JUDGMENT : 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 28-11-2011 passed by the Fast Track Sessions Court-XVI, Bengaluru City in S.C. No. 892 of 2011 is called in question in this appeal by the State. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Smt. Heena is the wife of the accused; her marriage was performed about eight months prior to the unfortunate incident which occurred in the midnight intervening between 21-3-2011 and 22-3-2011; after the marriage, the accused and the deceased were living in matrimonial house bearing No. 1181, 4th Cross, near Bhimanna Layout, Masjid, Kaval Byrasandra, Bengaluru; the deceased was being harassed by the accused both physically and mentally on the ground that the deceased was not yielding to the direction of the accused to bring more dowry of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents; being intolerant, the deceased also started quarreling with the accused; in the midnight intervening between 21-3-2011 and 22-3-2011, the accused once again picked up quarrel with the deceased on the aforementioned grounds, poured kerosene on the deceased and lit her ablaze in their matrimonial house. Immediately after the incident, the victim was admitted to the hospital. It is relevant to note that in the very incident, the accused had also sustained burn injuries. The dying declaration as per Ex. P. 13 came to be recorded by P.W. 11 (the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police), D.J. Halli Police Station at about 4.30 a.m. on 22-3-2011 based on which NCR No. 232 of 2011 came to be registered in D.J. Halli Police Station. The Doctor attached to Victoria Hospital, wherein the victim was admitted for taking the treatment, has certified on Ex. P. 13 that Heena was conscious and mentally fit to give statement. It is also mentioned below the dying declaration that since victim's both the hands were burnt severely, the left toe impression of the victim was taken on the dying declaration (Ex. P. 13). However, till two days, no incriminating material was collected against the accused; after two days of the incident, parents of the deceased and the near relatives of the deceased came to the hospital and thereafter, one more dying declaration as per Ex. P. 9 came to recorded at 9.15. P. 13). However, till two days, no incriminating material was collected against the accused; after two days of the incident, parents of the deceased and the near relatives of the deceased came to the hospital and thereafter, one more dying declaration as per Ex. P. 9 came to recorded at 9.15. p.m. on 24-3-2011 in Victoria Hospital by P.W. 7 (Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police), D.J. Halli Police Station; the said dying declaration was handed over to Station House Officer of D.J. Halli Police Station by P.W. 7, based on which Crime No. 93 of 2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries at 10.50 p.m. on 25-3-2011. The crime was moulded for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC coupled with Section 498-A of IPC. The police after investigation laid the charge-sheet. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and got marked 20 exhibits and 3 material objects. The Trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record as aforementioned, acquitted the accused by giving the benefit of doubt. 3. Sri Chethan Desai, learned Government Advocate arguing on behalf of the State, has taken us through the entire material on record including the judgment of the Court below. He submits that dying declaration (Ex. P. 9) coupled with the oral evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused; though near relatives of the victim were not examined before the Court, the victim's version as found in Ex. P. 9 cannot be ignored; the material found in Ex. P. 13 might have been furnished by the deceased before the Sub-Inspector of Police because of the threat given by the accused and the same is clear from the averments found in Ex. P. 9. Among all these other grounds, he argued for allowing the appeal. Sri S. Munibyregowda, learned Counsel for defence, per contra, argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. 4. P.W. 1 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama (Ex. P. 1). He supports the case of prosecution with regard to the inquest panchanama. P. 9. Among all these other grounds, he argued for allowing the appeal. Sri S. Munibyregowda, learned Counsel for defence, per contra, argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. 4. P.W. 1 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama (Ex. P. 1). He supports the case of prosecution with regard to the inquest panchanama. He has also deposed that the deceased was the wife of the accused and that the deceased set herself ablaze and died; that, accused and deceased were living amicably and he does not know as to why the deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. P.W. 2 is another witness for inquest panchanama (Ex. P. 1). He is a signatory to the spot mahazar (Ex. P. 4) under which M.Os. 1 to 3 are seized. He has also deposed that accused and the deceased were living cordially and he does not know as to why the deceased died and as to how she sustained the burn injuries. P.W. 3 is another witness for Ex. P. 1. However, he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution completely. P.W. 4 is the witness for spot mahazar (Ex. P. 4). He has deposed that the police took keys of the house of the accused