Judgment : A. S. GADKARI, J. The appellants, original accused persons, by this appeal have questioned the correctness of their conviction and sentence, thereby challenging the judgment and order dated 7 August 2007 passed by the 12th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 632 of 2006, thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and are further convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months each. It has been further ordered that their substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts which give rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under : (i) PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati then attached to Antop Hill police station, Mumbai, on 17-4-2006 at about 8.10 pm had received a telephone from Central Control Room informing him that some persons have set on fire one lady in the hutments in front of Shiv Sena branch No. 45, Antop Hill, Mumbai. He accordingly made entry about the said fact in the station diary, gave information about the said fact to his superior officers and immediately went to the spot of incident along with this staff. After reaching the spot of incident, he noticed that the said incident had taken place on the loft of house No. 90 in the said hutment areai and the victim lady was already taken to the hospital by her relatives. He thereafter posted the police staff at the spot of incident and rushed to the Sion Hospital. After reaching to the hospital, he was informed by the staff of the Sion Hospital that the doctor had already declared victim Geeta @ Laxmi Ramesh Devendra as dead. He thereafter enquired with the parents of the deceased Geeta about the incident. He thereafter posted the police staff at the spot of incident and rushed to the Sion Hospital. After reaching to the hospital, he was informed by the staff of the Sion Hospital that the doctor had already declared victim Geeta @ Laxmi Ramesh Devendra as dead. He thereafter enquired with the parents of the deceased Geeta about the incident. Upon which, Smt. Indira, the mother of Geeta told him that the husband of Geeta i.e. appellant No. 1, his brother the appellant No. 2 and mother of appellant No. 1 i.e. appellant No. 3 herein poured kerosene on the person of Geeta and set her ablaze. PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter recorded the statements of the mother of the deceased Geeta namely Smt. Indira Appau Tewar (PW-1) as per her say. The contents of the said complaint were read over to PW-1 Indira, the mother of deceased in Hindi language and after she admitted the contents thereof as true and correct, he obtained her signature and put his signature. The said complaint is at Exhibit 14. PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter gave the information about the said complaint to Antop Hill police station on telephone and PSI Kadam registered crime No. 92 of 2006 under section 498-A and 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. (ii) PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter started investigating the said crime. He prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body of Geeta which is at Exhibit 17. He also seized the burnt pieces of clothes, hair and a pair of toe rings and pair of anklet of deceased Geeta as per the panchanama and sent dead body of Geeta for post-mortem examination. PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati along with police inspector Shri Surve and other police staff went to the police station. PW- Indira, mother of deceased Geeta, showed the spot of incident to the police personnel. PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter prepared the spot panchanama in the presence of two panchas and seized the pieces of bangles, half burnt pieces of clothes of Geeta, can of kerosene, half burnt match box, bundle of half burnt hairs from the spot of incident. The said panchanama of scene of incident i.e. spot panchanama is at Exhibit 21. PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter arrested the appellants vide arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 18. The said panchanama of scene of incident i.e. spot panchanama is at Exhibit 21. PW-10 PSI Shri Shivaji Auwati thereafter arrested the appellants vide arrest panchanama which is at Exhibit 18. PW-10 PSI Auwati recorded the statement of father of Geeta namely Mr. Appau Kutty Tewar (PW-2) as per his say and handed over further investigation to PI Shri Sanjay Surve (PW-11) as per the orders of the superior officer. (iii) PW-11 PI Sanjay Surve was then attached to Antop Hill police station. On 19-4-2006, he had received investigation of crime No. 92 of 2006 punishable under section 498-A and 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He then visited the vicinity of spot of incident for recording statements of witnesses. PW-11 PI Surve recorded the statements of Maniganda Raju Devendra and Anandraj Nagraj Devendra as per their say. On 20-4-2006, he recorded statements of Akash Rajendra Swami and Krishna Appau Tewar as per their say. On 3-6-2006, he recorded statements of witnesses Smt. Radha Mariappa Devendra and Smt. Chitra Marimutum Devendra as per their say. During the course of investigation, he collected other material such as post-mortem report and other