ORDER : Accused no. 3 - Vanrajsinh Harubha Zhala married the deceased Neelamben on 11.2.2000. Neelamben allegedly suffered burn injuries on 9.5.2000 at 4.00 p.m. Based on the above incident, criminal prosecution was initiated against Harubha Jilubha Shala (accused no.1) - father-in-law of the deceased Neelamben, Janakba Harubha Zhala (accused no.2) - mother-in-law of the deceased Neelamben, Vanrajsinh Harubha Zhala (accused no.3) - husband of the deceased Neelamben, Yogesh Harubha Zhala (accused no.4) - brother of the husband of the deceased Neelamben, and Binaben Mahendra Jadeja (accused no.5) - sister of accused no.3 and daughter of accused nos. 1 and 2. 2. Sessions Case No. 354 of 2000 was entrusted to the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. On the conclusion of the trial, accused nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted, whereas, accused nos. 1 to 3 were convicted. Accused nos. 1 to 3 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof, and were sentenced to life imprisonment therefor. The same accused were also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years on this count. All the three accused were also found guilty of having committed an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years under the instant provision. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. All the three accused, convicted by the trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2001 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'). The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2009, dismissed the appeal. The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court on 11.02.2009 has been assailed only on behalf of two accused, namely, accused no.1 - Harubha Jilubha Zhala, the father-in-law of the deceased - Neelamben, and accused no.3 - Vanrajsinh Harubha Zhala, the husband of the deceased - Neelamben. 4. During the course of hearing it emerged, that the conviction of the accused was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased - Neelamben. It would be relevant to mention, that there were as many as five dying declarations. The details of the dying declarations are being recorded hereunder. 5. 4. During the course of hearing it emerged, that the conviction of the accused was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased - Neelamben. It would be relevant to mention, that there were as many as five dying declarations. The details of the dying declarations are being recorded hereunder. 5. The first dying declaration was made by Neelamben on the date of occurrence itself, namely, on 9.5.2000 at 6 p.m., before Dr. Amit Dinubhai Patel - PW3, at Heena Surgical Hospital. While recording in case history of the deceased Neelamben, PW3 affirmed that the deceased had informed him, that the burn injuries suffered by her, were based on acts of the accused. The aforesaid medical history constituted a part of the prosecution evidence, as exhibit 22. It is therefore apparent that PW3 - Dr. Amit Dinubhai Patel, while recording the dying declaration affirmed, that the accused were culpable of the burn injuries suffered by the deceased. 6. The second dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate - Savdanji Vajaji Darbar - PW2, and was accepted as exhibit 20. The same was also recorded on the date of occurrence, namely, on 9.5.2000 at 8.20 p.m. Herein also, the statement of Neelamben implicated the accused for the burn injuries suffered by her. 7. The third dying declaration was allegedly recorded by P.S.I. R.D. Pandya on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 9.5.2000 at 9.30 p.m. It is available on the record of the trial Court as exhibit 41. It would be relevant to mention, that P.S.I. - R.D. Pandya was not produced as a prosecution witness, nor did the accused produce him as a defence witness. It is also relevant to record, that as per the dying declaration recorded by the P.S.I. - R.D. Pandya, the deceased had suffered burn injuries on account of an accident. 8. The fourth dying declaration was made by the deceased - Neelamben to her father - Dilipsinh Bhavsinh Vaghela - PW1. It was also recorded on the date of occurrence, namely, on 9.5.2000. It is available on the record of the case as exhibit 17. This dying declaration also implicated the accused of the burn injuries. Based on the dying declaration made by the deceased to her father - PW1, the first information report, exhibit 18, came to be registered. 9. It was also recorded on the date of occurrence, namely, on 9.5.2000. It is available on the record of the case as exhibit 17. This dying declaration also implicated the accused of the burn injuries. Based on the dying declaration made by the deceased to her father - PW1, the first information report, exhibit 18, came to be registered. 9. The last, i.e., the fifth dying declaration was recorded by the Police Inspector Vachchani - PW6 on the day following the date of occurrence, namely, on 10.5.2000. Before PW6, the deceased Neelamben also disclosed, that her burn injuries had been suffered on account of the acts of the accused. The statement made by the deceased to PW6, is available on the record of the case as exhibit 34. 10. Based on the aforesaid dying declarations, the trial Court, as also, the High Court concluded the guilt of the appellants, before this Court. 11. In order to canvass for the acquittal of the appellants, learned counsel raised a series of submissions. The first contention advanced at the hands of the appellant was, that it was the accused who informed the parents of the deceased immediately after the occurrence. It was also submitted by the learned counsel, that it was the accused who had taken the deceased to Meena Surgical Hospital, Naroda, immediately after the occurrence, and if it had been their intention to kill her, they would not have taken the deceased to the hospital. It was also the submission of the learned counsel, that the panchnama recorded at the place of the incident, does not indicate any resistance at the hands of the deceased - Neelamben. It was submitted that an adult, who is aware of what is likely to happen, in the circumstances in which Neelamben found herself on 9.5.2000, would have resisted with her fullest might. But the scene of the incident reveals, that no resistance was made at the behest of the Neelamben, at the time of occurrence. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that if the accused had sprinkled kerosene on Neelamben, so as to set her ablaze, the kerosene would also have been found on the floor, at the place of occurrence. However, it is contended that there were no traces of kerosene on the floor, at the place of occurrence. However, it is contended that there were no traces of kerosene on the floor, at the place of occurrence. Lastly, it was contended, that even though a plastic container was found at the place of occurrence, it was found to contain 4.7 litres of kerosene, whereas, the capacity of the container was merely 5 litres. It was submitted, that if the accused had any intention to kill the deceased - Neelamben, they would have poured more kerosene over her, specially when 5 litres of kerosene was available. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the dying declarations recorded by the different prosecution witnesses, as have been noticed hereinabove. We have also recorded all the submissions advanced at the behest of the learned counsel for the appellants. It would be relevant to mention, that all the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel are inferential in nature. However, insofar as the dying declarations are concerned, they are express and specific. It is therefore not possible for us to accede to and accept, that the inferential submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants can override the dying declarations recorded by different prosecution witnesses, from time to time. It is also relevant to mention, that Dr. Amit Dinubhai Patel - PW3, an independent witness, to record the first statement of the deceased - Neelamben, while recording the medical history. He clearly recorded in continuation of what he was told that Neelamben had suffered burn injuries, at the hands of the accused. Another independent witness is S.V. Darbar, PW2, the Executive Magistrate who was summoned to record the statement of the deceased - Neelamben. The statement was recorded after taking all care, and having followed the postulated procedure envisaged for recording dying declarations. PW2 - S.V. Darbar recorded the dying declaration of Neelamben, immediately after her statement was recorded by Dr. Amit Dinubhai Patel - PW3. Yet again, the deceased clearly implicated the accused as the perpetrators of the burn injuries suffered by her. The dying declarations recorded by the father of the deceased - Dilipsinh Bhavsinh Vaghela, and Police Inspector Jayantilal Karmabhai Vachhani, PW6 are in consonance with the dying declarations, already referred to hereinabove. There is no reason or justification for us to disbelieve the above four dying declarations, three of which were made before independent witnesses. 13. The dying declarations recorded by the father of the deceased - Dilipsinh Bhavsinh Vaghela, and Police Inspector Jayantilal Karmabhai Vachhani, PW6 are in consonance with the dying declarations, already referred to hereinabove. There is no reason or justification for us to disbelieve the above four dying declarations, three of which were made before independent witnesses. 13. We must further meet the contention advanced at the hands of the appellants, namely, that in the dying declaration recorded at 9.30 p.m. on 9.5.2000 before P.S.I - R.D. Pandya, by the deceased Neelamben, exculpated the appellants from any role in the occurrence. She had clearly mentioned in the instant statement, that the cause of burn injuries suffered by her, was accidental. Importantly, during the course of evidence, the stand adopted by the accused was, that the deceased had died on account of injuries suffered by her because of a stove burst, while she was preparing tea. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid dying declaration for three reasons. Firstly, P.S.I. - R.D. Pandaya was never produced as a prosecution witness. Exhibit 41, i.e., the dying declaration recorded by P.S.I. - R.D. Pandaya was therefore not placed before the Court through the testimony of PSI - R.D. Pandaya. It was also open to the accused to have produced R.D. Pandaya, as a defence witness. They also choose not to do so. As a result thereof, it is evident that the veracity of exhibit 41 could not be tested by way of cross-examination. Secondly, the testimony of Dr. Jayantilal Virjibhai Satapara - PW4, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Neelamben is express, inasmuch as PW4 gave a categorical opinion, that the injuries sustained by Neelamben were not as a result of any accident, but the same could have been sustained only in an homicidal accident. And thirdly, the accused had adopted the stand, that Neelamben had suffered burn injuries, because of a stove burst, while she was preparing tea. The panchnama prepared at the place of incident, does not evidence any such occurrence. Had it been so, there would have been no difficulty for the accused, to lead evidence to substantiate the same, as the incident had taken place in their own residential premises, while they were present. The panchnama prepared at the place of incident, does not evidence any such occurrence. Had it been so, there would have been no difficulty for the accused, to lead evidence to substantiate the same, as the incident had taken place in their own residential premises, while they were present. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed.