JUDGMENT C.V. BHADANG, J. The appellants/original accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 88/1998 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. By a judgment and order dated 1.2.1999, the appellants came to be convicted for the offences as charged. For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in-default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in-default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and lastly for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus :- That, now deceased Jyoti, daughter of P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai Jaunjal, was married to the appellant no.4 - Anil s/o Pandhari Kakad on 17.6.1997. The appellant no. 1 happens to be the mother of Anil Kakad, while appellant no.3 - Dnyaneshwar is his brother, the appellant no. 2 - Rajkanya being the wife of Dnyaneshwar. The original accused no.3 - Pandhari s/o Deorao Kakad, father of Anil Kakad, died during the pendency of the sessions case. After the marriage, Jyoti went to reside at her matrimonial house at village Eklara. It appears that Jyoti had four other sisters, out of which, Jyoti was the youngest. Her father Keshavrao is dead. Initially, all the appellants-accused were staying together and after sometime of marriage, the deceased and the appellant no. 4 - Anil Kakad started residing separately. It is the material prosecution case that P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai, the widowed mother of Jyoti, had given ornaments worth Rs.10,000/- to Jyoti in marriage. Jyoti met with unnatural death on account of burn injuries on 11.2.1998 i.e. Jess than eight months of the marriage. 4 - Anil Kakad started residing separately. It is the material prosecution case that P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai, the widowed mother of Jyoti, had given ornaments worth Rs.10,000/- to Jyoti in marriage. Jyoti met with unnatural death on account of burn injuries on 11.2.1998 i.e. Jess than eight months of the marriage. During the subsistence of marriage, Jyoti had visited her mother's house thrice at Lakhanwadi, Tahsil Anjangaon Surji, District-Amravati, hardly 4 km away from Eklara. During her visit, she had narrated PW1 Venubai about she being ill-treated on account of demand of further amount. It is also said that the appellant no.4, her husband, had threatened her to enter into second marriage if the demand is not satisfied. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant no. 1 - Vatsala and appellant no.2 Rajkanya used to poison the ears of Anil Kakad on account of which he was physically assaulting Jyoti. 3. On 11.2.1998, the appellant no. 4 had come to the house of P.W.1-Smt. Venubai stating that Jyoti is ill and he would be bringing her at Lakhanwadi at about 4.00 pm and asking that she be treated by one Dr. Deshmukh. It is said that the appellant no. 4 Anil Kakad returned back at about 12.00 noon and on the same day at about 3.00 pm Jyoti sustained severe burns and she was initially carried by appellant nos.3 and 4 to Primary Health Centre at Kokarda from where she was shifted to Rural Hospital at Daryapur, where she was treated and was further advised to be shifted to General Hospital at Amravati, where Jyoti succumbed to the burn injuries at about 10.15 pm. According to the prosecution, while at the Rural Hospital at Daryapur, Jyoti disclosed to P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai and others that the appellant no.1 poured kerosene on her person and the appellant no.2 set her ablaze. On the basis of a complaint lodged by P.W.1 - Venubai on the same day, an offence came to be registered. Prior to that a case of accidental death was registered at City Kotwali Police Station at Amravati and during the course of investigation of that A.D., ASI Bhaurao had visited the General Hospital at Amravati and drawn an inquest panchanama and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by P.W.5 - Dr. Manohar Mohod. Prior to that a case of accidental death was registered at City Kotwali Police Station at Amravati and during the course of investigation of that A.D., ASI Bhaurao had visited the General Hospital at Amravati and drawn an inquest panchanama and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by P.W.5 - Dr. Manohar Mohod. On lodging of a complaint, initially an offence under Sections 307, 304-B and 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and on the death of Jyoti, an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. During the course of investigation, P.W.9 - ASI Ujjwal Gaikwad visited the spot, prepared a spot panchanama, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected certain seizures, seized articles were sent for the report of the Chemical Analyser and on completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed, which was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses. The appellants have not led any evidence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Jyoti died an unnatural death within eight months of marriage and soon prior thereto she was subjected to ill-treatment. It was also found that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, caused her death. In that view of the matter, the appellants came to be convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsels we have scrutinized the entire evidence and the impugned judgment. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that two dying declarations, namely, Exh.99, recorded by P.W.6 - Head Constable Pramod Deshmukh and Exh.111, recorded by the Executive Magistrate P.W.7 - Abdul Raheman Abdul Salam, are not trustworthy and one inspiring confidence. It is submitted that the Medical Officer P.W.8 - Dr. Aruna Biyani is also said to have recorded a statement of the deceased which is not brought on record. It is submitted that the Medical Officer P.W.8 - Dr. Aruna Biyani is also said to have recorded a statement of the deceased which is not brought on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the prosecution is not coming with true version of the incident, particularly in the wake of the admission by the Investigating Officer P.W.9 - P.S.I. Ujjawal Gaikwad that although he had recorded the statements of the neighbours, they are not cited as witnesses. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has admitted that the statements of the neighbours were not in line with the prosecution case. The learned Counsel then has taken us through the individual dying declarations (Exh.99 and Exh.111) in order to point out certain deficiencies/discrepancies which according to the learned Counsel would strike at the very root of the veracity and the truthfulness of these statements. Insofar as the dying declaration (Exh.99) is concerned, it was submitted that P.W.6 - Head Constable Pramod Deshmukh has stated that he finished dying declaration at 1:30 p.m. However, there is no time of recording mentioned on the dying declaration. There is no fitness certificate of the Medical Officer on the same and the Medical Officer does not say that the Head Constable recorded the statements. The learned Counsel also took exception to the dying declaration (Exh.111) in order to submit that there is no endorsement below the alleged thumb impression of the deceased and from the place where the thumb impression is appearing, would clearly indicate that it is not obtained after the statement was purportedly recorded. The learned Counsel also submitted that the said dying declaration is too clyptic to lead to any conclusion and there are also discrepancies inter se between the dying declarations Exh.99 and Exh.111. It is then submitted that both the upper limbs of the deceased have been shown to be completely burnt and that would exclude the possibility of thumb mark of the deceased being obtained. The learned Counsel then submitted that admittedly the clothes of the appellants have not been seized and inasmuch as the deceased and appellant no.5 were staying separately, it is improbable that appellant nos. 1 and 2 would visit the house of the deceased, and set her on fire. The learned Counsel then submitted that admittedly the clothes of the appellants have not been seized and inasmuch as the deceased and appellant no.5 were staying separately, it is improbable that appellant nos. 1 and 2 would visit the house of the deceased, and set her on fire. The learned Counsel was at pains to point out that although the spot of the alleged incident is shown to be in a populated area and the house was surrounded by neighbours, admittedly their statements were not favourable to the prosecution. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the Investigating Officer has admitted that it did transpire in his investigation and there was no evidence to show that appellant nos. 1 and 2 had visited the house where deceased and her husband/appellant no.5 were staying. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in placing reliance on the dying declarations. Insofar as the oral declarations made to P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai and P.W.2 - Ramesh Jaunjal are concerned, it is submitted that they are close relatives of the deceased and their evidence cannot be accepted. 8. As regards the law regarding appreciation of the evidence in the form of dying declarations, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1766 (Manik s/o Vanaji Gawali...Versus...The State of Maharashtra). (ii) 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2453 (Paikuji s/o Shankar Ataram...Versus...State of Maharashtra). (iii) 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2754 (Tukaram Dashrath Padhen and others... Versus... State of Maharashtra). (iv) 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2188 (Abdul Riyaz Abdul Bashir...Versus...State of Maharashtra). (v) 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 244 (Smt. Rashida Abdul Gani Khairadi... Versus... The State of Maharashtra). (vi) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3145 (Vilas Vikramsingh Deshmukh and others... Versus... The State of Maharashtra). (vii) (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 49 : [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2936 (S.C.)] (Gurnaib Singh...Versus...State of Punjab). (viii) AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3828 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2398 (S.C.)] (Kaliyaperumal and another... Versus... State of Tamil Nadu). (ix) 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1970 (Shakuntalabai wd/o Khairuprasad Joshi and another...Versus...The State of Maharashtra). (x) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3369 (Deepak @ Pradeep Shriram Dhavle and another... Versus... The State of Maharashtra). (xi) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4084 (S.C.) (Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal and another...Versus...State of Jharkhand). Versus... State of Tamil Nadu). (ix) 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1970 (Shakuntalabai wd/o Khairuprasad Joshi and another...Versus...The State of Maharashtra). (x) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3369 (Deepak @ Pradeep Shriram Dhavle and another... Versus... The State of Maharashtra). (xi) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4084 (S.C.) (Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal and another...Versus...State of Jharkhand). (xii) 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2959 (S.C.) (S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna... Versus... State of Karnataka). (xiii) 2014 AIR SCW 1787 : 12014 ALL SCR 1622] (Jumni and others... Versus... State of Haryana). (ix) [2014 (1) B Cr C 269] : [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1023] Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) (Rajesh s/o Gajanan Mahaiskar...Versus...State of Maharashtra). (xv) 2012 (1) Acquittal 535 (Bom.) : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 581] Bombay High Court (Nirmala Maruti Gunjal... Versus...State of Maharashtra). 9. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai Jaunjal, P. W.2 Ramesh Jaunjal and P.W.3 - Sau. Shila Dhote on the point of cruelty is consistent and has been rightly accepted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that insofar as the evidence in the form of dying declarations is concerned, the same having found to be voluntarily made and truthful have been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that law does not require dying declarations to be recorded in a particular manner or form. Even there is no rule of law requiring a medical opinion as to the mental fitness of the declarant to make the dying declaration. It is submitted that all that is necessary is that the Court, on the basis of the examination of the dying declaration, evidence of the person who had recorded the said declaration or the person who says that there was oral declaration made, has to be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit mental state to give the declaration that the declarant had sufficient opportunity of clearly observing the incident and that the declaration not being induced by tutoring or being a figment of imagination. If these conditions are satisfied and if the Court is satisfied with the voluntary and the truthfulness of the declaration made, the same can be accepted and relied upon to base conviction. If these conditions are satisfied and if the Court is satisfied with the voluntary and the truthfulness of the declaration made, the same can be accepted and relied upon to base conviction. In an appropriate case, the Court may look for corroboration in the form of direct or circumstantial evidence in order to strengthen the inference arising out of the dying declaration. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is only natural for a lady to make such declaration to her near relatives and there is nothing unusual in the present case which would throw suspicion on the two dying declarations or of their truthfulness. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out that initially the information was given to Police Station, Daryapur as the deceased made the disclosure while being admitted in the Rural hospital at Daryapur while the incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rahimpur. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay, if any, has been properly explained. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal being devoid of any substance be dismissed. 11. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there is no dispute about the inter se relationship between the parties. It is also not in dispute that appellant no.4 - Anil was married to the deceased on 17.6.1997 and she died on account of burn injuries on 11.2.1998 at about 9:15 p.m. It is also not in dispute that initially both the deceased and her husband were staying in the joint family consisting of other appellants/accused and since some time prior to the incident both of them had started staying separately. The maternal place of the deceased is at Lakhanwadi District Amravati while after marriage she was residing with the appellants at village Eklara and the distance between the two villages is said to be about 4 kilometers. 12. The evidence of P.W.5 - Dr. Manohar Mohod, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Jyoti, shows that following external injuries were found on the dead body. 12. The evidence of P.W.5 - Dr. Manohar Mohod, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Jyoti, shows that following external injuries were found on the dead body. "(i) Burn injury over head, neck and face 7% (ii) Burn injury over abdomen chest 12% (iii) Burn injury over right and left upper extremities 18% (ix) Burn injuries over back 16% (v) Burn injury over right lower extremity 18% (vi) Burn injury over left lower extremity 13% (vii) Burn injury over perineum 1 % Total: 85%." Apart from this there was venesection mark over left leg (lower l/3rd) and all injuries were found to be ante-mortem injuries. The cause of death was shown as shock due to extensive burn injuries. He, accordingly, has issued the post-mortem report (Exh.97). This witness was suggested that if the burns exceed 70% it affects the fitness of the brain, which suggestion was refuted. Thus, it has come on record that the deceased had sustained and had died on account of burn injuries, which were stated to be to the extent of 85%. The incident had occurred on 11.2.1998 in the afternoon and on the sane day Jyoti died at about 9:15 p.m. In the present case, the prosecution is based on the two dying declarations (Exhs.99 and 111) and the oral disclosures made to P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai and P.W.2 - Ramesh. 