JUDGMENT Kalimullah Khan, J.: - This Government Appeal no. 1899 of 1984 has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the accused-respondents Raja Ram, Nanku & Ram Nath, all r/o village Amberpur, P.S. Akbarpur (present P.S. Roora (O.P. Roora), District Kanpur Dehat (Rama Bai Nagar) against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.3.1984 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, N.M.A./Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur whereby he has acquitted all the three accused-respondents under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 405 of 1981. 2. During the pendency of this Government Appeal accused Nanaku and Ram Nath have died and, therefore, vide order dated 9.5.2012 appeal filed against them stood abated. This judgment now pertains to accused respondent Raja Ram alone. 3. The aforesaid Government Appeal has been preferred on the ground that the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused-respondents is against the law and facts of the case; that the dying declaration made by the deceased Smt. Usha was wrongly disbelieved by the learned trial court who had erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order is against the weight of evidence on record, therefore, it is perverse causing miscarriage of justice. 4. According to the prosecution case Smt. Usha @ Ram Dulari 'hereinafter called the deceased' was the wife of informant Jagdewan. The respondents are real brothers interse. They are cousin of the informant. Smt. Ram Pyari accused (non-respondent) was the wife of accused-respondent Nanaku. The incident is of 20.7.1980 at about 9: 00 a.m. whereas report was lodged on the same day at 15: 15 hours after covering a distance of 9 Km from the scene of incident to the police station Akbarpur. The F.I.R. was registered in pursuance of the written report dated 20.7.1980 made by the informant Jagdewan wherein he has made an accusation that he and Raja Ram respondent lived in the same house although in separate portions of the house. There took some quarrel in between the deceased and Ram Janaki daughter of Raja Ram. According to the deceased the aforesaid Ram Janaki was an accused for committing theft by entering in her house. After sometime of the quarrel Smt. Ram Pyari wife of Nanaku reached there and abused the deceased. There took some quarrel in between the deceased and Ram Janaki daughter of Raja Ram. According to the deceased the aforesaid Ram Janaki was an accused for committing theft by entering in her house. After sometime of the quarrel Smt. Ram Pyari wife of Nanaku reached there and abused the deceased. Meanwhile, the respondents Raja Ram, Nanaku and Ram Nath reached there and with the assistance of Smt. Ram Pyari they pushed the deceased inside her room and after sprinkling kerosene oil they set her ablazed and from outside the door they locked it. Deceased raised shrieks hue and cry then the first informant who was in the field situated besides the house reached there and noticed that there was a fire in the room. He opened the door, raised alarm which attracted prosecution witnesses Kailash, Jai Singh, Harnam Singh, Sheo Nath Singh Pradhan, Chhotey Singh, Ram Krishna and others who saw the incident. He extinguished the fire and admitted his wife deceased Smt. Usha in the hospital, Roora from where she was referred to Kanpur Hospital but in the way to hospital she succumbed to her injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Exhibit Ka-1 chik report was drawn and case was registered in the general diary at crime no. 253 under Section 304 I.P.C. at P.S. Akbarpur. Investigation followed. 5. Injured was medically examined. Following injuries were found at her person: (i) On examination the burn of whole body from head to toe; Tenderness is present; Burn is second degree. Burn odour is present. (ii) Condition is very serious. Her dying declaration is taken in presence of Gram Pradhan, of said village, Sri Shiv Nath Singh. (iii) Information sent to Chowki Inspector Rura for necessary action. (iv) Referred to CHM Hospital Kanpur for necessary treatment. 6. Inquest was prepared and after observing necessary formalities her dead body was sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. The body was subjected to post-mortem examination and cause of death was found extensive burn injuries and shock. After completing the investigation, I.O. submitted the chargesheet under Section 304 I.P.C. The case, being triable by the court of Sessions, was committed to the court of Sessions where learned II Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused-respondents Raja Ram, Nanku and Ram Nath under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. They denied the charge and claimed their trial. After completing the investigation, I.O. submitted the chargesheet under Section 304 I.P.C. The case, being triable by the court of Sessions, was committed to the court of Sessions where learned II Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused-respondents Raja Ram, Nanku and Ram Nath under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. They denied the charge and claimed their trial. Accused Smt. Ram Pyari had died, therefore, no charge against her was framed. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses in all. 8. Jagdewan, the first informant, P.W. 1 has proved written report Exhibit Ka-1 and deposed on facts. He has further deposed that he was told by his wife after extinguishing fire at his house that accused Raja Ram, Nanaku, Ram Nath and Ram Pyari had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and set her ablazed. He has further deposed that Doctor at Roora had recorded the dying declaration in presence of Gram Pradhan. 