JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.174 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 21.01.2011, the Trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i)The deceased in this case was one Jenitta. The appellant is her husband. The accused had suspicion over the chastity of the deceased. On 17.07.2008 at about 01.20 p.m., the deceased had returned from the school after serving lunch for her son. When she reached her home, the accused questioned her as to where she had gone and alleged that she had gone with somebody else to an Ice Cream Parlour. Then, he poured kerosene on her and set fire. She sustained burn injuries between 90% to 100%. The accused took her to A.V.M. Hospital at Tuticorin. P.W.13, Dr.Thangamani examined the deceased. When he enquired, the deceased told that at 01.45 p.m., while she was cooking, fire accident occurred, in which, she sustained the injuries. She was admitted as inpatient in the said hospital. At 06.00 p.m., P.W.13, referred her to a different hospital. Ex.P. 13 is the Accident Register. (ii)P.W.15 is the father of the deceased. On hearing about the occurrence, he reached A.V.M. Hospital, Tuticorin at 07.30 p.m. Since P.W.13, Dr.Thangamani told that the deceased was in a serious condition and there was no hope of her survival, P.W.15 took her to the Government Hospital at Tuticorin. (iii)According to P.W.15, while in the hospital, he enquired the deceased, she told him that the accused had set fire to her. P.W.16, Dr.Kavitha Senthil, examined the deceased at 02.20 p.m. Since the attendants of the deceased wanted to take treatment in a private hospital, she did not admit her in the Government Hospital. (iii)According to P.W.15, while in the hospital, he enquired the deceased, she told him that the accused had set fire to her. P.W.16, Dr.Kavitha Senthil, examined the deceased at 02.20 p.m. Since the attendants of the deceased wanted to take treatment in a private hospital, she did not admit her in the Government Hospital. (iv)On intimation from A.V.M. Hospital, Tuticorin, P.W.19, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Tuticorin North Police Station, went to the said hospital at 05.30 p.m. on 17.07.2008. The deceased was then conscious. She gave a long statement, which was reduced to writing by P.W.19. Ex.P.24 is the said statement. The doctor, who was attending on the deceased also certified that the deceased was fully conscious and she was in a position to make a statement. On returning to the Police Station, P.W.19, registered a case at 07.00 p.m. in Crime No.306 of 2008, under Section 498-A I.P.C. Ex.P.25 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (v)P.W.21 took up the case for investigation. At 08.00 p.m. on 17.07.2008, he went to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, where the deceased had been admitted. Since the deceased was kept under sedation, P.W.21 has stated that he could not examine her. On the same day at 09.30 a.m., he visited the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses. On 18.07.2008 at 01.00 a.m., P.W.21 examined the deceased and her father and recorded their statements. Then, he altered the case into one under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. He made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin to record dying declaration. (vi)Passing for a moment, we need to mention that when the deceased was in A.V.M. Hospital at Tuticorin, on intimation from the hospital, P.W.8, the then Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, went to the hospital at 04.50 p.m. and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at 05.00 p.m. The doctor attending on the deceased, certified that the deceased was fully conscious and fit enough to make a statement. Ex.P.2 is the said dying declaration. (vii)Reverting back to the investigation, P.W.21, made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin for recording a second judicial dying declaration. Ex.P.2 is the said dying declaration. (vii)Reverting back to the investigation, P.W.21, made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin for recording a second judicial dying declaration. Accordingly, at 08.00 p.m., the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin again went to the hospital. P.W.18 certified that the deceased was conscious and in a fit statement of mind to give dying declaration. Therefore, P.W.8 recorded the second dying declaration at 08.30 a.m. on 18.07.2008. In the said dying declaration, the deceased told that her husband, namely, the accused set fire to her. (viii)During the course of investigation, at 10.00 a.m., on 18.07.2008, P.W.21 arrested the accused near Karuppatti Office Junction in the presence of witnesses. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused, a plastic can and a match box were recovered (M.O.3 and M.O.4). The accused was then sent to the Court for judicial remand. On 20.07.2008, at 01.05 p.m., the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Then, P.W.21 altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.28 is the alteration report. Since the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, P.W.21 made a request to the Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer to hold inquest. Accordingly, P.W.17 held inquest and submitted a report. Then, P.W.21 handed over the Case Diary to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation. Finally, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 21 witnesses were examined and 32 documents were exhibited, besides 4 Material Objects. 4.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.5 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.6 is the brother of the accused. According to him, at about 07.00 p.m., on 17.07.2008, when he was in his house, he heard the cry of the deceased from her house. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the deceased. He found the deceased in flames. P.W.16 extinguished the fire. According to him, when he enquired her, she told him that while cooking accidentally she caught fire. P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the deceased. He found the deceased in flames. P.W.16 extinguished the fire. According to him, when he enquired her, she told him that while cooking accidentally she caught fire. P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.8 is the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, who has spoken about the dying declaration recorded by him at the first instance at 05.00 p.m. on 17.07.2008, wherein the deceased told that while cooking accidentally she caught fire. P.W.8 has spoken about the second dying declaration recorded by him at 08.30 p.m. on 18.07.2008, wherein the deceased stated that the accused set fire to her. P.W.9 has spoken about the Observation Mahazer and recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, his disclosure statement and the consequential discovery of M.O.3 and M.O.4. P.W.11 is the Constable, who handed over the Express First Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.12 is the Constable, who has stated that he handed over the dead body to the doctor for postmortem. 5.P.W.13, Dr.Thangamani is the one, who examined the deceased at the first instance at A.V.M. Hospital at Tuticorin, at 02.40 p.m. on 17.07.2008. She has stated that the deceased told her that while cooking accidentally she caught fire. P.W.14 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the cause of death. P.W.15 is the father of the deceased, who has stated that on 17.07.2008, on receiving phone message, he went to A.V.M. Hospital at Tuticorin at 07.30 p.m. He further stated that at that time, the deceased was not in a position to speak. She was then admitted in the Government Hospital. According to him, there, the deceased told him that the accused set fire to her. P.W.16, Dr.Kavitha Senthil, has stated that at 02.20 p.m. on 17.07.2008, the accused brought the deceased to the hospital for treatment and since her condition was serious, he took her back to a private hospital. P.W.17 is the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Executive Magistrate, who conducted the inquest. P.W.18, Dr.Vasan, is the one, who certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give statement. Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23 are the certificates relating to each dying declaration. P.W.19 is the Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.17 is the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Executive Magistrate, who conducted the inquest. P.W.18, Dr.Vasan, is the one, who certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give statement. Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23 are the certificates relating to each dying declaration. P.W.19 is the Sub Inspector of Police. He recorded the statement of the deceased at 05.30 p.m. on 17.07.2008 under Ex.P.24. He has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.20 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who continued the enquiry before the police. P.W.21 is the Inspector of Police, who investigated the case and he has vividly spoken about the same. 6.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. One Mrs.Perthala, the sister of the deceased, was examined on the side of the accused as D.W.1. However, the accused did not choose to mark any document on his side. His defence was a total denial. 7.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 8.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Ex.P.2, the judicial dying declaration, being the earliest dying declaration, should have been preferred. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Trial Court was not right in convicting the accused. 10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Trial Court has placed reliance on Ex.P.6, because in Ex.P.6, the deceased had told that what was stated in Ex.P.2, the earlier judicial dying declaration, is not correct. There are no reasons to reject Ex.P.6. Thus, according to him, the Trial Court is right in convicting the accused. 11.We have considered the above submissions. 