13. P.W.6 - Head Constable Pramod Deshmukh, who was then attached to Police Station, Daryapur, has stated that on 11.2.1998 at about 11 to 12 hours the Station Diary Incharge at Police Station Daryapur had informed him that a lady, who had sustained burn injuries, is admitted in the Government Hospital and asked him to go to the hospital for recording her statement. He, therefore, went to the Government Hospital at Daryapur, met the Medical Officer on duty and then "with the permission of the Medical Officer" went to record the statement. When he went to the patient Jyoti, she was surrounded by relatives, who were asked to go out. The Medical Officer then asked Jyoti as to whether she is able to give her statement. This witness also enquired with her. The substantive evidence of this witness does not mention the answer given by Jyoti to both the Medical Officer and other witness about her ability to give statement. The Medical Officer then asked Jyoti as to whether she is able to give her statement. This witness also enquired with her. The substantive evidence of this witness does not mention the answer given by Jyoti to both the Medical Officer and other witness about her ability to give statement. Be that as it may, it is the further evidence that she then gave her name as Sau. Jyoti Anil Kakad, resident of village Eklara, Police Station Rahimpur and stated that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law always used to harass her saying that she is not bringing the amount from her father. Her father-in-law and husband also used to trouble her. It is then the material evidence of Jyoti having stated that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law (Jau) and father-in-law had poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. The statement was accordingly recorded and the thumb impression of Jyoti was obtained on the same. This witness also signed the statement which is in his own handwriting and bears thumb impression of Jyoti. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not issued any requisition to the Medical Officer, requesting to certify as to whether the patient is able and fit to give her statement. This witness was then confronted with the statement (Exh.99), which does not contain any allegation against the father-in-law, amongst the persons, who poured kerosene and set her ablaze. So that part of the substantive evidence of this witness is not born out from the dying declaration (Exh.99). This witness also admitted that there is no endorsement below the thumb impression about the name of the person whose thumb impression it is. This witness has stated that entry in the Station Diary was taken both when he left the police station for hospital and when he returned back after recording the statement. Those entries are not forthcoming on record. This witness has then stated that he reached the hospital at about 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. 14. The English translation of the relevant portion of the dying declaration, recorded by this witness, reads as under: "I was residing at Lakhanwadi. About seven, eight months back, my marriage was solemnized with Anil Pandhari Kakad, resident of Eklara. This witness has then stated that he reached the hospital at about 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. 14. The English translation of the relevant portion of the dying declaration, recorded by this witness, reads as under: "I was residing at Lakhanwadi. About seven, eight months back, my marriage was solemnized with Anil Pandhari Kakad, resident of Eklara. After the marriage, my mother-in-law Vachhala Pandhari Kakad, father-in-law Pandhari Kakad and my Jau (wife of husband's brother) Rajkanya Dnyaneshwar Kakad always used to quarrel with me on the count of not receiving any money from my house. This day, 11/02/98 at 3:00 p.m., I, was sitting in my house. At that time, my mother-in-law and Jau (wife of husband's brother) came and abused me and poured kerosene on my person and set me on fire, similarly my husband also used to harass me always and used to beat me. He used to accost me saying "bring money from your house, or otherwise I will marry for the second time". This day at the time of occurrence of incident, my husband was not at home. Similarly my Bhasre (husband's elder brother) Dnyaneshwar Pandhari Kakad also used to harass, beat me always on the count of bringing money from my house. This is my statement. It has been recorded correctly as per my version. My statement has been read over to me." It may be mentioned that Head Constable Pramod has not stated in his evidence before the Court that the statement was read over to the witness and she admitted it to be correct. 