from him and opened the door and thereafter, drew panchanama as per Ex. P. 4. He has deposed that he knew the accused but he does not know about the deceased. He has also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 5 is the woman Police Constable. She carried certain articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. P.W. 6 is another Police Constable who carried the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 7 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police attached to D.J. Halli Police Station during the relevant point of time. He was entrusted with the duty of rerecording the statement of the deceased. Hence, he visited the hospital and in the presence of Dr. Manjunath, he recorded the statement as per Ex. P. 9. He prepared the said statement and submitted before the Station House Officer (P.W. 11) based on which crime came to be registered. P.W. 8 is the Police Constable. He apprehended the accused and submitted the report as per Ex. P. 10. P.W. 9 (Mr. Rao Ganesh) conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 10 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination. He prepared the said statement and submitted before the Station House Officer (P.W. 11) based on which crime came to be registered. P.W. 8 is the Police Constable. He apprehended the accused and submitted the report as per Ex. P. 10. P.W. 9 (Mr. Rao Ganesh) conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 10 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report is at Ex. P. 11. He has opined that the death is due to burn injuries sustained by the victim. P.W. 11 is another Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was attached to the D.J. Halli Police Station. He has recorded dying declaration of the victim as per Ex. P. 13 immediately after her admission in the presence of the doctor. Though he does not depose about the recording of the dying declaration, he admits in the cross-examination that he has recorded dying declaration as per Ex. P. 13. However, in the examination-in-chief, he has deposed about receiving of Ex. P. 9 and about registering the crime based on the same. P.W. 12 who is the doctor attached to Victoria Hospital has given death intimation as per Ex. P. 14 on 25-3-2011. P.W. 13 is the Taluk Executive Magistrate. He conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex. P. 1. P.W. 14 is the Investigating Officer. He completed investigation and laid the charge-sheet. 5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that C.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. C.W. 3 is the near relative of the deceased. Though the statements of C.Ws. 1 to 3 were recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, they did not tender their evidence before the Court below. None of the near relatives of the deceased appeared before the Court for tendering their evidence. Thus, virtually there is no proof of charge of allegation of harassment or dowry demand, etc. against the accused. 6. Case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4. According to the prosecution, all these witnesses are the eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Unfortunately, all the four witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 4 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they have not supported the case of prosecution and with regard to pouring of kerosene and setting the deceased ablaze by the accused. Though these witnesses have deposed about the inquest panchanama (Ex. Unfortunately, all the four witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 4 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and they have not supported the case of prosecution and with regard to pouring of kerosene and setting the deceased ablaze by the accused. Though these witnesses have deposed about the inquest panchanama (Ex. P. 1), they did not support the case of prosecution with regard to the actual incident in question. Despite lengthy cross-examination by the public prosecutor, the prosecution was not able to gather any positive material from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4. As aforementioned, P.W. 4 has completely turned hostile. On the other hand, P.Ws. 1 to 4 have admitted before the Court that the deceased and the accused were living amicably and they do not know as to how the victim sustained the burn injuries. In view of the same, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is of no help at all to the prosecution. 7. Then, what remains to be considered is the effect of dying declarations (Exs. P. 9 and P. 13) recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police, D.J. Halli Police Station. Ex. P. 13 is the first in point of time. The incident has taken place at about 12.00 midnight intervening between 21-3-2011 and 22-3-2011. In the very incident, the accused has also sustained the injuries. The accused along with the neighbours shifted the victim immediately to the hospital in a car. The statement of the victim was recorded in Victoria Hospital as per Ex. P. 13 at 4.30 a.m. on 22-3-2011 within 4 1/2 hours of the incident in question. The doctor incharge of Victoria Hospital during the relevant point of time certified on the dying declaration (Ex. P. 13) that the patient was conscious and was mentally fit to give the statement. Ex. P. 13 discloses that the victim caught fire accidentally, when she was preparing food; when the accused tried to extinguish the fire, he also sustained certain burn injuries. Since, both palms of the deceased were burnt, the left toe impression of the victim was taken on the dying declaration (Ex. P. 13). Since no incriminating material was available against the accused, the police proceeded to register non-cognizable case in NCR No. 232 of 2011 based on Ex. P. 13. Since, both palms of the deceased were burnt, the left toe impression of the victim was taken on the dying declaration (Ex. P. 13). Since no incriminating material was available against the accused, the police proceeded to register non-cognizable case in NCR No. 232 of 2011 based on Ex. P. 13. After about two days i.e. on 24-3-2011, the second dying declaration of the victim was recorded as per Ex. P. 9 by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 7) at 9.15 p.m. in Victoria Hospital. Ex. P. 9 is also supported by the endorsement of Dr. Manjunath (as deposed by P.W. 7) to the effect that the victim was in a fit condition to give the statement. However, one word is scored off. The said factor may not matter much having regard to the totality of the endorsement. Be that as it may. We may state that Ex. P. 9 is also supported by the Doctor's endorsement. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 25-3-2011 at about 10.50 p.m. as is clear from the death intimation Ex. P. 14 issued by the doctor (P.W. 12). of the defence Counsel that non-production of the medical records pertaining to t 8. At this stage, the arguments he victim to show the exact health condition of the victim while recording Ex. P. 9, needs to be seriously taken note of inasmuch as the prosecution has not put forth its case fairly before the Court; the prosecution has intentionally suppressed the material facts before the Court; absolutely, no valid reasons are forthcoming as to why neither the doctors who treated the victim in Victoria Hospital were not examined and the medical records maintained by Victoria Hospital were not made available before the Court; non-examination of the Doctors who treated the victim and non-production of the medical records maintained by Victoria Hospital has led to miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the accused was not in a position to show the Court that the victim was not really in fit condition to make the statement. Except the Doctor's endorsement found in Ex. P. 9, no other supporting material is available on record to show that the victim was in fit condition to make the statement as per Ex. P. 9. It is further relevant to note that the Doctor who certified about the fitness of the victim as per Ex. Except the Doctor's endorsement found in Ex. P. 9, no other supporting material is available on record to show that the victim was in fit condition to make the statement as per Ex. P. 9. It is further relevant to note that the Doctor who certified about the fitness of the victim as per Ex. P. 9 is not examined before the Court so also the Doctor who certified on Ex. P. 13 over the fitness of the victim while recording Ex. P. 13, is not examined. Absolutely, no valid reasons are forthcoming as to why the Doctors are not examined before the Court. Not even a single piece of medical record is produced before the Court by the prosecution to show as to the actual health condition of the victim right from the beginning till end. In both the endorsements made by the Doctors, it is specified that the victim was in fit condition to make the statement. Ex. P. 13 does not implicate the accused, whereas Ex. P. 9 implicates the accused. The versions found in both the dying declaration are contradictory to each other. Therefore, the Court cannot prefer one dying declaration and reject the other in the absence of the relevant material on record. P.W. 7 has recorded Ex. P. 9 and P.W. 11 has recorded Ex. P. 13. Both are the Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police attached to D.J. Halli Police Station during the relevant point of time. Both of them have deposed that they recorded the statements as per Exs. P. 9 and P. 13 respectively. It is curious to note that though P.W. 11 has recorded the dying declaration as per Ex. P. 13, he avoided to depose so before the Court in examination-in-chief. However, in the cross-examination by the defence, P.W. 11 has admitted that he has recorded Ex. P. 13 and the victim has stated before him that the accused is innocent and that nobody is responsible for the incident in question. P. 13, he avoided to depose so before the Court in examination-in-chief. However, in the cross-examination by the defence, P.W. 11 has admitted that he has recorded Ex. P. 13 and the victim has stated before him that the accused is innocent and that nobody is responsible for the incident in question. In view of the conflicting versions found in the dying declarations and in view of non-production of the relevant material to show about the fitness of the victim during the relevant point of time to make the statements and in the absence of the examination of the Doctors who endorsed about the fitness of the victim on the dying declarations, the Trial Court is justified in giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, particularly, when there is absolutely no other material to show that the accused has committed the offences. On reassessing the material on record, we find that the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is the only possible view under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.