reports and after finding that there was sufficient evidence against all the appellants, he submitted a final report as contemplated under section 173 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. (iv) On committal case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 3 under section 498-A read with section 34 and under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Smt. Anjali Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.J. Dedhia, the learned APP, it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. PW-1 Smt. Indira Appau Tewar is mother of deceased Geeta. PW-1 Indira. In her testimony she has stated that she has one son and three daughters. She has stated that Laxmi @ Geeta was her 2nd daughter. She further stated that the marriage of Geeta taken place with appellant No. 1 Ramesh was a love marriage. Respondent No. 1 was residing in the same area which is two to three lanes away from her house. She has stated that Laxmi @ Geeta was her 2nd daughter. She further stated that the marriage of Geeta taken place with appellant No. 1 Ramesh was a love marriage. Respondent No. 1 was residing in the same area which is two to three lanes away from her house. She stated that prior to marriage of Geeta she was knowing appellant No. 1 as he was residing in the vicinity. She has further stated that after two to three months of marriage, Geeta had been to her house and told her that Geeta had quarrel with the respondents. Geeta further told her that the appellants were saying that in case of marriage with another girl, they would have received money and ornaments in dowry. She has further stated that Geeta returned to her matrimonial house on her own account. PW-1 Indira further stated that one month prior to the above incident, Geeta came to her and informed that the appellants were harassing and used to beat her. Geeta told her that appellants had asked her to bring money from her father. The witness has stated that on the said information from Geeta, she advised her to lodge complaint with the police and not to come to her again and again. She further stated that Geeta then went to the Antop Hill police station and lodged a complaint with the police and after lodging the complaint to the police Geeta came to her house and stayed with her about two to three days. She further stated that thereafter appellant No. 1, husband of Geeta, came to her house and took Geeta with him. PW-1 Indira stated that she had advised appellant No. 1 not to quarrel with Geeta and maintain her properly. She has further stated that accused No. 1 used to drink liquor and beat her. PW-1 Indira further stated that accused No. 1 gave kicks on the stomach of Geeta. She has stated that her husband i.e. father of Geeta gave some money to Geeta. She further stated that Geeta was pregnant at that time. She has further stated that accused No. 1 used to drink liquor and beat her. PW-1 Indira further stated that accused No. 1 gave kicks on the stomach of Geeta. She has stated that her husband i.e. father of Geeta gave some money to Geeta. She further stated that Geeta was pregnant at that time. PW-1 Indira further stated in her testimony that on 17-4-2006 at about 7.00 pm, she was sitting in the room of Kupai and at that time Anandraj i.e. PW-5, son of Nagraj Devendra came to the house of Kupai and told to PW-1 that kerosene was poured on the person of Geeta and was set ablaze and asked PW-1 Indira "Bhago Bhago" .e. run-run. PW-1 Indira thereafter immediately rushed to the house of the appellants. When she entered into the house of Geeta, she noticed the pieces of broken bangles lying on the ground floor and there was smell of burning of clothes. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were standing in front of the door of their house. That the PW-1 Indira shouted as "Geeta Geeta". As per the evidence of PW-1 Indira, Geeta gave her reply by saying that she was set on fire after pouring kerosene on her person by the appellants and she asked PW-1 Indira to call her father. She further stated that Geeta was on the mezzanine floor of the said house. PW- 1 Indira has stated that due to fear she did not go to the mezzanine floor and came outside of the house and tried to search her husband. She has further stated that at that time PW-6 Krishna came towards the house of the appellants. PW-1 Indira asked Krishna to immediately make telephone call to father of Geeta and within 15 minutes her husband i.e. PW-2 and Rajesh came there. She has further stated that her other relatives also rushed towards the house of the appellants. PW-1 Indira has stated that after her husband reached to the house of the appellants, the appellants did not allow her husband and her brother to enter into the house. Thereafter a fire-brigade vehicle came to the house of the appellants and extinguished the fire. In the meanwhile an ambulance came to the spot of the incident and took Geeta to Sion Hospital. PW-1 Indira went to Sion Hospital along with her husband, her sons and brother. Thereafter a fire-brigade vehicle came to the house of the appellants and extinguished the fire. In the meanwhile an ambulance came to the spot of the incident and took Geeta to Sion Hospital. PW-1 Indira went to Sion Hospital along with her husband, her sons and brother. After reaching the Sion Hospital, doctor of Sion Hospital examined Geeta and declared Geeta as dead. The police from Antop Hill police station recorded her statement as complaint which is at Exhibit 14 on the record. It is important to note here that PW-1 Indira has stated in her examination-in-chief that when she reached to the spot of incident, Geeta was alive and informed her that the appellants poured kerosene on her person and had set her ablaze. This is oraldying declaration given by Geeta to PW-1 Indira i.e. her mother. 