JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order dated 30th March, 1994 by the Sessions Court at Bombay. Appellant no.1, the husband of the deceased has been convicted of both the offences and sentenced to suffer rigourous imprisonment for three years alongwith fine for each offence. Appellant no.2, the mother-in-law has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigourous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The brief statement of facts necessary for consideration of the appeal is as follows:- The marriage of appellant no.1 and the deceased took place in April, 1985. There is a girl child born from the marriage. On 24th August, 1986 the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. The father-in-law of the deceased (original accused no.3) and one of the neighbours rushed into the house and doused the fire with the help of blanket. Appellant no.2 and one of the witnesses changed her clothing. The deceased then was taken to KEM hospital for treatment. The deceased had sustained 91 % burn injuries all over her body. She succumbed to burn injuries on 1st September, 1986. While in the hospital, her statement was recorded by S.1. Sakunde after he obtained permission of the Doctor on duty, Dr. Kulkarni. The statement was treated as FIR and on that basis crime was registered against the appellants and the father of appellant no.1. On the same day, Special Executive Magistrate was called to the hospital who also recorded the statement of the deceased. During the course of investigation, the police drew panchanama, recorded statements of the neighbours, as also the relatives of the deceased. On completion of the investigation, they filed the charge-sheet and later the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. The defence of all the accused was of total denial. According to them, the deceased committed suicide out of frustration. She had been compelled to marry appellant no.1, though she was in love with someone else. 3. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to establish its case. These included victim's father P.W.1, Special Executive Magistrate P.W.2, neighbours P.W.3 and P.W.A, Dr. Kulkarni P.W.5, S.I.Sakunde P.W.6 and Dr. Seema Doshi, P.W.7. According to them, the deceased committed suicide out of frustration. She had been compelled to marry appellant no.1, though she was in love with someone else. 3. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to establish its case. These included victim's father P.W.1, Special Executive Magistrate P.W.2, neighbours P.W.3 and P.W.A, Dr. Kulkarni P.W.5, S.I.Sakunde P.W.6 and Dr. Seema Doshi, P.W.7. The appellants also examined 6 witnesses, 5 of whom were the immediate neighbours. The Sessions Court on it's appreciation of the evidence convicted the appellants and acquitted accused no.3, the father-in-law. 4. Since the entire case of the prosecution rests upon two dying declarations recorded with short interval, it will be convenient to look into the same before touching upon any other aspect of the matter. As already mentioned above, the first dying declaration is by S. I. Sakunde (P.W.6) and the other is by Special Executive Magistrate (P.W.2). The evidence of these two witnesses coupled with the evidence of the medical officers i.e. P.W.5 and P.W.7 would be relevant. It is the submission of Mr. Paranjpe, the learned Advocate for the appellants, that the entire evidence of dying declaration is required to be discarded on the ground of improbability. 5. PW-6 deposed that he reached KEM Hospital at about 11.00 am, when Dr. Kulkarni and other doctors were treating the deceased in Ward No.8. He waited for the treatment and thereafter asked Dr. Kulkarni (PW-5) whether the deceased was in a condition to give statement. When PW-5 answered in affirmative, he started questioning the deceased and recorded her statement. The recording of statement had commenced at 11.55 am. and was completed at 12.30 p.m. He obtained her thumb impression on the statement, put his own signature thereon and obtained endorsement of PW-6. On the basis of the statement, he registered the offence against the appellants and the third accused. As per the statement recorded by PW-6, the deceased had alleged that when she returned home after delivery of the child, quarrels on flimsy and small grounds started between her and the appellants. Both the appellants did not allow to go to her parents' house. Even on the day of Rakhi Poornima, on 19th August, 1986, she was not allowed to go to her parents house. The deceased used to be upset because of this. Both the appellants did not allow to go to her parents' house. Even on the day of Rakhi Poornima, on 19th August, 1986, she was not allowed to go to her parents house. The deceased used to be upset because of this. Whenever, appellant no.2 did not talk to the deceased, appellant no.1 used to suspect the deceased and assault her. She was once assaulted by appellant no.1 because she had forgotten to wash his lungi. On 23rd August, 1986, when she was taking dinner along with the appellants and the father-in-law, drops of kerosene fell in the drinking water. When the deceased tried to change the water, appellant no.1 did not allow her and said that he did not want her. He also commented that she should take poison and die. This upset the deceased. Then on 24th August, 1986, at about 9 am, she handed over the child to her sister-in-law, went to the loft, poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. When her clothes caught fire, she panicked and stal1ed shouting. The parents-in-law and the neighbours rushed in. doused the fire and brought her to the hospital. As per the evidence of PW-6, the deceased had put her right hand thumb impression on statement. 6. It is the evidence of P.W.2, the Special Executive Magistrate that sometime in the afternoon on 24th August, 1986, Police officer of Worli police station had come to him and taken him to the hospital for recording statement of the deceased. His evidence does not disclose the time, at which recording of the statement had commenced and the time, at which it was completed. The endorsement on the statement, however shows that recording of the statement had started at 1.07 p.m. and completed at 1.56 p.m. Thus the statement of the deceased recorded by PW-2 was barely half an hour after her first statement recorded by PW-6. The contents of this statement, however are completely different. The gist of the statement recorded in the form of narration by PW-2 is that since the date of marriage, her sister-in-law Ratna and appellant no.2 were harassing her and suspected her character. The appellants and Ratna regularly followed her and checked all her activities. Even her going to the common water tap and latrine was suspicious for them. They suspected that she has illicit connections with other persons, because of which, appellant no. The appellants and Ratna regularly followed her and checked all her activities. Even her going to the common water tap and latrine was suspicious for them. They suspected that she has illicit connections with other persons, because of which, appellant no. 1 used to beat her "like an animal". On 23rd August, 1986 at 10.00 p.m., when she was taking dinner, Ratna moved the kerosene stove and some drops of kerosene fell in her glass of water. The deceased asked Ratna to give another glass of water, but Ratna refused. This led to a quarrel. The deceased felt completely frustrated, went to the loft with a bottle of kerosene and a match-box and set herself on fire. Her parents-in-law rushed in to help her and brought her to the hospital. It is the evidence of PW-2 that after explaining the statement recorded by him to the deceased he obtained her right hand thumb impression thereon. He also obtained endorsement of the doctor. Strangely after recording the statement, PW-2 retained the original statement with himself and had handed over a xerox copy to the police officer, whom he had accompanied. The original statement was produced by PW-2 during his deposition. 7. PW-5, the doctor at KEM hospital stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital at 10.15 am. and he had treated her for burn injuries. She was having 91% of the burn injuries all over her body. On a specific question in his cross-examination, he stated that she was covered with a cradle, which covers the body of a patient upto the neck. Her fingers were burnt. He added that they are included in the upper limbs. But he was unable to say whether palms of the deceased were burnt from both the sides. He had also not seen the deceased giving her thumb impressions on the two statements recorded, one by PW-2 and the other by PW-6. He stated that he had not helped both these witnesses in obtaining thumb impressions of the deceased. It is his further specific evidence in cross-examination that an oily and white coloured ointment was ordered to be applied to the deceased. 8. PW-7, is the doctor, who had performed post-mortem examination of body of the deceased. He stated that he had not helped both these witnesses in obtaining thumb impressions of the deceased. It is his further specific evidence in cross-examination that an oily and white coloured ointment was ordered to be applied to the deceased. 8. PW-7, is the doctor, who had performed post-mortem examination of body of the deceased. She stated in her cross-examination that both the upper limbs of the deceased were burnt to the extent of 18%, which means both the hands were completely burnt from shoulder downwards including both sides of the palms. 9. Evidence of the two doctors clearly shows that there was hardly any possibility of the deceased putting her thumb impressions on the statements. She had suffered 91 % bum injuries all over her body, out of which 18% covered her both hands from shoulder to the fingers and her palms were burnt from both the sides. As per the evidence of PW-5., a white coloured oily ointment had been applied on the burn injuries. This would mean that the same must have been applied to her palms also. In that case, there could be no possibility of she putting her thumb impression on any paper. The seriousness of the burn injuries can be gathered from the fact that body of the deceased was covered by cradle upto her neck. This would mean that her hands were also under the cradle. In that case, unless there was some assistance from the doctor or some para-medical staff of the hospital, no thumb impression could have been obtained because that involved taking the hand of the deceased outside the cradle. It is not the prosecution evidence that assistance of any nurse from the hospital was taken for the purpose and it is the specific evidence of the prosecution that PW-5 had not rendered any help in this regard. Thus the two dying declarations recorded by PW-2 and PW-6 are clouded with doubt and cannot be believed. Since one of the statements i.e. the statement recorded by PW-6 was treated as an F.I.R., the entire prosecution case falls to the ground. The appellants are entitled to acquittal, on this ground alone. 10. The other reason for disbelieving the dying declarations is the contents of the two dying declarations. The contents are completely different. Since one of the statements i.e. the statement recorded by PW-6 was treated as an F.I.R., the entire prosecution case falls to the ground. The appellants are entitled to acquittal, on this ground alone. 10. The other reason for disbelieving the dying declarations is the contents of the two dying declarations. The contents are completely different. The reasons for harassment set out in the first statement made to PW-6 is of restraints put on her visits to her parents house. The first statement does not contain any allegations against sister-in-law, Ratna. The second statement makes serious allegations against her. The cause of harassment mentioned in the second statement is also completely different and much more serious in nature. The cause mentioned in one statement does not find place in the other. It is difficult to believe that such completely different statements would be made by the deceased at the short interval of half an hour in a condition of 91 % of burn injuries. 11. The prosecution has also not been able to establish that the deceased was subjected to harassment. The only evidence of harassment brought before the court is of the deposition of the father of the deceased (PW12). This witness has deposed generally, that the accused were harassing the deceased. She had told him that "she was not given food by the accused, that she was beaten by them, was kept out of the house and was regarded with disrespect as she was not found fortune for the family". This also shows that, the cause for the harassment mentioned by PW-1 is distinctly different from the causes stated in the two dying declarations. 12. As against the above evidence of prosecution, the appellants examined, six neighbours, who deposed that they are on regular visiting terms with the appellants and had not seen the deceased being harassed. There is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses to discredit them. In fact their evidence finds support from the deposition of PW-3, another neighbour who had helped the father-in-law of the deceased in dousing the fire and taking the deceased to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen any quarrel between the deceased and the appellants. He had also not heard of any complaints from the deceased. 13. In all the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen any quarrel between the deceased and the appellants. He had also not heard of any complaints from the deceased. 13. In all the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code. Sessions Case No. 279 of 1987 is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants are discharged. Appeal allowed.