15. P.W.7 -Abdul Raheman was working as Executive Magistrate at Daryapur on 11.2.1998. By the time his evidence was recorded, on commission by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Amravati, this witness had ceased to be in service. This witness has stated that on 11.2.1998 at about 5:00 p.m. a letter from police was brought to him for recording dying declaration, which was accompanied with the report of the Medical Officer. He then accompanied Jamadar to the Rural hospital. He gave a letter to the Medical Officer whether the patient Jyoti Anil Kakad "is in sense or not". The Medical Officer gave his report on the said letter that the patient is in a position to give statement. He, thereafter, went to the patient, asked the persons present there to go out. He gave a letter to the Medical Officer whether the patient Jyoti Anil Kakad "is in sense or not". The Medical Officer gave his report on the said letter that the patient is in a position to give statement. He, thereafter, went to the patient, asked the persons present there to go out. He then gave his identification of being the Executive Magistrate and explaining his purpose of visit and thereafter asked the name which was given as "Jyoti Anil Kakad r/o Eklara". It is the further evidence that he asked about the incident and how she was burnt when it was stated that on 11.2.1998 at 3:30 p.m. her mother-in-law "sprinkled kerosene on her person and her elder sister-in-law (Jethani) ignited a matchstick". She also stated that since the marriage she was harassed by her mother-in-law and Jethani. On completion of the statement, he obtained her signature. In the next breath, he stated that a thumb impression was obtained and the same was handed over to the Police Station Officer. This witness has stated that prior to that an endorsement was made by the Medical Officer as to whether "patient is in sense or not". This witness was cross-examined with certain overwriting as to the word "Jethani" (elder sister-in-law) being substituted by the word "Sasu" (mother-in-law) and about the same not being initialed. This witness had admitted that he did not enquire as to how many "Jethanis" (elder-sisters-in-law) she had. This witness had lastly admitted that he had not taken thumb impression of Jyoti at the foot of the statement (thumb impression appears on the left side margin). The English translation of the dying declaration is as under: "CERTIFICATE EXH.118 Sau. Jyoti Anil Kakad is fully conscious and can give her statement. Sd/- A.G Biyani M.O. D.D. Name :- Joti Anil Kakad, resident of Eklara, aged 22 years. This day 11-02-98 at 3.00 O ‘clock, my mother-in-law poured kerosene on my person and Jethani (wife of husband's elder brother) touched match stick. Right from the marriage, I was being harassed by my mother-in-law and Jethani (wife of husband's elder brother). [T.M.] Left hand thumb-mark of Joti Sd/- Abdul Rahman, Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, 5/40 P.M. EXH.119 Patient was fully conscious during her statement. Sd/- A.G Biyani, M.O.” 16. Right from the marriage, I was being harassed by my mother-in-law and Jethani (wife of husband's elder brother). [T.M.] Left hand thumb-mark of Joti Sd/- Abdul Rahman, Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, 5/40 P.M. EXH.119 Patient was fully conscious during her statement. Sd/- A.G Biyani, M.O.” 16. It may not be out of place to mention here that P.W.6 - H.C. Pramod Deshmukh states that he reached the hospital at 12:30 to 1:00 p.m., while the declaration Exh.111 mentions the time of incident as 3:00 p.m. 17. P.W.8 is Dr. Aruna Biyani, who was then serving as a Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Daryapur. She has stated that Jyoti was admitted in the hospital in the afternoon at 2:30 p.m. She had examined her and started treatment. She had also given information to Police Station, Daryapur for making arrangement for recording dying declaration of the patient. The intimation to the police was issued at 4:35 p.m. and at 4:50 p.m. Naib Tahsildar came for recording the dying declaration. He asked her to examine the patient. She stated that she accordingly examined her and certified that patient is fit to give her statement and that endorsement is at Exh.118. After the Naib Tahsildar recorded the dying declaration, she again examined Jyoti and found that she was fully conscious and accordingly, has certified which endorsement is at Exh.119. 18. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that Jyoti was having about 95% burns. She had given her treatment and also prepared a bed-head ticket. She was treated with tetanus, antibiotic and was put on saline. This witness had stated that in the medical register she had recorded the statement of the patient. In the second breath, she said that it was recorded on the bed-head ticket. It may be mentioned that no such statement, said to be recorded by this Medical Officer, is forthcoming on record. It can be thus seen that while P.W.6 - Head Constable Pramod has also stated about Jyoti having implicated her father-in-law. However, that is not to be found in the statement (Exh.99). If the two statements, as reproduced above, are carefully compared, it can indeed be said that there is material variance in the same as to the reason for harassment as also role attributed. It may mentioned that the deceased apart from naming mother-in-law has also implicated her "Jau" or "Jethani" (elder sister-in-law). If the two statements, as reproduced above, are carefully compared, it can indeed be said that there is material variance in the same as to the reason for harassment as also role attributed. It may mentioned that the deceased apart from naming mother-in-law has also implicated her "Jau" or "Jethani" (elder sister-in-law). There is no allegation against rest of the appellants insofar as the actual incident in which the deceased was allegedly burnt. 