JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellants Govind Ram (husband) and Smt. Basanti Devi (mother-in-law) are the convicts for the offence of sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. They have appropriately been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Almora. The Sessions Trial No.79 of 1998 pertains to police station Almora. 2. Deceased Ms. Kanta, a young lady of 22 years of age, was married to appellant Govind Ram 1½ years’ ago of her death. She died on account of burn injuries. As per the dying declaration recorded on 05.05.1997 at 5:38 P.M. by Mr. Dev Murti Yadav, Naib Tehsildar, the fire broke out when the victim was trying to ignite fire in the evening. Her clothes caught fire because when at the first instance, she could not succeed to ignite fire, she sprinkled kerosene oil in the second attempt and then ignited matchstick. Unfortunately, that matchstick fell on her Sarree making her ablaze. The first information report was lodged on 10.5.1997 at 4 PM by PW1 Heera Ram (father of deceased) wherein the allegations of demand of dowry from the members of in-laws have extensively been made. It has also been stated that she was cruelly treated by the appellants demanding dowry from her. So, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellants and after trial, they have been convicted by learned Trial Judge on the basis of dying declaration. 3. It is very significant that in this case, two dying declarations of the deceased were recorded. The first dying declaration was recorded, immediately after she was admitted in the hospital, on 5.5.1997, by Naib Tehsildar of the concerned area, in presence of Chief Medical Officer, on duty, who certified that the patient was fit during and after giving such statement. In that declaration, she has completely exonerated the appellants from being involved in the incident. She has taken the blame for catching fire of her clothes upon herself. 4. Information of the occurrence was sent by her husband Govind Ram through his grandfather. Having received the information, informant Heera Ram rushed to the hospital where he found his daughter in such a burnt state. While Sri Govind Ram was still in hospital for last one day, dying declaration of the lady was again recorded on 7.5.1997 by the same Naib Tehsildar, who recorded the earlier statement, in presence of his Peon Mohan Chand Durgapal. While Sri Govind Ram was still in hospital for last one day, dying declaration of the lady was again recorded on 7.5.1997 by the same Naib Tehsildar, who recorded the earlier statement, in presence of his Peon Mohan Chand Durgapal. The Emergency Medical Officer of the Government hospital, on duty, has certified that condition of the patient, during recording of such statement, was sound. In the later statement, she has framed her husband that he sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and then ignited matchstick. When asked, as to why she spared her husband in her earlier statement dated 5.5.1997, she disclosed that she was persuaded by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law to tell the things, as she stated earlier; and after the arrival of her brother and father, she changed her statement. 5. It is also relevant to mention that in the subsequent statement, the presence of mother-in-law has also been shown. It has further been divulged by the victim that her husband and mother-in-law saved her after covering her head body by a cloth. 6. In such matters, it is a settled proposition of law that a dying declaration, if found proved to be true and voluntary, can form the sole basis of conviction even without any corroboration. But in the case of ‘Chinnamma v. State of Kerala’ reported in 2004 Cr.L.J. 1447 (S.C.), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that where the contents of two dying declarations of deceased are highly contradictory as to infliction of injury by appellants, then possibility of deceased being influenced by her parents, cannot be ruled out and conviction based on such dying declaration is not sustainable. 7. Furthermore, in the case of ‘Govind Narain v. Mohan Lal’ reported in 1993 A.I.R. S.C. 2457 D.B., the Apex Court held that where the credibility of the dying declaration is in question and it was reduced into writing, then if the scribe of the document neither examined nor cross-examined, and prosecution could not explain any reason of its failure to produce the scribe, then such dying declaration is liable to be discarded. 8. In the instant case also, both the dying declarations of deceased are sharply contradictory to each other. Moreover, the scribe of both of them, who was none other but a Naib Tehsildar of the area, has not been examined by the prosecution to prove either of them. 8. In the instant case also, both the dying declarations of deceased are sharply contradictory to each other. Moreover, the scribe of both of them, who was none other but a Naib Tehsildar of the area, has not been examined by the prosecution to prove either of them. No reason has been offered by the prosecution to show their failure in examining such Naib Tehsildar in the Court. So in light of Govind Narain’s case (Supra), such dying declarations are liable to be discarded for attributing the guilt upon the appellants. 9. That apart, the statement of PW1 Heera Ram (father of victim) reflects that the dying declaration of deceased, recorded at the earlier opportunity, was having some substance. He has admitted that his daughter was got admitted in the hospital by his son-in-law Govind Ram who 4remained all along busy in her medical treatment in hospital. PW1 further stated that it was only Govind Ram who sent his grandfather to inform about the incident to him (PW1). When PW1 came to the hospital, he found Govind Ram present there and it is also correct to say that the hands of his son-in-law were also burnt. It shows that when the fire broke out, Govind Ram strived to extinguish the fire but unfortunately, she was 45 percent burnt. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, has proved that no ante-mortem injury was present on the burnt body. 10. So in the light of evidence and also the legal position, as discussed hereinabove, the Court allows the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of both the appellants. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 11. Let the record be transmitted to the court concerned.