JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 297(K)/2004 convicting the appellant herein, namely, Sri Padmadhar Kakati, of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for another 1 (one) year for the offence aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant, Padmadhar Kakati, (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused person'), has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. We have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The case, projected by prosecution in the F.I.R. dated 22.05.2003 and in subsequent trial, in brief, is that one Binita Kakati, daughter of the informant, Sri Manu Chandra Bezbaruh, was married to the accused Padmadhar Kakati, in the year 1998 and out of their wedlock one male child was born to them. It has been alleged that the marital life of the couple aforesaid ran into rough weather since the accused started maintaining extra marital relationship with a muslim girl for which the accused reportedly subjected his wife (since deceased) to torture both mentally and physically. 4. It has been alleged that on the night of 18.05.2003 at about 12.30 a.m. accused Padmadhar Kakati, his mother, Smti. Sashiprabha Kakati and his elder sister Smti. Arati Baksi, set Binita Kakati on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, same night and also admitted there for her sustaining serious burn injuries. An F.I.R. to that effect was lodged by one Sri Manu Ch. Bezbaruh on 19.05.2003 with I/C Gauhati Medical College Police Outpost. But the same was reportedly withdrawn on the request of accused persons. 5. Thereafter, on 12.05.2003, Sri Manu Chandra Bezbaruah (father of the deceased/victim), filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati forwarded such complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station, Panbazar for registering of the case and for doing further needful in accordance with law. 6. 5. Thereafter, on 12.05.2003, Sri Manu Chandra Bezbaruah (father of the deceased/victim), filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati forwarded such complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of All Women Police Station, Panbazar for registering of the case and for doing further needful in accordance with law. 6. On the basis of the said F.I.R., O/C, All Women Police Station registered a case vide All Women Police Station Case No. 16/2003 under Sections 498(A)/307/34 IPC and the matter was endorsed to one Smti. Rina Kakati for investigation. However, while undergoing treatment, Binita Kakati succumbed to the burn injuries for which 304B IPC was also added to the case. 7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, seized some articles, arrested accused persons, did other needful and on conclusion of investigation, she submitted charge-sheet under Section 498A/306/34 IPC against accused Sri Padmadhar Kakati and Smt. Arati Bakshi and forwarded them to the Court to stand their trial for the offences aforesaid. 8. The learned Magistrate, before whom charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence under Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, transferred the same to the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, for disposal in accordance with law. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the receipt of the case on transfer and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to frame charge under Sections498A/302 IPC against accused persons and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as 18 (eighteen) witnesses and exhibited number of documents. 10. The statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, where they denied to have committed the offences as alleged. However, they also adduced the evidence of 2 (two) witnesses in support of their plea of innocence. On conclusion of the trial and on hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court below found accused Padmadhar Kakati guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. 11. On conclusion of the trial and on hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court below found accused Padmadhar Kakati guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. 11. It may be stated that learned Trial Court, however, found accused Arati Bakshi not guilty of offence aforementioned and accordingly, she was acquitted of offence, she was charged with. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal by appellant Sri Padmadhar Kakati. 12. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment under challenge cannot be sustained since it was rendered not on the basis of the legal evidence. In that connection, it has been stated that learned Trial Court has placed enormous reliance in convicting the accused person/appellant on dying declarations which were reportedly made to P.W. 1, Sri Manu Chandra Bezbaruah, P.W. 2, Smti. Rohini Bezbaruah, P.W. 3, Sri Mridul Bezbaruah and P.W. 11, Sri Dhiren Choudhury, P.W. 12, Sri Kaushik Kashyap, P.W. 13, Smt. Sidheswari Thakuria and P.W. 14, Sri Sachin Thakuria by the victim before her death. 13. However, in doing so, the learned Trial Court ignored dying declarations which the victim woman reportedly made to P.W. 4, Mst. Sujia Begum, P.W. 6, Sri Sahadev Shah, P.W. 7, Smti. Paramjit Shah, P.W. 16, Smti. Reena Kakati, P.W. 18, Sri Dilip Kr. Baruah as well as dying declarations made to Dr. Kaushik Baruah and Dr. Parthapratim Baruah. Such dying declarations clearly established that the victim set herself on fire which ultimately resulted in her death few days later. Therefore, the approach of the Court in selecting some dying declarations for reliance and some dying declarations for rejection without assigning any reason is illegal and unwarranted. 14. It has also been pointed out that the accused being the husband of the deceased was the first man to take all possible steps to save the life of his wife since there is also evidence on record to show that he took the deceased to hospital soon after the alleged incident, got her admitted in hospital so that she could receive treatment without any delay and reported the matter to the parents of the deceased. Such conduct on the part of the accused person is forceful testimony to the fact that the accused cannot be blamed for sustaining burn injury by his wife on the night in question. 15. It has also been contended that dying declarations which support the accused were made before the persons who are quite neutral, impartial and disinterested to either of the parties to the case under consideration whereas the dying declarations which support the prosecution case were reportedly made before the persons were profoundly partisan towards the prosecution side. In such a scenario, the Trial Court ought to have rejected the dying declarations which favour the prosecution. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the dying declarations which support the prosecution case cannot be relied on for other reason as well since the witnesses who heard the victim giving statement implicating the accused with the crime in question did not divulge such very vital statements to the police while they were examined U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. Such a failure on the part of aforesaid witnesses causes their evidence on those points to suffer from vice which is commonly called as contradiction and which makes such evidence unreliable. 17. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Yusuf reported in (2009) 12 SCC 139 regarding the reliability/acceptability of dying declaration. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, urges this court to allow this appeal on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 18. Before proceeding further, we may note here what Supreme Court says in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Yusuf, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 139 regarding the reliability/acceptability of dying declaration. For ready reference the relevant part is reproduced below:-- "6. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction on the same without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Paniben v. State of Gujarat ( 1992 (2) SCC 474 ) (SCC pp. 480-81, paras 18-19) (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. [See: Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. ( 1976 (3) SCC 104 )] (ii) If the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (See: State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, 1985 (1) SCC 552 and Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar, 1983 (1) SCC 211 ) (iii) The court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. [See: K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor ( 1976 (3) SCC 618 )] (iv) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. [See: Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. ( 1974 (4) SCC 264 )] (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. [See: Kake Singh v. State of M.P. (1981 Supp. [See: Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. ( 1974 (4) SCC 264 )] (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. [See: Kake Singh v. State of M.P. (1981 Supp. SCC 25)] (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. [See: Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. ( 1981 (2) SCC 654 )] (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (See State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu [1980 Supp. SCC 455]) (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. [See: Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar (1980 Supp. SCC 769)] (ix) Normally, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. [See: Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P. (1988 Supp. SCC 152)] (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. [See: State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan ( 1989 (3) SCC 390 )] (xi) Where there are more than one statements in the nature of dying declaration, the one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of the dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. [See: Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra ( 1982 (1) SCC 700 )]" 19. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that there are 2 (two) sets of dying declarations, one set supports the accused person whereas other set supports to the prosecution version. She, however, claims that dying declarations support the prosecution needs to be treated as a truthful one since in the fact and circumstances, the said dying declarations are found far more trustworthy than the dying declarations which support the accused person. 