12.Admittedly, there is no eye witness account in the case. The prosecution relies only on various dying declarations given by the deceased, both oral and documentary. The first dying declaration was the one, which was made by the deceased to P.W.13, Dr.Thangamani at 02.40 p.m. on 17.07.2008. When, P.W.13 enquired her, the deceased told P.W.13 that while cooking at her house at 01.45 p.m. accidentally she caught fire. The prosecution relies only on various dying declarations given by the deceased, both oral and documentary. The first dying declaration was the one, which was made by the deceased to P.W.13, Dr.Thangamani at 02.40 p.m. on 17.07.2008. When, P.W.13 enquired her, the deceased told P.W.13 that while cooking at her house at 01.45 p.m. accidentally she caught fire. This is the earliest dying declaration made by the deceased. This is sought to be assailed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that when this statement was made by the accused, her husband, namely, the accused was by her side and therefore either out of fear for him or out of some concern for him, the deceased would have given such a statement exonerating the accused. This argument is based only on surmise as there is no evidence to substantiate the same. This argument is liable to be rejected in the light of the subsequent dying declaration made. 13.While she was in A.V.M. Hospital, Tuticorin, P.W.19, the Sub Inspector of Police, had gone to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased at 05.30 p.m. on 17.07.2008 under Ex.P.24. In that, the deceased gave totally a different story for the cause of her injuries. When, Ex.P.24 was made, she was fully conscious and in a fit state of mind to make a statement. The doctor, who attended on her, had certified about the same. In that statement, she told that with a view to commit suicide, she poured kerosene on her and set fire to herself. This is the second dying declaration, which is quite contrary to the first dying declaration. After the second dying declaration, an oral dying declaration was made to P.W.15, the father of the deceased. According to P.W.15, on 17.07.2008 at 08.30 p.m., when the deceased was in the Government Hospital at P.W.19, she told him that her husband set fire to her after pouring kerosene on her. This statement was made after the arrival of her father and the other relatives. This is the third version given by the deceased. Then, P.W.21, went to the hospital at 08.00 p.m. At that time, according to him, the deceased was in sedation and therefore he could not record any statement from her. This statement was made after the arrival of her father and the other relatives. This is the third version given by the deceased. Then, P.W.21, went to the hospital at 08.00 p.m. At that time, according to him, the deceased was in sedation and therefore he could not record any statement from her. If this is true, then the oral so-called dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.15 cannot be true as she would have been only under sedation. P.W.21 recorded the statement of the deceased only on 18.07.2008 at 01.00 a.m. That dying declaration has been completely suppressed by the prosecution. Then, he gave a request to P.W.8 again to record yet another dying declaration. Now, the next dying declaration was recorded by P.W.18 at 08.30 a.m. on 18.07.2008. In the said dying declaration, she said that her husband, namely, the accused set fire to her. In respect of the earlier dying declaration under Ex.P.2, the deceased told that her sister-in-law tutored her to make such a dying declaration exonerating the accused. Assuming that there is some explanation about Ex.P.2, absolutely there is no explanation regarding the suicide theory as it was stated in her dying declaration to the police. In this regard, we may also consider the evidence of P.W.6, the brother of the accused. He has stated that at 03.00 p.m. on 17.07.2008, he heard the alarm raised by the deceased and when he rushed to the house of the accused, he found the deceased in flames. He extinguished the fire by pouring water on her. At that time, according to him, the accused was not at all in the house. When he enquired, the deceased told him that while cooking she accidentally caught fire. There is no reason to reject this dying declaration, which is the earliest one. 14.From these multiple dying declarations, it is manifest that there are three versions of the deceased. The first one was that she caught fire accidentally, while cooking; the second one was that she set fire to herself to commit suicide and the third one was that the accused set fire to her after pouring kerosene on her. When, there are multiple dying declarations, unless the Court finds reasons to accept any one dying declaration and to reject the others, it is not possible to act upon the same. When, there are multiple dying declarations, unless the Court finds reasons to accept any one dying declaration and to reject the others, it is not possible to act upon the same. Here, in this case, since there are three versions through multiple dying declarations each contradicting the other, we do not find any reason to accept one version, against the accused alone and to convict him. In such view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 15.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi, made in S.C.No.174 of 2010, dated 21.01.2011, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him.