5. In her cross-examination, an admission has been elicited that there were number of houses near the house of the appellants and the said area is thickly populated area. An admission has been elicited that the marriage of her daughter Geeta with appellant No. 1 was against her will and therefore after marriage of Geeta, her relation with the appellants were strained and she was not talking with the appellants. However, she has denied the suggestion that her relations with her daughter Geeta were also strained. An omission has been elicited in her cross-examination on the point that Geeta had visited to her two to three months after the marriage and told her that she (Geeta) had quarrel with her husband, husband's brother and mother-in-law i.e. the appellants herein. An omission has further been elicited that in her statement to the police it is not mentioned that when PW-1 entered into the house of the appellants, she noticed pieces of bangles lying on the ground floor of the house. PW-1 Indira in her cross-examination has admitted that till arrival of her husband to the scene of the offence she was standing on the main road near the house of the appellants and during the said period she shouted for help. PW-1 Indira has further admitted in her cross-examination that she was standing on the road and could not see anybody entering into the house of the appellants after she shouted for help. PW-1 Indira has further admitted in her cross-examination that she was standing on the road and could not see anybody entering into the house of the appellants after she shouted for help. She has admitted that at the time of marriage of her daughter Geeta in all six persons were residing in the house of the appellants and on enquiry with her daughter, Geeta told her that house of the appellants is small. A suggestion has been put to PW-1 Indira to the effect that as the house of the appellants was small in size, Geeta used to complain about inconvenience which was being caused to her to which PW-1 Indira has denied. Further suggestion was put to the PW-1 Indira to the effect that whenever Geeta used to make complaint regarding insufficient accommodation, PW-1 Indira used to tell her that as Geeta had performed love marriage with appellant No. 1, Geeta should not make complaint with PW-1 to which PW-1 has denied. 6. PW-2 Appau Kutty Tewar, father of the victim Geeta has stated in his examination-in-chief that Geeta was his second daughter. He has stated that about one and half year back Geeta performed love marriage with the accused-appellant No. 1 Ramesh. He further stated that after love marriage, Geeta went to reside at the house of the appellants which is situated in the same locality and was at two minutes walking distance from his house. He further stated that, Geeta, her husband, her husband's two brothers and mother-in-law and father-in-law were residing in the said house. PW-2 Appau Tewar further stated that three months after the marriage Geeta had been to his house and Geeta informed him that family members of her husband were demanding money and ornaments. He has further stated that Geeta told him that appellant No. 1 had given threats to her of committing her murder. He has further stated that prior to the said incident he had sold one room for Rs. 2,50,000/-. He gave cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- and ornaments of Rs. 10,000/- to Geeta. He further stated that appellant No. 1 came to his house and took Geeta with him. He has further stated that prior to the said incident he had sold one room for Rs. 2,50,000/-. He gave cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- and ornaments of Rs. 10,000/- to Geeta. He further stated that appellant No. 1 came to his house and took Geeta with him. He has further stated that on 17-4-2006 at about 6.45 pm his son Krishna (PW-6) gave telephone call to him at Matunga where he was doing his job and told him that Geeta was set on fire and she is dead. He has further stated that within 5 minutes after said call, he went to the house of the appellants. 7. In cross-examination, PW-2 Appau Tewar i.e. father of Geeta has admitted that he did not like love marriage of Geeta with appellant No. 1. He has further admitted in cross-examination that as Geeta had performed love marriage with appellant No. 1 against his will, he was not visiting the house of the appellants. An omission has been elicited in the cross-examination that at the time of recording his statement by the police, he did not state that two months after the marriage when Geeta had come to her house he had given ornaments of Rs. 10,000/- and cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Geeta. He has further admitted in the cross-examination that he personally did not see that the appellants assaulted Geeta and Geeta did not tell him the exact date when she was assaulted by the appellants. 