20. She, however, claims that dying declarations support the prosecution needs to be treated as a truthful one since in the fact and circumstances, the said dying declarations are found far more trustworthy than the dying declarations which support the accused person. 20. In that connection, it has been stated that dying declarations which support the accused person were made to the persons who were some way or the other are found to be bias towards the accused persons since some of those witnesses are the tenants under the accused person whereas some others were his close neighbors. Therefore, the dying declarations which victim reportedly made to those witnesses cannot get primacy over the dying declarations made to the witnesses who support the prosecution case. 21. It is also the case of the learned Addl. P.P. Assam that testimonies of witnesses who support the prosecution case do not suffer from any contradiction as alleged by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. This is because of the fact that omission to state before the I.O. about those witnesses hearing the deceased making statements implicating the accused with the crime in question are not a serious infirmity to take such omission within the purview of contradictions so contemplated in Section 162 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the attack mounted on this count to assail the prosecution case is found far too inconsequential in de-railing the prosecution case. 22. The learned Addl. P.P. Assam further submits that though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused had taken all possible steps to save the life of his wife yet, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had taken steps to provide his wife badly being burnt, necessary medical help as early as possible. Rather there is evidence on record to show that no medical help was provided to the hapless woman till the arrival of parents of the victim at hospital when they made arrangement to provide their daughter with necessary medical help. 23. Equally importantly, there is nothing on record to show that the incident was reported to the parents of the victim woman at the earliest possible time. Rather evidence on record shows that parents of the victim got the information about the daughter being burnt by fire from sources other than the accused person. 23. Equally importantly, there is nothing on record to show that the incident was reported to the parents of the victim woman at the earliest possible time. Rather evidence on record shows that parents of the victim got the information about the daughter being burnt by fire from sources other than the accused person. Therefore, the claim of the accused person that he had done everything possible to save the life of his wife is nothing but bundles of lies only. Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 24. We have considered the rival submission, having regard to the judgment under challenge and the evidence on record. However, before we proceed further, we find it necessary to consider the evidence of Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body. He is Dr. Pratul Mahanta and was examined as P.W. 9. According to him, on 25.03.2003, he was working as Demonstrator of Forensic Medicine at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. On that day, he performed autopsy on the body of one Binita Kakati (deceased) and found the following: "Injury: (1) Incised wound (5 X 1.5) c.m. 6 c.m. above the medial malleolus. Vertically place (venosaction injury) over both the legs. (2) Derma epidermal burn present all over the body except, back of the head, back of abdomen and front as well a back of both the foot. (3) Epidermal burn found present over the perisiuly hair is signed. The burn areas appear as shriveled depressed areas of coagulated tissue, bordered by reddish blistered skin. Opinion: Death was due to shock as a result of ante mortem bum injuries as described covering an areas of 80% (eighty) and of third and fourth degrees bum. Approximate time since death: as per death certificate issued by Gauhati Medical College authority died at 11.30 am on 23.05.03. Ext. No. 6 is the postmortem report and Ext. No. 6(1) is his signature." 25. The evidence of Doctor coupled with post mortem report (Ext. 6) and inquest report (Ext. 2), clearly demonstrate that the victim died on sustaining bum injuries which covered 80% of her body surface. This aspect of the prosecution case has not been disputed by defence side. 26. We have already found that prosecution case is basically based on dying declarations which the deceased reportedly made to the witnesses. 6) and inquest report (Ext. 2), clearly demonstrate that the victim died on sustaining bum injuries which covered 80% of her body surface. This aspect of the prosecution case has not been disputed by defence side. 26. We have already found that prosecution case is basically based on dying declarations which the deceased reportedly made to the witnesses. We have also found that there are 2 (two) sets of dying declarations. One set favours the prosecution while other set favour the accused person. We have also found dying declarations which favour the prosecution were reportedly made before P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and P.W. 14. 