19. Then we have the evidence of P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai. This witness has stated that ornaments worth Rs.10,000/- were presented to Jyoti in her marriage. After marriage, Jyoti came to her maternal house thrice i.e. at the time of 'Akhadi' then at the time of 'Diwali' and two months thereafter. It is stated that when she came for the first time at the time of Akhadi, she informed that she is being harassed at the hands of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and "they used to poison ear of her husband and on that her husband used to beat her". She was also saying that she had no voice in the house and she has only to do the work as prescribed. At that time, her husband Anil had come and fetched her back. When Jyoti came at the time of Diwali, she stated that she is being harassed by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, who used to poison the ear of her husband and her husband used to beat her and all three of them were asking her to bring amount from her mother and if the demand is not met, her husband had threatened her to perform second marriage. At the time of Diwali, she stayed for about eight days, when again her husband Anil had come and fetched her back. Lastly, after about two months from Diwali when this witness was suffering from illness, Jyoti had come along with her husband Anil. Anil thereafter went back and Jyoti was there for about 5 to 6 days. This time also Anil came and fetched her back. It is the evidence that "during that stay also Jyoti was saying about her in-laws". This witness has then stated about the incident, in which Jyoti was brought by her husband Anil and his elder brother at Government Hospital at Kokarda and this witness having gone to the hospital when Jyoti was found being taken in auto to Daryapur. It is the evidence that "during that stay also Jyoti was saying about her in-laws". This witness has then stated about the incident, in which Jyoti was brought by her husband Anil and his elder brother at Government Hospital at Kokarda and this witness having gone to the hospital when Jyoti was found being taken in auto to Daryapur. This witness then went back to Lakhanwadi, hired a vehicle and went to Daryapur. It is in the Government hospital at Daryarpur, on enquiry, Jyoti stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her person and her sister-in-law set her on fire and thereby she received burns. Jyoti was then shifted to Amravati, where she died. This witness has been extensively cross-examined in which she has admitted that the complaints by Jyoti were of minor nature and she has not lodged any report about the same. This witness was cross-examined on certain omissions in which this witness has admitted of having stated before the police that at the hospital at Daryapur on enquiry Jyoti informed her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to poison ear of her husband and her husband does not listen to her. This witness then admitted that Jyoti was grown-up in love and affection being youngest of the five daughters and she had to do the household work at her matrimonial house and she was somehow unhappy. She has further stated that during her police statement, she had narrated that during Diwali Jyoti informed her that the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to poison the ear of her husband and on that her husband used to beat her. She was unable to explain as to why this is not appearing in the police statement. 20. P.W.2 - Ramesh Jaunjal is the cousin brother of deceased Jyoti. This witness has stated that after about 15 days of the marriage he had gone to fetch back Jyoti for 'Akhadi' and about Jyoti having informed about the harassment at the hands of her "father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and those persons asking her to bring an amount of Rs.5,000/- from her mother". It is the further evidence that her husband used to beat her and if the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not brought, he had threatened to perform second marriage. It is the further evidence that her husband used to beat her and if the amount of Rs.5,000/- is not brought, he had threatened to perform second marriage. This witness has then stated about Jyoti visiting the house of this witness at the time of Diwali and about narrating harassment, which is shown to be the omission in the police statement, as has been admitted in the cross-examination and proved by P.W.9 - PSI Ujjawal Gaikwad. 21. Then we have the evidence of P.W.3 - Sau. Shila Dhote, who is the elder married sister of Jyoti. This witness is staying at Anjangaon. She has stated that Jyoti had come to their house in January, 1998 after her marriage along with her mother Venubai to see father-in-law of this witness, who had a paralytic attack. At that time, Jyoti informed that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law (Jau) and husband asked her to bring the amount from her mother and on that they used to harass her. In a subsequent part of the evidence, it is stated that on receiving the message about Jyoti receiving burns, this witness had visited Daryapur and then Amravati and by the time she reached, Jyoti was already dead. 22. A brief reference to the evidence of Investigating Officer would be necessary. P.W.9 - PSI Ujjawal Gaikwad has stated that on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, an offence came to be registered under Sections 307, 498 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code vide First Information Report (Exh.112) and during investigation of the said First Information Report, he had visited the house of accused Anil Kakad in the same night. On the same day, he had recorded statements of the neighbouring persons. It is the evidence that following morning at about 8:00 a.m., he recorded the spot panchanama of the incident which curiously enough is stated to be recorded at the house of Pandhari Kakad (since deceased). This witness has admitted that he had recorded statements of the neighbours on the same night. However, they are not cited as witnesses as their statements were not supporting the prosecution and some of them were at their fields during the incident. This witness has admitted that he had recorded statements of the neighbours on the same night. However, they are not cited as witnesses as their statements were not supporting the prosecution and some of them were at their fields during the incident. This witness has admitted that during the investigation it did not transpire that Jyoti was dissatisfied with her matrimonial life and further that none of the witnesses had stated that they having seen the appellants Vatsala and Rajkanya while going inside the house, where Jyoti was residing. He admitted that front door of the house was on the road side. It has also come in the evidence of P.W.3 - Sau. Shila Dhote and P.W.9 - Ujjawal Gaikwad that Anil had two other elder brothers. 23. On a careful examination of the circumstances and the evidence led, we are of the considered view that two dying declarations (Exhs.99 and 111) do not inspire confidence. The dying declarations do not implicate the husband and the brother-in-law of the deceased to having participated in the alleged incident in which Jyoti was burnt. Furthermore, the statement said to be recorded by P.W.8 - Dr. Aruna Biyani who had treated Jyoti as also statements of the witnesses who are neighbours (and whose statements are said to be not favourable to the prosecution) are not forthcoming on record. In that view of the matter, we find it to be unsafe to place reliance on these statements. Admittedly, the evidence regarding the alleged ill-treatment narrated by the deceased is that of close relatives. We may hasten to add that by itself this is not a circumstance to discard the evidence. Such a disclosure is bound to be made to the close relatives ordinarily and by itself there is nothing unusual about the same. However, it is trite that the evidence of such witnesses require a close and cautious scrutiny. As noticed earlier, none of these witnesses had lodged formal complaint before the alleged incident and in the wake of the admissions by the Investigating Officer as referred above, we are not inclined to place reliance on the oral dying declarations allegedly made to P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai and P.W.2 Ramesh as we find that it would be unsafe to base conviction on the same. 24. 24. In the face of the view as being taken it would not be necessary to make a detailed reference to the cases cited. We only propose to make reference to two of the decisions, namely, in the case of Nirmala Maruti Gunjal... Versus...State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012 (1) Acquittal 535 (Bom.) : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 581] Bombay High Court and Tukararn Dashrath Pad hen and others...Versus...State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012 ALL MR(Cri) 2754. In the case of Nirrnala Maruti Gunjal, [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 581] (supra) it has been inter alia held that although the dying declaration is admitted in evidence primarily on the ground of necessity, it has to be recognized that it is a violent exception to several fundamental rules of law of evidence. In that case statement was recorded a few hours before the death and considering the extent of injuries (which were 99% in that case) it was held that she could not have made a detailed and categorical statement and there was major difference in all the three dying declarations and therefore, it was unsafe to base conviction on the same. In the case of Tukaram Dashrath Padhen and others (Supra) the prosecution case was similar, namely, all the accused persons and in-laws of deceased having entered her house, poured kerosene and set her ablaze. In that case, endorsement of Doctor about the victim being conscious and fit to give her statement was found to be mechanically given. Time of recording declaration, so stated in the evidence of witness, was also found to be doubtful. The conduct of the witnesses, not disclosing the incident to anyone till recording of their statements was found to be unnatural and thus, it was held that it was a case where accused persons were entitled to benefit of doubt. 25. On overall consideration of the circumstances and the submissions made, we are of the considered view that it would be unsafe to place reliance on the evidence in the form of two dying declarations and the alleged oral dying declarations made to P.W.1 - Smt. Venubai and P.W.2 - Ramesh. As such, the appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently, following order is passed. ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences as charged. As such, the appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently, following order is passed. ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences as charged. (ii) The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. (iii) The order as regards disposal of the property stands. (iv) Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellants. Appeal allowed.