JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-State has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 11.03.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 145/1988 whereby the respondents-accused was acquitted from the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Kailash got married with Virendra Kumar about four years prior to the date of incident. According to the prosecution, Smt. Kailash was being tortured by her in-laws. The marriage of sister-in-law of Smt. Kailash was to be solemnized two days after the date of incident and the mother-in-law and father-in-law demanded necklace for the marriage and Smt. Kailash refused on which quarrel took place. Thereafter, due to this, she pored kerosene on her body and put herself on fire. When she raised cry, neighbours reached there and they saw Smt. Kailash and her daughter burning. The neighbours informed the police and SHO, P.S. Palasia reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Smt. Kailash (Ex. P/8) and she was taken to General Hospital, Udaipur. On 21.01.1988, the daughter of Smt. Kailash died. On 22.01.1988, Smt. Kailash also died but before her death, she gave another statement (Ex. P/13), which was recorded by the City Magistrate, Udaipur. On the basis of statement (Ex. P/13), a case No. 4/1988 was registered at P.S. Palasia for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and investigation commenced. After complete investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the respondents-accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol wherefrom the case was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court'). The learned trial court, framed charges against the respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC to which they denied and claimed trial. 3. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited documents. The respondents-accused were, thereafter, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been implicated falsely and submitted that Smt. Kailash (deceased) was living peacefully and there was no quarrel between them. The respondent-accused Dayalal examined himself as DW-1 and Ajit Kumar as DW-2. 4. The learned trial court, after trial, vide impugned judgment dated 10.03.1992 acquitted the respondents-accused. Hence, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. The respondent-accused Dayalal examined himself as DW-1 and Ajit Kumar as DW-2. 4. The learned trial court, after trial, vide impugned judgment dated 10.03.1992 acquitted the respondents-accused. Hence, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. A.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the available record. 6. The main contention of the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State is that the deceased, before her death, gave her statement (Ex. P/13), which was recorded in the presence of the City Magistrate and as per Ex. P/8, there was some quarrel regarding her maintenance. From both these statements, it is clear that under the said compulsion and pressure, she put herself on fire and thereafter died. The learned trial court, without considering all the aspects of the matter, acquitted the respondents-accused and thus has committed grave illegality and irregularity. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that before recording the alleged dying declaration, no certificate regarding her mental and physical status was obtained and thus no proper procedure was followed. Further, there is material contradiction in Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/13. It was thus submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in acquitting the respondents-accused. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 9. From a careful scanning of the evidence, it reveals that none of the prosecution witness stated that there was any quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws. On the contrary, it has come on record that the respondent-accused Dayalal bore the expenditure of marriage of Smt. Kailash with his son and thus there could not be a question of demand of necklace. 10. Further, while giving the statement Ex. P/8, it was stated by the deceased that there was some quarrel in the family regarding her maintenance and thereby, under the compulsion and pressure, she burnt herself. Ex. P/8 was recorded on 21.01.1988 and while recording Ex. P/8, her thumb impression was obtained. On 22.01.1988, the statement of deceased was recorded in the presence of the City Magistrate, Udaipur wherein she stated that since marriage, she was being tortured and since there was marriage of her sister-in-law, her father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded necklace and under this compulsion and pressure she burnt himself. But while recording statement Ex. P/8, her thumb impression was obtained. On 22.01.1988, the statement of deceased was recorded in the presence of the City Magistrate, Udaipur wherein she stated that since marriage, she was being tortured and since there was marriage of her sister-in-law, her father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded necklace and under this compulsion and pressure she burnt himself. But while recording statement Ex. P/13, her thumb impression was not obtained on the pretext that her both the hands were burnt and therefore her thumb impression could not be obtained. 11. From a bare perusal of the record, it reveals that the statement Ex. P/8 was recorded on 21.01.1988 and on that day her thumb impression was obtained whereas while recording the statement Ex. P/13, her thumb impression could not be obtained as her both the hands were burnt. Further, while recording the statement Ex. P/13, no certificate of medical officer regarding her mental and physical status was obtained as to whether she was in a position to give her statement. Further, no time was mentioned in Ex. P/13 as to at what time it was recorded as the deceased died at 10.30 a.m. on 22.01.1988. In absence of time of recording, Ex. P/13 also cannot be believed. 12. The learned trial court, while considering all the facts and circumstances, reached at the conclusion that both the statements, i.e. Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/13, were not worth reliable and that the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them vide impugned judgment and order, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 13. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. 14. Record of the learned trial court be sent back with a copy of this judgment.Appeal dismissed. *******