27. We have found that the learned Trial Court had considered those dying declarations and in that connection, it reproduced the evidence of those witnesses. On perusal of the same, we have found that testimonies of witnesses have been reproduced properly in the judgment under challenge. To appreciate the evidence on record, we also find it necessary to re-reproduce the evidence of those witnesses from the judgment under challenge. The testimonies of those witnesses are also reproduced as below:-- "6. P.W. 1, Sri Manu Chandra Bezbaruah and P.W. 2 Smt. Rohini Bezbaruah are parents of the deceased. P.W. 3 Sri Mridul Bezbaruh is her younger brother. P.W. 4 Mst. Sujia Begum, P.W. 6 Sri Sahadev Shah and P.W. 7 Smt. Paramjit Shah are neighbours of the accused persons. P.W. 5 Sri Pradip Das and P.W. 8 Smt. Kayani Das are the official of Forest department in which accused Padmadhar Kakati works as Ranger. P.W. 9 Dr. Putul Mahanta is the Medical Officer conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body. P.W. 10 Smti. Indira Kalita is the Circle Officer conducting inquest on the dead body. P.W. 11 Sri Dhiren Choudhury, P.W. 12 Sri Kaushik Kashyap, P.W. 13 Smt. Sidheswari Thakuria and P.W. 14 Sri Sachin Thakuria are witnesses of the dying declaration made by the deceased. P.W. 15 Smt. Mousumi Dey is the Judicial Magistrate recording the statement of the witnesses. P.W. 16 Smt. Reena Kakati, P.W. 17 Smt. Rina Kakaty Devi and P.W. 18 Sri Dilip Kr. Baruah are Investigating Officer of the case. D.W. 1 Dr. Kaushik Baruah is the attesting witness of the dying declaration made by the deceased and D.W. 2 Dr. P.W. 15 Smt. Mousumi Dey is the Judicial Magistrate recording the statement of the witnesses. P.W. 16 Smt. Reena Kakati, P.W. 17 Smt. Rina Kakaty Devi and P.W. 18 Sri Dilip Kr. Baruah are Investigating Officer of the case. D.W. 1 Dr. Kaushik Baruah is the attesting witness of the dying declaration made by the deceased and D.W. 2 Dr. Partha Pratim Baruah is the Medical Officer recording the dying declaration of the deceased. 7. According to P.W. 1 Sri Manu Chandra Bezbaruah his daughter Binita Kakati was married with accused Padmadhar Kakati on 10.03.1999 and after one year of their marriage one male child was born who is now more than six years old. One day his daughter told him that her husband Padmadhar Kakati because of his extramarital relationship with one Smt. Mirul Haque of his office used to subject her to cruelty and demanded Rs. 10 lakhs, one Santro Car and one truck. When he discussed with accused Padmadhar Kakati and his elder sister Arati Bakshi and mother Smti. Sashiprabha Kakati they also demanded the valuable goods. In 2002 he paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to accused Padmadhar Kakati who had purchased one 407 Mini Truck with this amount their conjugal relationship begun to deteriorate even after this payment. On 05.03.2002 accused Sri Padmadhar Kakati ousted his daughter but after two days he persuaded her to go to her husband's house again. On 19.05.2003 at about 4.30 am when two boys informed him that his daughter Binita had been hospitalized due to burning he and his family member went to Gauhati Medical college and found his daughter in Room No. 46 in serious condition without any medical treatment. At 10.00 am he brought one doctor and two nurses to treat his daughter and after sometime on asking she told him that on the previous night at about 12.30 am her husband, sister-in-law Arati Bakshi and mother-in-law Sashiprabha Kakati entered her room with kerosene gallon and a stick. Thereafter, she was severely beaten by tying hand with the bed and her husband burnt her alive by pouring kerosene. When she shouted for help two local neighboring women took her to Gauhati Medical College in an auto rickshaw. His daughter made this dying declaration in presence of his family members and witness namely Sideswari Thakuria, Dhiren Choudhury, Bhaskar Das, Bimal Thakuria and Sarmani. When she shouted for help two local neighboring women took her to Gauhati Medical College in an auto rickshaw. His daughter made this dying declaration in presence of his family members and witness namely Sideswari Thakuria, Dhiren Choudhury, Bhaskar Das, Bimal Thakuria and Sarmani. He has also stated that on 19.05.2003 at about 2.00 pm he went to Gauhati Medical college Police Outpost to lodge the ejehar but he left it on the table as there was no Police Officer and at about 7.30 pm when he went there to know about the registration of the case 6 to 7 unidenitifed boys at the instance of accused Padmadhar Kakati compelled him to withdraw the ejehar and then they snatched it from him and torn it into pieces. On 21.05.2003 he could not lodge any ejehar as he was busy with treatment of his daughter and on 22.05.2003 he lodged a complaint in the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati vide Ext. No. 1 and on 23.05.2003 at about 10.00 am his daughter Binita expired. On the same day inquest was done on the dead body vide Ext. No. 2 in his presence and postmortem was done on the same day. On 27.05.03 he made the statement before the Magistrate vide Ext. No. 3. In course of investigation police seized one diary written by his daughter from the residence of accused Padmadhar Kakati. Mat Ext. No. 1 is the said diary and its writing is known to him. 8. P.W. 2 Smt. Rohini Bezbaruah (mother of the deceased) has also stated that accused Padmadhar Kakati because of his extramarital relationship with a girl of his office ill treated her daughter and on several occasions she asked him to give up the said relationship. One day she went to the house of the accused person as called by her daughter to discuss about the extra marital relationship. On another day her daughter told her over phone that her husband and her mother-in-law demanded Rs. 10 lakhs and Maruti Car from her. So she and her husband paid Rs. 1 lakh to her daughter and accused Padmadhar Kakati. On another day her daughter told her over phone that her husband and her mother-in-law demanded Rs. 10 lakhs and Maruti Car from her. So she and her husband paid Rs. 1 lakh to her daughter and accused Padmadhar Kakati. On 19.05.2003 at about 4.30 am when two boys informed them about the burning of her daughter they came to Gauhati Medical College at 5.00 a.m. At about 10.30 am her daughter Binita told her that on the previous night at about 12.30 am her husband, sister-in-law Arati Bakshi and mother-in-law Sashiprabha Kakati assaulted her by tying her hands with the bed and then burnt her alive by pouring kerosene. On 23.05.2003 at about 10.30 am her daughter succumbed to the burn injury. After three days of her daughter death she was brought to the Court for recording her statement by Magistrate. 9. P.W. 3 Sri Mridul Bezbaruah younger brother of the deceased has repeated the same story as told by his parents. According to him also his elder sister was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband due to his extramarital relationship with another women and his father paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to accused Padmadhar to purchase a 407 Mini Truck. On 19.05.03 in the morning when he arrived at the Gauhati Medical college & Hospital he found his elder sister in serious condition and on the same day at about 10.30 am his elder sister told them that she was burnt alive with kerosene oil by her husband and his relatives after being beaten by blunt weapon. On 19.05.03 though his father filed one ejehar in the hospital police outpost it was withdrawn on the same day after being compelled by some persons at the instance of accused Padmadhar Kakati. On 23.05.03 his elder sister succumbed to the injuries and on the same day inquest on the body was done vide Ext. No. 2 in his presence. Ext. No. 3 is the document in respect of handing over the dead body to him. 15. P.W. 11 Sri Dhiren Choudhury, P.W. 12 Sri Kaushik Kashyap, P.W. 13 Smt. Sidheswari Thakuria and P.W. 14 Sri Sachin Thakuria were the persons in whose presence, deceased Binita Kakti made the dying declaration implicating her husband and other relatives. Ext. No. 3 is the document in respect of handing over the dead body to him. 15. P.W. 11 Sri Dhiren Choudhury, P.W. 12 Sri Kaushik Kashyap, P.W. 13 Smt. Sidheswari Thakuria and P.W. 14 Sri Sachin Thakuria were the persons in whose presence, deceased Binita Kakti made the dying declaration implicating her husband and other relatives. All these four witnesses have stated in one word that on 19.05.03 at about 10.00 am when they were present in the hospital ward Binita Kakati told her parents that on the previous night at about 12.30 am accused Padmadhar Kakati, his mother-in-law Sashiprabha Kakati and sister-in-law Arati Bakshi entered her room and after giving severe beating her husband Padmadhar burnt her alive by pouring kerosene while their small son hid under a bed out of fear. After some time two women of the locality took her in an auto rickshaw to the Gauhati Medical college for treatment. Apart from this, part of the story P.W. 11 has also stated that accused Padmadhar Kakati because of his extra marital relationship with one Mirul Haque tortured his wife and he demanded Rs. 10 lakhs, one 407 Mini Truck and one Santro Car from the parents of Binita Kakati." 28. As stated above, some of the witnesses, examined from the side of prosecution disclosed that they heard the victim woman telling that she herself set her on fire. They were P.W. 4, P.W. 6, P.W. 16 and P.W. 18. The learned Trial Court reproduced the evidence of those witnesses in its judgment. For ready reference, their testimonies are also re-reproduced from the judgment in question in the following manner: "10. P.W. 4 Mst. Sujia Begum has stated that accused Padmadhar Kakati is her neighbor and on the mid night of the date of occurrence about two years back when she came to know about the incident she rushed to the house of accused Padmadhar Kakati and found his wife Binita with burn injuries in the ground floor of their house and on asking Binita requested her to take her to the hospital and accordingly she and another woman took Binita Kakati in an auto rickshaw to Gauhati Medical college & Hospital. On that night she remained with the deceased and she found her whole body burnt except the private part and posterior of the legs. On that night she remained with the deceased and she found her whole body burnt except the private part and posterior of the legs. On the following day she came to the medical college and when she asked Binita about the incident she told her that she herself set her on fire. After five days Binita succumbed to the injuries. 12. P.W. 6 Sri Sahadev Shah has stated that he was the tenant of accused Padmadhar Kakati and on 19.05.03 at night his landlady got burnt and police seized some goods from the residence of the accused person vide Ext. No. 4 and Ext. No. 5 in his presence. P.W. 7 Smt. Paramjit Shah has stated that when he came to know that the wife of accused Padmadhar Kakati got burnt in her house he went to Gauhati Medical College Hospital to enquire about it. In course of investigation police seized something from the residence of the accused person vide Ext. No. 5. 17. P.W. 16 Smti. Reena Kakati Police Inspector has stated that on 22.05.03 while she was serving as Officer-in-charge of All Women Police Station, Panbazar one complaint petition lodged by Muno Chandra Bezbaruah was received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate for investigation and accordingly she registered it as All Women PS Case No. 16/03 under Section 498A/307/34 IPC. During investigation she went to Gauhati Medical College for recording statement of witnesses. She found Binita Kakati hospitalized with severe burn injuries and she made an application to the Superintendent of the hospital for recording her dying declaration. In her statement Binita Kakati told her that she herself set her on fire with kerosene oil. On the following day she went to the place of occurrence and made sketch map vide Ext. No. 7. After death of Binita Kakati she made an application for inquest on the dead body and accordingly Executive Magistrate Smti. Indira Kalita made the inquest report vide Ext. No. 2. Because of the death of Binita Kakati Section 304B was added to the case. Accused Padmadhar Kakati was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Accused Arati Bakshi was granted bail as per direction to the Hon'ble High Court. In course of investigation she seized in the diary from the residence of accused Padmadhar Kakati vide Ext. No. 5 Mat. Ext. No. 1 is the said diary written by deceased Binita Kakati. 18. Accused Padmadhar Kakati was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Accused Arati Bakshi was granted bail as per direction to the Hon'ble High Court. In course of investigation she seized in the diary from the residence of accused Padmadhar Kakati vide Ext. No. 5 Mat. Ext. No. 1 is the said diary written by deceased Binita Kakati. 18. P.W. 18 Sri Dilip Kr. Baruah has stated that on 19.05.03 while he was In-charge of Gauhati Medical College Police Outpost one Dr. Partha Pratim Baruah of Gauhati Medical college informed him vide Ext. No. 9 that one Smti. Binita Kakati had been hospitalized with severe burn injuries and on the basis of this information he made the GD Entry No. 300 dated 19.05.03 vide Ext. No. 10. When he went to Female Surgical Unit No. 3 he found the lady in Bed No. 46 with severe burn injuries. He made an application vide Ext. No. 11 to the Hospital Superintendent for recording of the dying declaration of the injured person he visited the place of occurrence at the residence of the accused person and he seized one half burnt mosquito net, two half burnt table cloths, one half burnt top of Suridar, one plastic gallon containing about one litter kerosene vide Ext. No. 4. Mat Ext. No. 2(2) to 2(7) are the said seized articles. When he came to know that a separate case had already been registered he handed over the case diary to the concerned Police Officer. On 16.06.2003 Asstt. Professor of Dr. Partha Pratim Baruah of Gauhati Medical College sent the written dying declaration allegedly made by Binita Kakati to the Police Outpost." 29. It may be stated here that P.W. 6 in her cross examination specifically states that she met the victim while undergoing treatment and on her inquiry she told her that the accused set her on fire. It is found from evidence of P.W. 18 that though he examined the victim while she was undergoing treatment, yet, he did not utter any word about the victim making statement implicating the accused, her husband with the crime in question. It is also found evident from his evidence that there is mention in the case diary about dying declaration of the victim being recorded by Dr. Parth Pratim Baruah (D.W. 2) in presence of Dr. Kaushik Baruah (D.W. 1). 30. It is also found evident from his evidence that there is mention in the case diary about dying declaration of the victim being recorded by Dr. Parth Pratim Baruah (D.W. 2) in presence of Dr. Kaushik Baruah (D.W. 1). 30. P.W. 7, Smti Paramajit Shah, too supports the claim of the accused person that he is innocent. In that connection, it needs to be stated that P.W. 7 too deposes that one day, when she was in Bihu-toli, she came to know from a rickshaw puller that the wife of their land lord sustained burnt injuries. On getting such information, she went to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital. On arriving at hospital, she found the wife of the accused in a badly burnt condition. In her cross-examination, she deposes that when she met her she in full sense. 