JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010, by this Criminal Appeal questioning the correctness of same conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under :- (i) The appellant is the husband of Rukhsana. Both use to reside in “Pathanmohalla”, Pathari, Dist. Parbhani. In-laws of Rukhsana were also residing at Pathari and also her parents house is at Pathari. Even prior to the marriage, both were related to each other. (ii) The occurrence in question arose in between the night of 30th January, 2010 and 31st January, 2010. (iii) ShaikhYousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) is the uncle of deceased Rukhsana. P.W.No. 5 Shamina Sk.Salim is her mother. P.W.No. 7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil is residing just in front of the house of the appellant. P.W.No. 8 Sanjay Eknathrao Suryawanshi is also residing in front of the house of the appellant. (iv) When Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) was present at his residence, at the relevant time, his wife awaken him. He found the appellant at his residence in a frightened condition. The appellant requested him that he should accompany him at his residence. The appellant told him that, there was quarrel between him and his wife. Immediately, this witness reached to the residence of the appellant; where he found Rukhsana, wife of the appellant completely in a burnt condition and was lying in front of the kitchen table, in a kitchen room. (v) It is the case of the prosecution that, that time, Rukhsana made oral dying declaration to P.W.No. 4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu to the effect that, it is the appellant, who poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. (vi) Thereafter, he called his wife and asked her to put the clothes on the person of Rukhsana. Thereafter, he called his brother and his wife, who are the parents of Rukhsana. He also made telephonic call to Aarif Khan, Member of Municipal Council and requested him to make an arrangement for ambulance. (vi) Thereafter, he called his wife and asked her to put the clothes on the person of Rukhsana. Thereafter, he called his brother and his wife, who are the parents of Rukhsana. He also made telephonic call to Aarif Khan, Member of Municipal Council and requested him to make an arrangement for ambulance. On turn, Aarif gave telephonic call to one Shaharukh, driver of the Ambulance. Thereafter, he made call to one Shah and asked him to make arrangement of ambulance. Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) made telephonic call to Shahrukh (P.W.No.3), he came there with the ambulance. Initially, Rukhsana was taken to the Rural Hospital, Pathari however, Doctor was not available there and only compounder was present there. Therefore, they took her to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. She was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. (vii) Rukhsanawas admitted in Civil Hospital, Parbhani on 31st January, 2010 at 2.35 a.m. as indoor patient. Medical Officer on duty, on admission of Rukhsana in the hospital has given M.L.C. report. Therefore, Police Head Constable – Anand Dhondopant Kurundkar with a desire to record the statement of said lady, went to the hospital and approached to the Medical Officer Dr. Mete. Dr. Mete examined her and found that, she was not in a position to give her statement. Thereafter, P.H.C. Kurundkar issued a letter to Taluka Magistrate for recording the statement of said patient. In the meantime, P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar received an information that patient has regained consciousness thereafter, he went to Dr. Bhalerao, who was on duty at the relevant time. He went to the patient at 2.00 p.m. After examination by the Doctor, PHC-Anand Kurundkar recorded her statement. Said statement is at Exh.No. 47. (viii) NaibTahasildar - Prakash Vishwanathrao Ashtikar (P.W.No. 16) at the relevant time received a letter requesting him to record the statement of Rukhsana. Accordingly, he went there and recorded the dying declaration of Rukhsana. The said statement is at Exh.No.59. (ix) There is another dying declaration available on record which is at Exh.No.14. It is recorded by P.W.No. 1 Krushnarao Patil, who at the relevant time was serving as Judicial Magistrate, F.C., after completion of formalities of ascertaining the fact, whether the patient was in a condition to give her dying declaration. The said statement is at Exh.No.59. (ix) There is another dying declaration available on record which is at Exh.No.14. It is recorded by P.W.No. 1 Krushnarao Patil, who at the relevant time was serving as Judicial Magistrate, F.C., after completion of formalities of ascertaining the fact, whether the patient was in a condition to give her dying declaration. (x) The statement recorded by P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar was treated as First Information Report and an offence punishable U/Section 307 of the I.P.Code was registered against the appellant vide CR No. I 17/10. (xi) P.W.No. 17 A.P.I. Uttam Keshvrao Tak took upto him the investigation of the said crime. Upon registration of the Crime, the Investigating Officer reached to the spot of incidence. He found the spot of incidence was the residence of the appellant at “Pathan Mohalla”, Pathari. He seized various articles from the spot and panchnama was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. Said panchnama is at Exh.No.28. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of maternal uncle of Rukhsana. The appellant / accused was arrested on 1st February, 2010 at 3.00 a.m. (xii) During the treatment, Rukhsana died on 4th February, 2010 at 10.35 hrs. Accordingly, said fact was intimated by the hospital authority to Police Inspector, Pathari Police Station. (xiii) In view of the death of Rukhsana, offence punishable U/Section 307 of the I.P.Code was converted into offences punishable U/Sections. 302, 342 of the I.P.Code. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer on the memorandum statement of the accused, seized his pant on 5th February, 2010 as per the seizure panchnama Exh.No. 34. Post Mortem on the dead body of Rukhsana was conducted by the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Parbhani – Dr. Shekhar Shyamrao Deshmukh. He found 100% burn injuries, which according to the Doctor conducting the post mortem, were anti mortem. Probable cause of death, according to the Doctor was, terminal cardio respiratory failure due to hypovolemic and septicemic shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns. (xiv) The Investigating Officer after completing the entire investigation, filed Charge-Sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Pathardi, Dist. Parbhani, who found that, offence U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, passed an order of committal on 14th July, 2010 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. (xiv) The Investigating Officer after completing the entire investigation, filed Charge-Sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Pathardi, Dist. Parbhani, who found that, offence U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, passed an order of committal on 14th July, 2010 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. (xv) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 25th July, 2010 framed Charge against the appellant / accused for the offences punishable U/Sections. 302, 342 of the I.P.Code. The appellant / accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, examined as many as 17 witnesses and closed its case. (xvi) The statement of appellant U/Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. From the said statement and suggestions given to various prosecution witnesses, it appears that, defence of the appellant was that his wife received burn injuries in an accident. (xvii) After conclusion of trial and after appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary as available on the record, the learned Judge of court below found that, though the prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/Section 342 of the I.P.Code, prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused / appellant in respect of offence punishable U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code and, therefore, the appellant was convicted. Hence, this Criminal Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosale, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, leaned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra, in extenso. With their able assistance, we have minutely gone through the Record & Proceedings of Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010 in order to re-appreciate the entire evidence, as brought on the record by the prosecution. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that, the appellant is innocent. According to him, three written dying declarations cannot be made any basis of conviction, in as much as on material aspects, there is variance, as appearing in these three dying declarations. According to the learned counsel, the attending circumstances clearly show that, three dying declarations cannot inspire confidence of the court and same will have to be rejected. According to him, three written dying declarations cannot be made any basis of conviction, in as much as on material aspects, there is variance, as appearing in these three dying declarations. According to the learned counsel, the attending circumstances clearly show that, three dying declarations cannot inspire confidence of the court and same will have to be rejected. The learned counsel further submitted that, most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses, therefore, their version to the effect that oral dying declaration made to them, as claimed by the prosecution, cannot be relied upon. 5. The learned counsel placed his reliance on the various decisions of this Court and also the Hon'ble Apex Court, to buttress his points. 6. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State strenuously urged before us that, the trial court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence, as appearing in the prosecution case, in its true perspective. She further submitted that, even on re-appreciation of entire evidence, finger of guilt is clearly shown towards the appellant, therefore, according to her, Criminal Appeal deserves dismissal. 