the statement of P.W. 3 Bharat. His statement would show that amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid on 15/2/1995 as against demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a jeep. According to this witness, on 27/2/1995, when he visited the house of the deceased at Aurangabad, at that time, she told him that as the entire amount of Rs. 50,000/- was not paid, she was being ill-treated by the appellant and his parents. She also told him that she was beaten by her husband. Further, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 nagged him by saying that sufficient dowry was not paid and, therefore, atleast demand of Rs. 50,000/- ought to have been met with. 14. 50,000/- was not paid, she was being ill-treated by the appellant and his parents. She also told him that she was beaten by her husband. Further, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 nagged him by saying that sufficient dowry was not paid and, therefore, atleast demand of Rs. 50,000/- ought to have been met with. 14. The witness in his examination-in-chief, further stated that on 31/3/1995, Kisan came to his house and stated that a quarrel has taken place in the family of the appellant between himself and his brothers, as they wanted to be separate from each others. This fact was told by original accused No. 4 Kisan who has died during the trial itself. Further, P.W. 3 has to admit that he did not specifically state while recording his Police statement that after one year, accused started demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a jeep as has been deposed by him in the examination-in-chief. In paragraph No. 8 of the cross-examination, however, it is admitted that there was no talk between the appellant and his family members to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, no grievance was made with any villager in this regard. Further, it is an admitted fact that after the death of the deceased, her dead body was taken by the appellant and his family members for cremation at his village and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 did not attend the cremation. 15. Taking into consideration all these facts on record and more particularly finding that the statement of P.W. 2 - Kisan regarding the oral dying declaration was not admissible while statement of P.W. 3 Bharat is circumscribed by the suspicion, in the circumstances, as detailed supra, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have extended the benefit of reasonable doubt in the present case. 16. The learned A.P.P. relies on the ratio in the cases of i) Balasaheb Changdeo Ghule Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 2338, ii) Abhang S/o. Laximan Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 3829, iii) Rattan Singh V. State of H.P. AIR 1997 S.C. 768 (1) and iv) State of M.P. V. Ramesh and Anr. 2011 CRI. L.J. 2297 (1) : (2011 ALL MR (Cri.) 1338 (S.C.)). 17. On the other hand, Mr. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 3829, iii) Rattan Singh V. State of H.P. AIR 1997 S.C. 768 (1) and iv) State of M.P. V. Ramesh and Anr. 2011 CRI. L.J. 2297 (1) : (2011 ALL MR (Cri.) 1338 (S.C.)). 17. On the other hand, Mr. Shelke relied on the ratio in the cases of i) Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal 2007 AIR SCW 2189 : (2007 ALL SCR 1596) and ii) Rajbabu and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. 2008 AIR SCW 5435 : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2894 (S.C.)]. 18. Taking into consideration the ratio of all the cases, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge ought not have convicted the present appellant as there is reasonable doubt. 19. In the circumstances, the following order:- 20. The Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 19/06/2000, convicting the present appellant for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 and 304-B r/w. 34 of the I.P. Code is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant is acquitted of all the offences. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the present appellant. Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.