31. The discussions made above, now make it more than clear that there are 2 (two) sets of dying declarations, while one set supports the prosecution, the other set supports accused persons. On closure scrutiny of those dying declarations, it is found that the dying declarations which support the prosecution case are found riddled with serious infirmities since they suffer from vice which is commonly called as contradiction inasmuch as, those witnesses never disclosed to the I.O. during investigation that they heard the wife of the accused stating that the accused set her on fire. 32. We have also found that most of those witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and P.W. 14, being those witnesses, who stated that they heard the wife of the accused making statements implicating the accused with crime in question, are closely related to the victim woman. Such revelation coupled with fact that the evidence of those witnesses on the point of victim's making statements implicating the accused with the crime in question, being found suffering from the vice, commonly called contradiction, makes those dying declarations even more unsafe for reliance. 33. It is worth noting here that P.W. 3, while rendering statement before the Magistrate during the course of investigation clearly states that he met her sister soon after the incident but she did not disclose as to how she got burnt. Such statement was proved as Exbt. 33. It is worth noting here that P.W. 3, while rendering statement before the Magistrate during the course of investigation clearly states that he met her sister soon after the incident but she did not disclose as to how she got burnt. Such statement was proved as Exbt. A. However, while being examined as P.W. 3 he deviated profoundly from his earlier statement to depose that the accused and his mother and sister had jointly set his sister on fire. Such revelation makes the evidence of P.W. 3 or for that matter the prosecution case very unreliable. 34. On the other hand, the dying declarations which exonerated the accused from the crime in question are made to other persons who are mostly independent and neutral as well. That apart, their presence at the place of occurrence as well as their presence at hospital when the deceased was undergoing treatment was found to be quite natural and normal since they were found residing at a place closed to the P.O. 35. It is worth noting here that the accused had examined 2 (two) witnesses in support of his plea that the deceased had put herself on fire. They were Dr. Kaushik Baruah and Dr. Partha Pratim Baruah, who are examined as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 respectively. It is found from the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 that on 19.05.2003 at about 7.40 p.m. Dr. Partha Pratim Baruah recorded the dying declaration of Binita Kakati and such dying declaration was made in presence of D.W. 1 Dr. Kaushik Baruah. 36. The dying declaration was proved as MAT Ext. 1. For ready reference, MAT Ext. 1 is reproduced below:- "Injection to be initialed by persons administering and witnessing Name : Binita Kakati Age : 26 years Sex : F Hospital No. F-4121 Service & Unit : Bed :46 Ward : FSU-III MRD No. 144262 OCC : SU-III Date Medication District Treatment - Remarks 7.40 AM 19.05.03 Statement of Mrs. Binita Kakati, recorded at 7.40 AM on 19.05.03. "I had set fire on myself, using kerosene oil. It was late in the night, but I do not know the exact time. At that time, my mother-in-law was in the house, and she was sleeping. My husband was downstairs, talking to some tenants. I had not quarreled with anybody, and had done this in my free will". Statement recorded by Dr. It was late in the night, but I do not know the exact time. At that time, my mother-in-law was in the house, and she was sleeping. My husband was downstairs, talking to some tenants. I had not quarreled with anybody, and had done this in my free will". Statement recorded by Dr. P.P. Baruah. Witness: Sd - Dr. Kaushik Barua (Dr. Partha Barua) Asstt. Prof. of Surgery (Junior) Gauhati Medical College" 37. We find no infirmity whatsoever in the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 or for that matter the averments made in Ext. M. Such evidence sets at rest the controversy that on the night in question the accused set the deceased on fire. In other words, we have reason to hold that the allegation that the accused set his wife on fire on 18.05.2003 is found far from being established. 38. One may note here that P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 14 tried to project a view to the fore that the accused and his family members did nothing to provide medical treatment to the deceased soon after the incident, yet, there is indisputable evidence on record to show that the accused and his family were the persons who took the deceased to hospital soon after the incident and got her admitted there so that she could get proper treatment as early as possible. 