7. In the present case, the time of occurrence is at 23.45 hrs. on 30th January, 2010 to 00.30 hrs. The place of occurrence is the house of the appellant. The spot panchnama Exh.No.28 is admitted by the appellant during the trial. 8. Rukhsana was admitted at Civil Hospital, Parbhani at 2.35 a.m. on 31/01/2010 which can be seen from the medical papers of Rukhsana available on record at Exh.No. 83. During her treatment she succumbed to the injuries at 10.35 p.m. on 4th February, 2010. P.W.No.13 Dr. Shekhar Deshmukh [M.O., Civil Hospital, Parbhani] conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Rukhsana. He found 100% burn. He has proved post mortem notes. Post Mortem report is at Exh.No. 43. The probable cause of death is terminal cardio respiratory failure due to hypovolemic and septicemic shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns. Thus, it is very clear that, death of Rukhsana was unnatural. 9. Now, when the death is unnatural, it can be either (i) suicidal (ii) homicidal or (iii) accidental. In the present case, nothing is brought on record to show that, Rukhsana was fed-up with her life; so as to drive herself to commit suicide. Further it is not case of the prosecution that she has committed suicide. 9. Now, when the death is unnatural, it can be either (i) suicidal (ii) homicidal or (iii) accidental. In the present case, nothing is brought on record to show that, Rukhsana was fed-up with her life; so as to drive herself to commit suicide. Further it is not case of the prosecution that she has committed suicide. Nor it is the defence of the appellant that she committed suicide. In that view of the matter, the possibility that, the Rukhsana committed suicide is firmly ruled out. 10. Now could it be accidental. ? Court is called upon to examine this possibility because the appellant has suggested; rather it is his specific defence that, the Rukhsana died due to accidental burn. The said defence of the appellant is clearly spelt out from the cross-examination of P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu, who is paternal uncle of deceased Rukhsana and maternal uncle of the appellant. So also, the appellant tried to establish the said fact during the cross-examination of P.W.No. 4 Shamina Sk.Salim, mother of the deceased. Moreover the appellant in his statement recorded U/Section 313 of the Code has also raised the said specific defence. Further the appellant has examined Dr. Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh [M.O. of Civil Hospital, Parbhani] as defence witness. 11. Now let's scrutinize and examine the evidence as available on record to decide this question. DW 1 Dr. Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh, who was serving as Medical Officer on 31st January, 2010 at Civil Hospital, Parbhani. His evidence reveals that, on the said date, Rukhsana was admitted in the hospital by her father Shaikh Salim. The medical paper of Rukhsana at Civil Hospital, Parbhani are proved through this witness. Those are at Exh.No. 83. On page No.1 of Exh.No. 83 the history of patient is shown as “accidental burn within two hours”. The learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon this entry to show that, it was the accidental death. Further according to the learned counsel, P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Sk.Kathu has admitted in his cross-examination that there were burn injuries on the hands of the appellant. Thus, as per the appellant, when he tried to extinguish the fire, he suffered those burn injuries. In so far as noting in Exh.No.83 in respect of accidental burn is concerned, on the closure scrutiny of the evidence of D.W.No.1 Dr. Thus, as per the appellant, when he tried to extinguish the fire, he suffered those burn injuries. In so far as noting in Exh.No.83 in respect of accidental burn is concerned, on the closure scrutiny of the evidence of D.W.No.1 Dr. Suryakant Deshmukh, it appears that, it is not much helpful to the appellant because though there is an entry, D.W.1 Dr. Suryakant Deshmukh was not sure as to who has given such history of the patient. Not only that, he has admitted in his cross-examination that, name of person, who has given said history is not there in Exh.No.83. Further in the said proved document at page No.193 of the record, which is part and parcel of Exh.No.83 there is note of 31/01/10 taken at 3.40 p.m. which shows that the patient has narrated homicidal burn. 12. In so far as the burn injuries appearing on the hands of the appellant are concerned, suggestion was given to P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf that those injuries are occurred since, he tried to extinguish the fire. This suggestion given by the learned defence counsel is denied by said witness. P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf is the first, amongst two persons, who reached at the spot. In fact, it is the appellant who went to his house and called him to his house. In so far as the injuries on the hands of the appellant, the defence has brought on record during the cross- examination of P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf, who deposed “I say that, Rukhsana told me that, he was trying to press her mouth when she was raising shouts, I have not stated before police that, the appellant tried to press her mouth”. Though this admission is tried to be brought on the record by defence, said omission was not put to the Investigating Officer by the defence when the Investigating Officer was in the witness-box. Therefore, said remained to be unproved. Further according to the defence as appearing in the statement recorded U/Section 313 of the Code, on the day of incidence, after finishing his work, the appellant returned to his house at 7.30 p.m. That time, his wife Rukhsana had been to the house of her mother. He asked his mother-in-law to send Rukhsana. Then he took meal in the house of his mother- in-law. Then he alongwith Rukhsana came to his house. He asked his mother-in-law to send Rukhsana. Then he took meal in the house of his mother- in-law. Then he alongwith Rukhsana came to his house. Then in the mid night, he heard noise of Rukhsana from kitchen and found Rukhsana was burning. Now, when it was not the case of the prosecution nor it was defence even remotely that Rukhsana committed suicide and when it is specific defence of the appellant that, Rukhsana got burn injuries accidentally, this defence clearly show that, it cannot be accidental. According to the applicant on the said date when he returned to the house at 7.30 p.m., Rukhsana was not in the house but she was in the house of her his mother in law. He went there, not only that they had meals there and thereafter, they returned to their house and they slept. If that is so, there was no reason for Rukhsana go to the kitchen, that too, in the dead hours of the night. Therefore, it is very clear that, Rukhsana had not received burn injuries accidentally, as suggested by the appellant. 13. Now only possibility is that, the Rukhsana died due to homicidal burn. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant to show that, he is the author of the burn injuries received by Rukhsana, prosecution has relied upon three written dying declarations, oral dying declaration made to P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf and P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Salim and extra judicial confession made to P.W.No.7 Shaikh Khalil Sk.Jamil. 14. Of three written dying declarations, first in time, is dying declaration made to P.W.No.14 P.H.C. B.No.233 -Anand Dhondopant Kurundkar. Said dying declaration is at Exh.No. 47. On 31st January, 2010 this witness was attached to Police Out Post, Civil Hospital, Parbhani. At 2.50 a.m. Dr. Suryakant, Medical Officer gave M.L.C. to him that patient Rukhsana who has sustained 94% burn is brought to the hospital and is admitted in the burn Ward. On receiving of this information, P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar immediately proceeded to record her statement. He approached to Dr.Mete, who was on night duty. However, on examination, Dr. Mete opined that, Rukhsana is not in a position to give her statement, therefore, her statement was not recorded by P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar. 15. At about 1.30 to 1.45 p.m., P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar received information that, patient has regained consciousness and is in a position to talk. However, on examination, Dr. Mete opined that, Rukhsana is not in a position to give her statement, therefore, her statement was not recorded by P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar. 15. At about 1.30 to 1.45 p.m., P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar received information that, patient has regained consciousness and is in a position to talk. On receipt of this information, P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar immediately went to the burn ward, there he approached to Dr. Bhalerao, who was the Medical Officer. P.W.No.14 P.H.C.Anand Kurundkar expressed his desire to record the statement of Rukhsana. Accordingly, Dr. Bhalerao put an endorsement. Said endorsement is duly proved by Dr. Bhalerao which is at Exh.No.40. Thereupon, P.W.No.14 P.H.C.Anand Kurundkar started recording the statement of Rukhsana. In her statement, Rukhsana disclosed that, her marriage took place with the Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh Quadar (accused / appellant) about two years back. She further disclosed that, she was receiving ill treatment at the hands of her husband on the count that, she always use to go to her parental home and she is not good looking woman. In so far as actual incidence is concerned, Rukhsana disclosed to this witness that, on 30th January, 2010 at 11.45 p.m. when they both were in the house, the appellant started beating to her and picked up a quarrel on the account that, she always used to visit her parental home. She further stated that, thereafter on 30th January, 2010 at 00.30 hrs. the appellant started abusing her and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. After recording the dying declaration, P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar read over the same to the declarant and obtained her thumb impression. 16. Thereafter, P.W.No.12 Dr. Amol Rustumrao Bhalerao, M.O., Civil Hospital, Parbhani again examined Rukhsana and put his endorsement that, during recording her dying declaration, Rukhsana was conscious. Said endorsement is at Exh.No.41. This is the first dying declaration. 17. In so far as second dying declaration is concerned, it is recorded by P.W.No.16 Naib Tahasildar - Prakash Vishwanathrao Ashtikar. He was working at Parbhani on 1st February, 2010. He received a letter from Police Out Post of Civil Hospital, Parbhani for recording the dying declaration of Rukhsana. The said letter requesting him to record the statement of Rukhsana is at Exh.No.58. He was working at Parbhani on 1st February, 2010. He received a letter from Police Out Post of Civil Hospital, Parbhani for recording the dying declaration of Rukhsana. The said letter requesting him to record the statement of Rukhsana is at Exh.No.58. His evidence shows that, in pursuance to the said request, initially he went to the Police Out Post, Civil Hospital, Parbhani and from there, he alongwith Police Constable went to the Hospital. His evidence would further reveals that, he met there to P.W. No.15 Dr. Sandhyarani Narayan Doly. P.W.15 Dr. Sandhyarani examined the patient and opined that, Rukhsana is in a position to give her statement. Accordingly she put an endorsement to that effect. Said endorsement is duly proved and is at Exh.No. 52. 18. Thereafter, PW 16 Prakash proceeded to record the dying declaration of Rukhsana. Rukhsana in her statement disclosed that, on 30th January, 2010 at 12 O'clock in the night hours, her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were present alongwith her. That time, her husband was under the influence of liquor. He started beating her and started murmuring. That time, her sister-in-law brought kerosene, which was poured by her husband on her person and she was set ablaze by her husband. Then she was confined in the house and they left the house. That time, she raised hue & cry, therefore, neighbourers poured water on her person and thereafter she was admitted in the hospital by her parents. Thus, she made statement that she is having complaint against her husband – Khaled i.e. the Appellant, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Then her thumb impression was obtained. The dying declaration recorded by this witness PW 16 Naib Tahasildar – Prakash is at Exh.No. 59. Thereafter the patient was examined by P.W. No.15 Dr. Sandhyarani Doly, who found that, Rukhsana was in a condition to make her statement. Accordingly, Dr. Sandhyarani made an endorsement on the dying declaration. Said endorsement is at Exh.No. 53. 19. The last written dying declaration is recorded by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil, on 2nd February, 2010, who at the relevant time, was serving as 4th Joint Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Parbhani. He was directed by the learned District Judge – 1 Parbhani to record the statement of Rukhsana, who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. Said directions of the learned District Judge – 1 Parbhani were in writing. He was directed by the learned District Judge – 1 Parbhani to record the statement of Rukhsana, who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. Said directions of the learned District Judge – 1 Parbhani were in writing. It is at Exh.No. 13. 20. In pursuance to the said, immediately, P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. On reaching there, he enquired, who is the Doctor there present and also informed that, he is there to record the statement of Rukhsana. He then reached to the burn ward. Two to three persons were present near the patient. Those were asked to leave the ward by this witness. Dr. Arhchana Gore, Medical Officer was present there. She examined Rukhsana and found that, patient was conscious and well oriented and able to give her statement. Said endorsement of Dr. Archana is at Exh.No. 69. 21. P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil then started recording the dying declaration. Perusal of the said dying declaration would reveal that, said is in “Question-Answer form”. Question No.5 is in respect of “How the incident happened.?” To this question put to her by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil, Rukhsana replied that, at 10 O'clock in night hours, when she woke-up for drinking water; that time, she and her husband Khaled were present in the house. She went to drink the water. That time, her husband called her and asked to press his legs, therefore, she started pressing his legs. That time, Khaled poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. In reply to question No.6, she replied that, her husband Khaled used to beat her daily. After recording the dying declaration, her thumb impression was obtained. The dying declaration recorded by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil is at Exh.No.14. After recording of the said dying declaration, Dr.Archana Kishanrao Gore [P.W.18] again examined the patient and put her endorsement, which is duly proved by her to the effect that, Rukhsana was conscious and well oriented during recording her statement. Said endorsement is at Exh.No.17. 22. Thus, as observed above, we have three dying declarations. What should be the approach when there are multiple dying declarations. Said endorsement is at Exh.No.17. 22. Thus, as observed above, we have three dying declarations. What should be the approach when there are multiple dying declarations. To search for this answer, it will be useful to quote the observations made by this court in a case of Suresh Arjun Dodorkar (Sonar) V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 1599, which read thus:- A perusal of both the dying declarations reveal that there are inter se variance. In the dying declaration at Exh. 24 Vimal had stated that the appellant, under the influence of liquor, used to beat her as he was of suspicious nature. She states that when she had asked him to take his dinner, the appellant had quarrelled with her and, therefore, in anger she had gone to sleep. While she was asleep, the appellant had poured kerosene on her-and had set her ablaze. In the dying declaration at Exh. 27 Vimal had stated that in the evening she had sent the daughter of her neighbour for purchasing wheat, but as the said girl had not gone, she had herself gone and purchased wheat. According to her, the appellant, on his return, asked her as to why she had gone for purchasing wheat and what was the relationship between Vimal and the shopkeeper. The appellant then went out of the house and returned back at about 7.00 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. carrying a small plastic Can of kerosene. Vimal had asked her husband to take his dinner but her husband had said that he would not eat anything prepared by her as she was of lose character. On so saying her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. It would thus be seen that in respect of the incident there is a major variance though there is a common thread in both the dying declarations that it was the appellant who had set her ablaze. In cases resting on multiple written dying declarations, the Courts cannot pick and choose any one dying declaration. All the dying declarations have to be consistent in respect of material aspects of the incident. According to us, consistency is expected in multiple dying declarations in respect of the names and the number of accused, the prelude to the incident and the incident itself. All the dying declarations have to be consistent in respect of material aspects of the incident. According to us, consistency is expected in multiple dying declarations in respect of the names and the number of accused, the prelude to the incident and the incident itself. In these two dying declarations, there is consistency in respect of the name and the number of accused. However, in respect of the prelude to the incident, there is variance. There is also variance in respect of the incident itself. The variance is apparent on perusal of the dying declarations and can be discerned from the perusal of the same. Therefore, according to us, no reliance can be placed on the two written dying declarations at Exhs. 24 and 27, as acceptance of any one dying declaration necessarily renders the other as false. If in the dying declaration the truthfulness of the narration itself is rendered doubtful, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the dying declaration. Merely because the overt act attributed to the accused is consistent in both the dying declarations would not make the dying declarations a reliable piece of evidence. The dying declaration has to pass all the tests of reliability as the declarant is not available for cross-examination. In cases where there are multiple dying declarations and acceptance of one dying declaration falsifies the other, the dying declarations have to be necessarily rejected. In our opinion, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the dying declarations at Exhs. 24 and 27. 23. In the light of the observations made in foregoing paras and after scrutinizing the three dying declarations as available on the record in the present case, it is very clear that, these dying declarations reveal that, there is inter se variance. In the first dying declaration, it is found that, on 30th January, 2010 at 11.45 hrs. Rukhsana was assaulted by fist blows by the appellant on the count that, she always used to visit her parents house. Upon giving closure look to Exh.No.47 [D.D. recorded by PHC-Anand Kurundkar], it appears that, she has given account of two incidence. First as narrated above and then secondly, on 31st January, 2010 at 00.30 hrs. Khaled put kerosene on her persona and set her ablaze. Upon giving closure look to Exh.No.47 [D.D. recorded by PHC-Anand Kurundkar], it appears that, she has given account of two incidence. First as narrated above and then secondly, on 31st January, 2010 at 00.30 hrs. Khaled put kerosene on her persona and set her ablaze. However, in the second dying declaration i.e. Exh.No. 59 [ D.D. recorded by Naib Tahasildar – Prakash ], we can notice that, she has stated about the presence of her sister-in-law and mother-in-law. Not only that, role as ascribed to sister-in-law that, she brought kerosene and then the appellant poured it on her person and set her ablaze. 24. While the last dying declaration viz. D.D. recorded by P.W.No. 1 Krushnarao Patil gives altogether different account that, in the night when Rukhsana woke-up for drinking the water, the appellant called and asked to press his legs and that time, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 25. Thus, three altogether different versions are appearing. It would thus seems that in respect of the incidence, these are major variance; though there is common thread in all these dying declarations that it was the appellant, who had set her ablaze. As discussed by this court, in a reported case of Suresh Arjun Dodorkar (Sonar) V/s. State of Maharashtra, Court cannot pick-up and choose any dying declaration. 26. Further in so far as dying declaration Exh.No.59 [D.D. recorded by Naib Tahasildar – Prakash ] is concerned, on minutely examining the same, it is clear that, it was not read over to Rukhsana. There is no endorsement to the effect that said dying declaration was read over to her and she admitted the contents of the same as true. Further even from witness box, PW No.6 Prakash did not claim that, said dying declaration was read over to Rukhsana. When there is no endorsement on the dying declaration Exh.No.59 that scribe read over the contents of same to the declarant and she admitted the same that contents are written as per version, this court is at a loss as to really if the said statement was made over to PW 16 Prakash Vishwanathrao Ashtikar by Rukhsana. Therefore, it raises very grave suspicion about the same. 27. Therefore, it raises very grave suspicion about the same. 27. Thus, this court is of the considered view on re-appreciation of these three dying declarations made by Rukhsana as claimed by the prosecution that in view of the variance in respect of the incidence itself which can be discerned from perusal of the dying declarations, reliance cannot be placed on these dying declarations, as acceptance of any one dying declaration will necessarily render the others as false. In that view of the matter, we reject all these three written dying declarations. 28. The prosecution case is not over here. There are two oral dying declarations available on record, coupled with one extra judicial confession made by the appellant. 29. P.W.No.7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil is residing just in front of the house of the appellant. At the relevant time, he was watching the television, after having his dinner. At about 11.30 p.m. approximately, as claimed by him, he heard shouting. He heard noise of one lady. On hearing such noise, he came outside the house. That time, he heard, one lady is crying. Thereafter, the appellant came outside the house. He was asked, as to what had happened, that time, the appellant made extra judicial confession to him that, he has set his wife on fire. We would like to reproduce said part as appearing in his evidence herein-under:- “I heard that, lady was crying. Thereafter, after opening the door Khaled came outside the house. I asked him, as to what had happened. Khaled told that, he has set his wife on fire. Thereafter, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle Yusuf.”. 30. P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu also confirmed the fact that, Khaled (appellant) had been to his house. Further even the appellant in his statement recorded U/Section 313 of the Code has stated that, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu. 31. P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Sk.Kathu was awaken by his wife and that time, he found Khaled (Appellant) at his residence in a frightened condition. Khalead asked him to accompany to his residence. He told to Shaikh Yousuf that there was quarrel with his wife and his wife is burnt. Thereafter, both rushed to the house of the appellant. 31. P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Sk.Kathu was awaken by his wife and that time, he found Khaled (Appellant) at his residence in a frightened condition. Khalead asked him to accompany to his residence. He told to Shaikh Yousuf that there was quarrel with his wife and his wife is burnt. Thereafter, both rushed to the house of the appellant. There, P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu saw Rukhsana, wife of the appellant, in a completely burnt condition and she was lying in front of kitchen table in a kitchen room. That time, Rukhsana informed to Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu, which can be termed as oral dying declaration. Said is reproduced herein-under:- “She told me that, Khaled caused her severe beating and set her on fire. She stated to him that, Khaled has poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.” 