9. Ram Krishan, P.W. 2 has deposed that he was well acquainted with the informant and his wife Smt. Usha. Three years prior to his evidence in his presence Smt. Usha was telling that accused Raja Ram, Nanaku, Ram Nath and Ram Pyari had set her ablazed after pouring kerosene oil in the room. The witness claims to be present at the spot at the time of incident as he was returning to his house from the field and saw that Jagdewan was also running towards the house. The witness when reached in the courtyard of the informant, noticed that accused Raja Ram, Nanaku, Ram Nath and Ram Pyari were already there standing in the said courtyard. Satya Narayan Mishra, A.S.I., P.W. 3 has proved the chik report and registration of the case. 10. Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 4 has deposed that he was there at his door on the date of incident at about 9: 00 a.m. On hue and cry he went to the scene of incident and saw that Jagdewan was extinguishing the fire at the person of his wife. She was telling that accused Raja Ram, Nanaku, Ram Nath and Ram Pyari had set her ablazed after pouring kerosene oil. Dr. J.P. Mehrotra, Roora Hospital, P.W. 5 has deposed that on 20.7.1980 he was Incharge, Medical Officer in Roora Hospital. She was telling that accused Raja Ram, Nanaku, Ram Nath and Ram Pyari had set her ablazed after pouring kerosene oil. Dr. J.P. Mehrotra, Roora Hospital, P.W. 5 has deposed that on 20.7.1980 he was Incharge, Medical Officer in Roora Hospital. He examined the injured Smt. Usha wife of Jagdewan on the instance of Jagdewan at about 10: 30 a.m. He noticed that she had received burnt injuries from head to toe. There were swelling in the body and smell of burning. The condition of the injured was critical and, therefore, in the presence of Gram Pradhan, Sheo Nath Singh he recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Usha. The injuries of the injured/deceased were noted by the witness in the accidental register. He has proved the dying declaration as Exhibit Ka -4 and injury report as Exhibit Ka-5. 11. Dr. C.K. Singh, P.W. 6 is the doctor who had subjected the dead body to post-mortem examination. He noticed that smell of kerosene oil was coming from the body. Superficial to deep burn injuries were found on the body of the deceased and apart from the burn injuries following contusions were also found on her person: - i. Contusion 10 cm x 2.5 cm on the left thigh. ii. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on the left leg near knee joint. iii. Contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on the left leg. iv. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the right leg near knee joint. 12. Trachea coal particles were present. The cause of death was burn injuries and the shock. 13. Flesh at places in the hands and legs were burnt. There is no mention in the post-mortem examination report that the thumb of the deceased had been burnt. The doctor has not mentioned that ink was there in the thumb. However, the contusions could have been caused by lathi and danda. Her brain was found congested. 14. He has proved the autopsy as Exhibit Ka-6. First to third degree burn was found by the doctor. 15. Accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 16. Accused Raja Ram denied the prosecution allegation and stated that on account of enmity of party bandi, witnesses who are related to complainant have deposed against him. Deceased was the kept of Jagdewan. He used to torture her and often used to confine her in the room and, therefore, she has committed suicide. Accused Raja Ram denied the prosecution allegation and stated that on account of enmity of party bandi, witnesses who are related to complainant have deposed against him. Deceased was the kept of Jagdewan. He used to torture her and often used to confine her in the room and, therefore, she has committed suicide. 17. Accused Ram Nath denied the prosecution allegation and evidence and stated that he is cousin of Jagdewan. Prosecution witnesses Ram Krishna and Kailash are the sons of sister of Jagdewan's mother. 18. Accused Nanaku has also denied the prosecution allegation and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Jagdewan had enticed away the deceased and he always tortured her as a result of which she committed suicide. 19. Accused were called upon to enter into their defence. They examined three witnesses in their defence. 20. Bishwanath Singh, D.W. 1 had deposed that he was working in the paddy filed. Raja Ram, Nanaku and others were also working there. One Jai Ram Chamar informed them that the wife of Jagdewan had received burn injuries then all the accused-respondents went there. Sheo Nath Singh, Gram Pradhan, P.W. 4 also reached there. Deceased was in an unconscious state. She was taken to the Roora Hospital. Subsequently, he was informed that she had died. 21. Sheo Karan Singh, D.W. 2 claimed himself to be an Oath Commissioner in 1981. He deposed that Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 2 (Gram Pradhan) had executed an affidavit which was verified by this witness on 11.4.1981 at 2: 40 p.m. at serial no. 55 State Vs. Nanaku & others' which bears the signature of Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 4 which was identified by R.S. Shukla, Advocate. The contents of affidavit were read over to Sheo Nath Singh and thereafter, his signature was obtained which is available on last page of affidavit. Witness has proved it as Exhibit Ka-3 and verified his signatures on the Pool Register present before him. 22. Rajendra Singh, D.W. 3 is the I.O. of the case and he has proved the investigation but denied the fact that it was in his notice that there was any dying declaration of the deceased recorded by doctor at Roora. 23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.3.1984 recorded a finding of acquittal of all the accused-respondents. 24. 23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.3.1984 recorded a finding of acquittal of all the accused-respondents. 24. Feeling aggrieved, this Government Appeal has been preferred. 25. We have heard learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the accused-respondent at length and have perused the record. 26. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in disbelieving the oral as well as written dying declaration of the deceased and, therefore, it has caused miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. I.O. did not conduct the investigation properly and submitted final report. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed by Jagdewan, first informant and after recording the evidence under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. Process were issued against the accused. Doctor who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased has also been examined in this case but the learned trial court has erred in disbelieving his evidence. 27. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is highly unnatural and improbable. No concrete and specific motive has been alleged in the F.I.R. The factum of snatching chain of gold or committing theft by the daughter of accused respondent Raja Ram is missing in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even it is absent in the complaint as well. On being specifically asked as to why the complainant was silent on this point, he stated that the daughter of Raja Ram was just like his own daughter, therefore, the aforesaid fact was not mentioned in the F.I.R. but it is not worth reliable and lastly, he submitted that the presumption of innocence of accused-respondent till his guilt is proved is sine-quo-non and the aforesaid presumption of innocence is further fortified by the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court and it is settled position of law that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court shall not be reversed or set aside simply because that this Appellate Court is of a different view unless the finding of acquittal is against the weight of evidence on record and perverse. Therefore, according to him Government Appeal as well as Criminal Revision lacks merit and it should be dismissed. 28. Therefore, according to him Government Appeal as well as Criminal Revision lacks merit and it should be dismissed. 28. Learned trial court has recorded a finding of acquittal vide impugned judgment and order holding (i) That in the F.I.R. it is not mentioned that any dying declaration was recorded. Had it been recorded it would not have escaped the attention of the informant at the time of lodging the F.I.R. (ii) He does not say that the said dying declaration was recorded in his presence or he is a witness of dying declaration. Rather he says that he was asked by the doctor to go out of the place where the aforesaid dying declaration was recorded and it was not in his knowledge that any such dying declaration was recorded. (iii) The doctor recorded the dying declaration and withheld it till his evidence was recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C. and he did not inform to the authorities prior to it. (iv) That there is overwriting on the date 20.7.1980, the alleged date of recording the dying declaration. (v) That the first informant P.W. 1 Jagdewan is not a witness of eye account of the incident of setting his wife ablazed at the instance of accused-respondents. (vi) That she had received 100% burn injuries and, therefore, within all human probabilities she would not have been in a position to speak. (vii) That there appears improvement in the statement of informant, P.W.1 Jagdewan when he assigns the role of sprinkling kerosene oil by Nanaku and setting fire by Smt. Ram Pyari especially when no such dying declaration was made by the deceased even as per his own saying. (viii) That non-mention of motive in the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution version. (ix) That at the time of incident P.W. 1 was working in his field and after hearing shrieks and cries he is said to have rushed up for the place of incident and, therefore, it is but natural that it would have been too late. Further there is a material contradiction on this point in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. where he had stated that he was just approaching his house when he heard the cries. Further there is a material contradiction on this point in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. where he had stated that he was just approaching his house when he heard the cries. (x) That he assigned the role of catching hold off the victim to Smt. Ram Pyari and Ram Nath before setting her ablazed but it was not a case of prosecution and nor the deceased has allegedly told any such thing. (xi) That Ram Krishna, P.W. 2 is not named in the F.I.R. There is no explanation coming forth that as to why Ram Krishna was not cited as a witness of incident in the F.I.R. (xii) That Ram Krishna has admitted that he is the son of the Mausi of Jagdewan, P.W. 1 just like witness Kailash. (xiii) That Ram Krishna, P.W. 2 is a chance witness as per his own saying inasmuch as he has alleged that he had gone early in the morning to the field when the paddy plantation was going on and was returning at 9: 00 a.m. to his house to take food but keeping in mind the practice prevalent in our country his version does not appear worth reliable because here in our country former goes for agricultural operations in the field and supply of food contents is made by other family members or he himself carries the same. Being related and chance witness his testimony deserves to be strictly scrutinized. He has stated that he saw the accused-respondents running out of the house but before the committing court he has stated that accused were standing in the courtyard. This makes his presence totally unbelievable. (xiv) That Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 4 is an important witness in the sense that reliability of this witness will corroborate the authenticity and genuineness of the dying declaration Exhibit Ka-4 but the aforesaid witness has resiled from his stand in his affidavit Exhibit Ka-3 filed before the court of Sessions in the bail application of the accused wherein he did not support the prosecution case that any dying declaration of deceased was recorded in his presence and before the trial court he says that he is a witness of the dying declaration, therefore, he cannot be believed. He has further deposed that he does not remember as to whether or not Smt. Usha in her statement told the doctor that kerosene oil was sprinkled on her. 29. Perusal of record shows that Jagdewan, P.W. 1, Ram Krishna, P.W. 2 and Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 4 do not appear to be reliable witness. Jagdewan, P.W. 1 is informant and complainant of the case. Admittedly, he is not the witness of the incident due to his late arrival at the scene of incident. His evidence is self-contradictory as stated above. He is deeply interested in the conviction of accused. He has admitted during the course of trial that he had a strong enmity with the accused on the issue of a land. There was some bickering in between the parties due to tying of cattle by informant on a particular portion of land and common use of courtyard by accused Raja Ram which infringed the privacy of deceased who did not like joint use of the courtyard with him. 30. The presence of P.W. 2 at spot is doubtful. He is a chance, related and inimical witness. His version that he saw the accused running out from the house is self-belied by his previous statement that all the accused were found standing in the courtyard of the complainant when he reached there. It otherwise throws light that had accused been guilty and responsible for setting the deceased ablazed after sprinkling kerosene oil on her in her house they would not have chosen to remain present in the courtyard after closing the deceased inside the room and bolting the door from outside especially when she was raising hue and cry. 31. The affidavit filed by P.W. 4 Gram Pradhan Sheo Nath Singh disowning his presence at the time of recording the dying declaration and his admission that the dying declaration was not recorded in his presence rather it had already been recorded by the doctor in his absence and thereafter, he signed the same as the doctor had asked him to sign looses all the sanctity of the dying declaration. 32. No doubt, that dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and that by itself is sufficient to hold conviction of accused without being corroborated by any other evidence provided it appears to be true and genuine. 32. No doubt, that dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and that by itself is sufficient to hold conviction of accused without being corroborated by any other evidence provided it appears to be true and genuine. If any doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding its truthfulness and genuineness, it would be better to discard the same. Doctor who recorded the dying declaration admitted in his cross-examination that he withheld the said dying declaration with him for a considerable length of time months and months together till he was called upon by the court to examine him under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid conduct of the said doctor creates doubt about genuineness of said dying declaration in the mind that the doctor was not fair otherwise he must have sent the said dying declaration to the police investigating the case. It was a hidden mystery as to under what circumstances the dying declaration in a narrative form was obtained by the doctor. Absence of mention of recorded dying declaration in the F.I.R. is a further circumstance in the facts and circumstances of this case to reject the dying declaration. Non-explanation of the presence of injuries apart from the burn injuries on the person of deceased in the form of contusions at different parts of her body further creates doubt in the prosecution story. Even the complaint does not contain the fact that the deceased had stated to the complainant that accused had assaulted her before setting her ablazed. The doctor who recorded the dying declaration has stated that he did not notice any injury on her person but the post-mortem examination report shows that there were four contusions of different size, three on the left leg and one on the right knee joint. The non-mention of these injuries in the injury report cast a serious doubt on the conduct, alertness, sincerity and honest discharge of duty of this doctor Sri J.P. Mehrotra (P.W.5). In the affidavit filed by Jagdewan on 31.3.1981 in para 11 he contends that Smt. Usha was assaulted by accused but non-mention of this fact in the F.I.R. belies his aforesaid statement. Even the dying declaration does not contain any such fact. The aforesaid doctor (P.W. 5) did not mention any smell of kerosene oil found on the person of victim as stated by him. Even the dying declaration does not contain any such fact. The aforesaid doctor (P.W. 5) did not mention any smell of kerosene oil found on the person of victim as stated by him. Although the autopsy surgeon (P.W.6) noticed smell of kerosene oil. On being questioned that as to why he did not inform the police that he had recorded dying declaration of the deceased, he stated that he had informed the police but this statement of doctor is belied by the deposition of I.O. Rajendra Singh (D.W. 3) who says that doctor did not tell in his statement that he recorded the dying declaration of the victim. Under the aforesaid scenario of facts learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of Dr. Mehrotra (P.W.5), first informant (P.W.1) and Gram Pradhan Sheo Nath Singh (P.W.4) are contradictory to each other on the point of recording of dying declaration of the deceased in Roora Hospital and, therefore, no credence and sanctity can be attached to such dying declaration. Perusal of the original dying declaration Exhibit Ka-4 reveals that doctor has not given any certificate that at the time of recording her dying declaration she was in a fit mental status having sound mind to form the rational judgment of the questions put to her or she was able to give dying declaration. Even the alleged dying declaration does not appear to have been read over to her. It was a case of 100% burn injuries from head to toe still a thumb impression of the declarant appears to have been affixed on the alleged dying declaration. The said thumb impression contains the ink from the ink pad but each and every ridge of the thumb is so vivid therein that it does not give an impression that the thumb was burnt. Sheo Nath Singh, Gram Pradhan denies the said dying declaration recorded in his presence as discussed above, therefore, there is no authenticity and sanctity of the allegedly recorded dying declaration. 33. Jagdewan (P.W.1), Ram Krishan (P.W.2) and Gram Pradhan Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 4 are found unreliable witness, therefore, alleged oral dying declaration relied on by prosecution cannot be believed. 34. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on case law Surindra Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC (Criminal) 230. 33. Jagdewan (P.W.1), Ram Krishan (P.W.2) and Gram Pradhan Sheo Nath Singh, P.W. 4 are found unreliable witness, therefore, alleged oral dying declaration relied on by prosecution cannot be believed. 34. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on case law Surindra Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC (Criminal) 230. The case in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid case law, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 28 of its judgment, which reads as under : - "14. Though there is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration but the court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary and in that event, there is no impediment in basing conviction on it, without corroboration. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. Likewise,where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any declaration the evidence with regard to it is rejected. The dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. All these principles have been fully adhered to by the trial court and rightly acquitted the accused and on wrong assumption the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal." 35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in P. Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) SCCrR 487, relied on by learned counsel for the respondent. Para 14 of this judgment reads as under : - "14. Indisputably conviction can be recorded on the basis of dying declaration alone but therefore the same must be wholly reliable. In a case where suspicion can be raised as regard the correctness of the dying declaration, the Court before convicting an accused on the basis thereof would look for some corroborative evidence. Suspicion, it is trite, is no substitute for proof. If evidence brought on records suggests that such dying declaration does not reveal the entire truth, it may be considered only as a piece of evidence in which event conviction may not be rested only on the basis thereof. Suspicion, it is trite, is no substitute for proof. If evidence brought on records suggests that such dying declaration does not reveal the entire truth, it may be considered only as a piece of evidence in which event conviction may not be rested only on the basis thereof. The question as to whether a dying declaration is of impeccable character would depend upon several factors; physical and mental condition of the deceased is one of them. In this case the circumstances which have been brought on records clearly point out that what might have been stated in the dying declaration may not be correct. If the deceased had been nurturing a grudge against her husband for a long time, she while committing suicide herself may try to implicate him so as to make his life miserable. In the present case where the appellant has been charged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the presumption in terms of Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not available. In the absence of such a presumption, the conviction and sentence of the accused must be based on cogent and reliable evidence brought on record by the prosecution. In this case, we find that the evidences are not such which point out only to the guilt of the accused." 36. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on case law K. Venkapeshwarhu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 73 it was held that if view taken by trial court is a reasonably possible view, High Court should not set it aside and substitute it by its own view merely because that view is also possible on the facts of the case. Presumption of innocence of an accused is strengthened by his acquittal. Unless order of acquittal is perverse, totally against the weight of evidence and rendered incomplete breach of settled principles underlying criminal jurisprudence, no interference is required. Crime may be heinous, morally repulsive and extremely shocking but accused cannot be convicted on moral considerations. 37. From the aforesaid discussion of facts, evidence and legal position it is clear that the view of acquittal taken by learned trial court is a possible view which is based on the weight of evidence on record. It is not perverse, therefore, this Appellate Court need not interfere with the finding of acquittal. Government Appeal is hereby dismissed.