39. Being so, the claim of the prosecution that the accused and his family did nothing to provide medical treatment to the victim woman over a long period of time is nothing but without any substance. Quite contrary to it, we have found that the accused and his family had done everything possible to save the life of aforesaid woman. Such conduct on the part of the accused person, in our opinion, does not advance the claim of the prosecution that the accused set the deceased on fire on the night in question. Rather it establishes more and more the claim of innocence of the accused person. 40. It may be noted that some of the prosecution witness tried to develop their versions on the incident in question with the progress of the case from stage to stage. They even tried to implicate not only the accused person herein but also mother and sister of the accused as well. 40. It may be noted that some of the prosecution witness tried to develop their versions on the incident in question with the progress of the case from stage to stage. They even tried to implicate not only the accused person herein but also mother and sister of the accused as well. However, leaned Trial Court did not believe the allegation that mother and sister were also involved in the crime in question and as such, come down heavily against such effort of the prosecution. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "39. In the oral dying declaration apart from accused Padmadhar Kakati, his elder sister Arati Bakshi and mother Sashiprabha Kakati are also implicated. But on close scrutiny of the entire evidence including the circumstantial evidence it is found that accused Smti. Arati Bakshi and Smti. Sashiprabha Kakati was not involved in the commission of the crime." 41. It may be stated here that courts in India always frown upon the habit of witnesses trying to make improvement to their versions on the incident under consideration with progress of the case. Such conduct makes the evidence of witnesses suffering from aforesaid vice unreliable. In that connection, we can peruse the decision of Apex Court in the case of State Vs. Sardara Singh, reported in 1970 Crl J 558. This is what happened in our instant case too which again makes the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 11, P.W. 12, P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 even more unreliable. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "7. Here we may also point out that contradictory statements at various stages of the case not only affect reliability, but also create serious difficulties for the court to arrive at the truth. If the contradictory statements are not explained in a reasonable manner and have been made deliberately and motivated by improper and ulterior consideration they run the risk of being completely ignored. In the instant case we do not find any reasonable explanation for the varying and inconsistent various given by the two eye witnesses as mentioned above. Their mere denial that they did not make such statements is not enough. Thus, considering the contradictory statements of the two eye witnesses, we do not feel safe in arriving at the conclusion that the two witnesses did actually see the happening. Their mere denial that they did not make such statements is not enough. Thus, considering the contradictory statements of the two eye witnesses, we do not feel safe in arriving at the conclusion that the two witnesses did actually see the happening. In our opinion, the trial Court was perfectly justified in brushing aside the testimony of the two witnesses, who apparently were not truthful, besides being inimically disposed towards the accused. It is, no doubt, a matter of regret that foul cold-blooded and cruel murders of two persons have taken place. There may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused persons. But considering as a whole, the prosecution story may be true, but unless there is a definite, positive, legal, unimpeachable and reliable evidence, the accused, in a serious case like this, cannot be convicted. In a criminal case, mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take the place of proof." 42. Our foregoing discussion has now made it more than clear that there were 2 (two) sets of dying declarations. One set, as stated above supports the prosecution case while other set shows the innocence of the accused person. The sets of dying declarations which supports the innocence of the accused is found to be more reliable than the other sets of dying declarations as is evident from discussions made herein before and same needs no further reiteration. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the dying declarations which favours the accused person. 43. In view of what we have discussed hereinbefore and what have emerged therefrom, we have no hesitation in concluding that prosecution could not make out the charge against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and same is, therefore, liable to be set aside and quashed. 44. In the result, the judgment under challenge is hereby set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted forthwith and ordered to be released if not required in connection with any other case. Return the LCR.