8. PW-3 Venkatesh Kalidas Devendra the panch-witness to the spot panchanama, did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared as hostile. It is to be noted that during his cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing fruitful has been elicited from the said witness. 9. PW-4 Marimuttu Amumutu Devendra is the another panch-witness to the scene of offence i.e. spot panchnama which at Exhibit 21 on record. The said witness also did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. No material was elicited in his cross-examination. 10. PW-5 Anand Nagraj Devendra is the neighbour of the appellants. In his examination-in-chief has stated that he has stated that he did not know anything and therefore he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, no fruitful material has been elicited. 11. PW-6 Krishna Appau Tewar is younger brother of Geeta. No material was elicited in his cross-examination. 10. PW-5 Anand Nagraj Devendra is the neighbour of the appellants. In his examination-in-chief has stated that he has stated that he did not know anything and therefore he was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, no fruitful material has been elicited. 11. PW-6 Krishna Appau Tewar is younger brother of Geeta. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he used to visit the house of Geeta frequently. In his testimony he has stated that the incident took place on 17-4-2006 at about 7 pm when he and Akash (PW-7) were playing in the lane. He stated that Akash told him that he was hungry and therefore PW-6 Krishna told Akash that he will fetch money from Geeta to purchase something in the market. PW-6 Krishna further stated that when he reached to the house of Geeta he heard the voice from the mezzanine floor. The said voice was of Geeta and she was shouting "Amma Amma". PW-6 Krishna therefore went towards the mezzanine floor while Akash stayed on the ground floor. He further stated that he saw appellants were giving kicks to Geeta on her stomach. Therefore, he rushed to his house to inform the incident to his mother. As the mother was not available at the house, he again returned to the house of Geeta i.e. the house of the appellants. At that time he saw people gather at the spot and among the said people his mother was also there. He has further stated that his mother told him that Geeta was burnt and thereafter he gave telephone call to his father PW-2 Appau Tewar. 12. In his cross-examination PW-6 Krishna has admitted that adjoining to the house of appellants there are other houses. He further admitted that he did not approach to the neighbours of the house of the appellants to tell them about the incident. 13. PW-7 Akash Rajendra Swami is the cousin brother of Krishna and Geeta aged 10 years. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he knew deceased Geeta as she was residing in the same area where he was residing. He has further stated that PW-6 Krishna is the son of his maternal uncle. PW-7 Akash has further stated that on 17-4-2006 at about 7 pm he along with PW-6 Krishna were playing in the lane. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he knew deceased Geeta as she was residing in the same area where he was residing. He has further stated that PW-6 Krishna is the son of his maternal uncle. PW-7 Akash has further stated that on 17-4-2006 at about 7 pm he along with PW-6 Krishna were playing in the lane. He was hungry and therefore told Krishna about the same when Krishna told him that he would go to the house of Geeta and will fetch money from her to purchase something from market. He further stated that he went with Krishna at the house of Geeta. He stated that he sat on the ground floor and Krishna went on the mezzanine floor to see his sister Geeta to take money and at that time he heard a noise from the mezzanine floor and that noise was of Geeta. She was shouting like "Mummy Mummy". He has further stated that he also heard the noise of beating. At that time Krishna came on the ground floor and told Akash PW-7, that the appellants were beating to Geeta. Thereafter they went to see the mother of Geeta. As PW-1 the mother of Geeta was not at the house, they returned back to the spot and saw that people had gathered there. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not see actual beating incident. 14. PW-8 Radha Mariappa Devendra is the real sister of deceased Geeta. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that after some days of marriage of Geeta, there used to be quarrel between Geeta and her husband i.e. appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 1 used to ask Geeta to bring money from her parents and also used to beat Geeta on that issue. This witness has further stated that appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 used to threatened Geeta that if Geeta fails to fetch money from her parents in that event they will pour kerosene on Geeta. Geeta used to tell this fact to her and her parents when Geeta used to come to her house. It appears that this witness has been examined on the point of demand of money by the appellants from the parents of Geeta. 15. Geeta used to tell this fact to her and her parents when Geeta used to come to her house. It appears that this witness has been examined on the point of demand of money by the appellants from the parents of Geeta. 15. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that in her presence the appellants did not demand any money from Geeta nor they did beat or threaten Geeta. She has further admitted that she did not actually see when the appellants allegedly poured kerosene on the person of Geeta and set her ablaze. 16. PW-9 Chitra Marimutum Devendra is vegetable vendor and used to sell vegetables in the vicinity of the house of Geeta. This witness has turned hostile and no material has been elicited in her cross-examination. 17. PW-10 is PSI Shivaji Auwti who has registered first information report which has been treated as CR No. 92 of 2006 under section 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. PW-10 has also carried out part of investigation before handing it over for further investigation to PW-1. 18. PW-11 PI Sanjay Surve then attached to Antop Hill police station and has investigated the entire crime and submitted charge-sheet in the matter. In his evidence he has narrated about the fact of taking over investigation and completion of the same. 19. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as deceased Geeta was not happy with the accommodation and as she wanted to have larger accommodation, she has committed suicide. We have scrutinized the entire record minutely and it is noticed that PW-6 Krishna has stated about the beating to his sister Geeta on the fateful day at the hands of the appellants. However, after seeing the said beating he immediately left the spot and when he came to the spot he found people have already gathered there near the said hut. PW-7 Akash has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not actually seen the beating incident and he only heard the voice of Geeta shouting as "Mummy Mummy". Thus it is clear from the evidence on record that there is no witness to the said incident of setting Geeta ablaze. PW-7 Akash has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not actually seen the beating incident and he only heard the voice of Geeta shouting as "Mummy Mummy". Thus it is clear from the evidence on record that there is no witness to the said incident of setting Geeta ablaze. It is necessary to note that though PW-1 Indira mother of Geeta in her examination-in-chief has stated that Geeta told her that she was set on fire by pouring kerosene on her person by the appellants which amounts to oral dying declaration, we find from the record that there is absolutely no corroborative evidence to rely on the same. There is also no evidence at all to discern the fact that who actually poured the kerosene on the person of Geet and who actually ignited the fire. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire even an iota to suggest that the appellants are guilty of the commission of offence. It is pertinent to note that this witness has admitted in her cross-examination that till the arrival of her husband she was standing on the main road near the house of the appellants and as she was standing on the road, she could not see anybody entering into the house of the appellants after she raised shouts for help. Thus, according to us the chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that the appellants only have committed the crime is incomplete. We find substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, that the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out and the benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellants. 20. The present case is based on the circumstantial evidence and after the scrutiny of record minutely, we find that there are no witnesses to the actual incident as was put forth by the prosecution. It is settled position of law that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution should form a complete chain which would exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of accused persons/appellants and unquestionably points the finger of guilt to the accused. In our opinion, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution in the present case are not complete. So also the alleged oral dying declaration of Geeta to PW-1 Indira does not inspire confidence for want of corroboration to the same. In our opinion, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution in the present case are not complete. So also the alleged oral dying declaration of Geeta to PW-1 Indira does not inspire confidence for want of corroboration to the same. Therefore, in our considered view, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution do not complete the chain of circumstances and therefore the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt for the same. 21. In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, according to us the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if any paid by the appellants, be refunded to them. Since appellant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Ramesh Mani Devendra and Rajesh Mani Devendra are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bail bond of appellant No. 3 stands cancelled.