32. The second oral dying declaration is made to P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Salim, mother of Rukhsana. Said is as under: “She told me that, Khaled set her on fire and beat her.” 33. Now, this court proceeds to scrutinize these two dying declarations and extra judicial confessions to ascertain, as to whether they are truthful and whether they are free from any doubt. 34. Presence of Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil on the spot, as claimed by him, is most natural. He is residing just in front of the house of the appellant. He was watching television, after having his dinner. That time is not too late hours of the night by which we could exclude his presence. The reaction of Shaikh Khalil Sk.Jamil to ask the appellant when he opened the door as to “what had happened” is most natural one. That lends credence to the extra judicial confession made to him because it was most natural on the part of Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil to put such question to Khaled (appellant) because he reached there after hearing shouting of a lady. Not only that, his evidence discloses that, after giving said extra judicial confession to him, Khaled proceeded towards the house of his maternal uncle Shaikh Yusuf i.e. P.W.4. This part of his evidence is also corroborated by the version of PW 4 Shaikh Yusuf. 35. There is nothing on record to discredit the version of PW No.7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil. This part of his evidence is also corroborated by the version of PW 4 Shaikh Yusuf. 35. There is nothing on record to discredit the version of PW No.7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil. There is only a suggestion given to this witness that, he had no talk with the appellant, at that time. Said suggestion is denied by Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil (P.W.No.7). Further as observed, his presence would be most natural one on the spot. In absence of anything available on record, which will create slightest doubt and/or suspicious about the said extra judicial confession made by the appellant to this witness viz. Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil, we are of the firm view that, the prosecution has proved the said fact. 36. Now, in so far as two oral dying declarations are concerned those are made to the close relatives. P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu is not only the uncle of deceased Rukhsana but he is maternal uncle of the appellant. No circumstances and/or events are brought on the record, through the cross-examination of PW No.4 Yusuf to discredit his version. On the contrary, his reaction after coming out side the house, when the Rukhsana made oral dying declaration to him of giving 5 to 6 slap blows to the appellant, is most natural reaction of a close relative. 37. One can't forget the fact that when initially, Khaled approached to him and disclosed him that, there was quarrel between him and his wife and his wife received burn injuries and he should accompany his house that time, he has not reacted angrily. This approach of this witness inspires a high degree of confidence in respect of the facts disclosed to him by Rukhsana. Further when he took Rukhsana to the hospital alongwith her parents in the ambulance, all the while, Rukhsana was shouting that, Khalead has set her on fire. Even to this, there is no iota of cross examination. Shouting in a ambulance by Rukhsana during her journey from her house to the hospital that Khalead (Appellant) has set her on fire, is a circumstance which clearly points out finger of guilt towards the appellant, because naturally, Rukhsana in a seriously burnt condition, must be in great pains, it must be in her mind to disclose the name of person, who has made her position to that level. 38. 38. Also making oral dying declaration in a seriously burnt condition to the mother by a daughter is most natural. In that view of the matter, we find that these two oral dying declarations can safely be accepted. Not only that, extra judicial confession which made by Khalel, which may be weak piece of evidence in isolation however, certainly said extra judicial confession can be a corroborative piece of evidence, corroborating to the oral dying declarations which were also made immediately after the occurrence to PW 4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu and P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Salim. 39. Therefore, on entire re-appreciation of the evidence, as found in the prosecution case, this court is rejecting three written dying declarations viz. Exh.No.s. 47, 59 and 14 however, the oral dying declarations made to P.W. 4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu and P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Salim by deceased Rukhsana which are corroborated by extra judicial confession made to P.W.No.7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil, we come to the conclusion that, Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No.503 Of 2011 is dismissed. (ii) Judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant - Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh Quadar for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed.