JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. At the outset, Mr. A.D. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the appellant No. 3 Parmar Hiraben Balchandbhai has passed away on 22.5.2014 at the Central Jail, Sabarmati. A copy of the death certificate of deceased Hiraben has also been placed on record. Having regard to the fact that the appellant No. 3 has expired during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal stands abated qua the said appellant. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26.06.2010, Gauriben wife of Dinesh Balchandbhai Vankar lodged a first information report before the Police Inspector, Kheralu Police Station, Camp Civil Hospital, Mehsana to the effect that she was residing with her husband and children at Lunva Vankarvas and that her marriage had taken place ten years ago. Her father-in-law has passed away and her mother-in-law Hiraben was residing alone separately in the house next to hers and her brother-in-law Chimanbhai and sister-in-law Jashiben were residing separately opposite her house. Her husband was working as a driver. She had studied upto seventh standard and had returned to her matrimonial home from her parental home the day before yesterday and at that time her husband had taken the car and gone out. At around 6 o'clock in the evening of 26.6.2010 she was present at home. Her husband was working as a driver. She had studied upto seventh standard and had returned to her matrimonial home from her parental home the day before yesterday and at that time her husband had taken the car and gone out. At around 6 o'clock in the evening of 26.6.2010 she was present at home. At that time her sister-in-law Jashiben asked her as to whom she had taken and gone away and that seventeen come to her house and seventeen go from her house (meaning thereby that many people visit her) and that she was doing dishonourable things and hence, the complainant requested her not to say such things whereupon her sister-in-law brought a tumbler of kerosene from her house and handed it over to her brother-in-law Chimanbhai, at which point of time, her mother-in-law Hiraben also came there and uttering abusive words said that today they should burn her alive whereupon her sister-in-law caught hold of her and her brother-in-law sprinkled kerosene from the tumbler on her and ignited the matchstick and set her ablaze where after her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law fled from the scene and she fell down and started rolling on the ground and at that time many persons from her locality had gathered and had poured water over her and doused the fire and in a little while 108 Mobile arrived and she was taken for treatment to Kheralu Government Hospital and the doctor after treating her referred her to the Mehsana Civil Hospital for further treatment and that now she was under treatment in the Burns Ward at the Mehsana Civil Hospital and was fully conscious and upon the news reaching her parental home, her parents have come and at present are taking care of her. She has further stated that she has sustained burn injuries over her entire body and her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law time and again used to tell her that she is bad and subjected her to mental harassment. There is no problem or harassment on the part of her husband. The incident has taken place in their locality (mohalla) in front of her brother-in-law's house. 3. Accordingly, a first information report being Kheralu Police Station I-C.R. No. 39 of 2010 came to be registered for the offence under sections 307, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no problem or harassment on the part of her husband. The incident has taken place in their locality (mohalla) in front of her brother-in-law's house. 3. Accordingly, a first information report being Kheralu Police Station I-C.R. No. 39 of 2010 came to be registered for the offence under sections 307, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the complainant passed away on 5.7.2010 whereupon section 302, IPC came to be inserted. The Investigating Officer upon conclusion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet for the offence under sections 307, 302, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the trial, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions where the same came to be numbered as Sessions Case No. 93 of 2010. 4. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined, in all, thirteen witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence on record. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for the offence under section 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. The trial court also convicted all the three accused for the offence under section 307 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. All the three accused were also convicted for the offence under section 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire prosecution case depends upon the dying declarations given by deceased Gauriben whereas there are basic inconsistencies in the dying declarations given by the deceased. It was pointed out that the first dying declaration was before Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. 5. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire prosecution case depends upon the dying declarations given by deceased Gauriben whereas there are basic inconsistencies in the dying declarations given by the deceased. It was pointed out that the first dying declaration was before Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. Pragneshkumar, the Medical Officer at Kheralu Civil Hospital before whom deceased Gauriben gave history to the effect that. "My mother-in-law, my elder brother-in-law (Jeth) and his wife (Jethani) sprinkled kerosene and set me ablaze. Since my marriage, I have been subjected to harassment and cruelty." It was submitted that the second dying declaration Exhibit 42, came to be recorded by Prosecution Witness No. 9 Rasiklal Ramabhai Oza, the Executive Magistrate, on the night of 25th and 26th June, 2010. It was submitted that in terms of the dying declaration Exhibit-42 the deceased has given details of the incident and it is clearly revealed that on 25.6.2010 she was at her residence at village Lunva. It was submitted that in terms of the version stated before the Executive Magistrate she had stated that there was an exchange of words with her jethani and at that time her jeth was at the residence. That on exchange of words, the deceased had gone towards the house of her jethani and at that time her jethani brought a plastic tumbler containing kerosene and handed it over to her husband. Her husband poured kerosene on her body and her jethani lighted the matchstick and set her ablaze. Thereafter, her mother-in-law, jeth and jethani ran away. That on account of the fire, she rolled on the ground to extinguish the same and that one Bhikhalal called the 108 Ambulance and took her to the Government Dispensary, Kheralu from where she was taken to the Mehsana Civil Hospital. It was submitted that in the third dying declaration, namely, the first information report recorded by PW-13 Ranjitsinh Pratapsinh Zala, the Police Inspector, the deceased had stated that at the time of incident her mother-in-law had also come and hurled abuses at her and at that time, her jethani had caught hold of her and her jeth poured kerosene from the tumbler which he was carrying and thereafter, her jeth lighted matchstick and set her on fire. That her mother-in-law, jeth and jethani ran away and she fell on the ground to extinguish the fire. That her mother-in-law, jeth and jethani ran away and she fell on the ground to extinguish the fire. It was submitted that on evaluating the three dying declarations it clearly emerges that the first oral dying declaration before the Medical Officer is too general implicating all the three accused. However, no details about the roles played by the accused persons have been stated. The second dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate refers to the act of pouring kerosene from the tumbler by her jeth and jethani lighting the matchstick and setting her ablaze. This dying declaration does not refer to any overt act of her being caught hold of by her jethani or mother-in-law and on the contrary, it is only her jeth who is attributed the role of sprinkling the kerosene on her body and jethani attributed the role of igniting the matchstick and setting her ablaze. Thus, this dying declaration attributes two different acts to her jeth and jethani. No role is attributed to her mother-in-law even of instigation or participation in exchange of words. It was submitted that insofar as the dying declaration in the nature of first information report is concerned, the same contains so many details and it is difficult to believe that Gauriben, who had received 95% of burns, would be in a position to dictate the complaint with minute details after treatment within six to seven hours of sustaining the burn injuries. It was submitted that the final paragraph of the complaint runs counter to the earlier part of the complaint as to the role played by each of the accused, inasmuch as, the complaint clearly attributes the role of catching hold of her to her mother-in-law and jethani whereas in the narration of facts in the second paragraph of the complaint, the role attributed to the mother-in-law Hiraben is instigation and not facilitating the commission of the offence by catching hold of her. It was submitted that though the deceased has referred to several persons from the mohalla having extinguished the fire by pouring water on her, none of the persons who went to rescue her have been examined by the prosecution. Referring to the testimony of the Scientific Officer PW-11 Rajeshkumar Mehta, it was submitted that the same clearly indicates about the use of a quilt for extinguishing the fire which was found at the place of offence. Referring to the testimony of the Scientific Officer PW-11 Rajeshkumar Mehta, it was submitted that the same clearly indicates about the use of a quilt for extinguishing the fire which was found at the place of offence. However, the same had not been sent to the FSL though it has been referred in the inspection report. 5.1 It was argued that having regard to the evidence which has come on record what is more probable is that the deceased has committed suicide. It was pointed out that as per the scene of offence panchnama, the leaves and branches of the neem tree at a height of ten feet were burnt which would not have been possible when the deceased was rolling on the ground. Therefore, it is more probable that with a view to commit suicide she must have set herself on fire and stood below the tree due to which the flames reached the branches at a height of ten feet. 5.2 It was further pointed out that the scene of offence panchnama reveals the find of three half burnt matchsticks and four unburnt matchsticks. It was submitted that the find of three half burnt matchsticks clearly indicates that the version of the deceased in the dying declaration as to lighting of matchstick and applying the same is not consistent with the find of articles at the scene of offence. It was submitted that the incident had taken place at about 6 to 6:30 in the evening in summer in a public place in the open. As per the dying declaration, there was an exchange of words. The evidence on record shows that there are persons residing at short distances in the area. However, no person residing in the neighbourhood has been examined by the prosecution. It was submitted that in the dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate, Gauriben had stated that accused No. 1 sprinkled kerosene and accused No. 2 lighted the matchstick, in which case, the accused No. 2's hands would not be stained with kerosene. If the matchstick was lighted by accused No. 2 then the burnt or half burnt matchstick would not have the presence of kerosene. Thus, the role attributed to the accused jethani in the dying declaration is falsified by the circumstantial evidence as to the presence of hydrocarbon particles on the matchbox and the matchsticks. If the matchstick was lighted by accused No. 2 then the burnt or half burnt matchstick would not have the presence of kerosene. Thus, the role attributed to the accused jethani in the dying declaration is falsified by the circumstantial evidence as to the presence of hydrocarbon particles on the matchbox and the matchsticks. It was submitted that the normal conduct would not be to commit such an act in public. Moreover, the deceased would have run away once the kerosene was poured on her and would not have waited till the accused lighted three matchsticks. However, she has remained steady. Moreover, in none of the dying declarations, the deceased had mentioned that the accused had lighted three matchsticks. Therefore, the scene of offence panchnama and the FSL reports probablise the theory of suicide rather than the act attributed to the accused in the dying declarations. It was argued that having regard to the fact that the dying declarations are not consistent with the fact situation emerging at the scene of offence and the nature of role attributed to the accused also vary, the same cannot be considered to be wholly trustworthy. Besides, the absence of evidence of the neighbours who immediately rushed to the scene of offence to extinguish the fire makes the prosecution case unreliable. 5.3 In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Prafulbhai Manilal Doshi Jain v. State of Gujarat rendered on 21.1.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 1999 wherein the Investigating officer had seized five burnt matchsticks at the place of offence as well as one matchbox. The court had held that the find of five burnt matchsticks from the top assumes great importance and that by not proving the contents of the panchnama of the scene of offence and not explaining the find of five burnt matchsticks from the top, the version put forward by the deceased sounded highly unnatural having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case also, three matchsticks have been found at the scene of offence which have not been explained by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the version given by the deceased is not reliable. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case also, three matchsticks have been found at the scene of offence which have not been explained by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the version given by the deceased is not reliable. 5.4 Lastly, it was submitted that the dying declarations are not reliable as there is no consistency qua the role of each accused. It was argued that as to who has committed which act is relevant. In support of such submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amol Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 637, for the proposition that the law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If there are more than one dying declarations they should be consistent. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case the dying declarations are rendered non-reliable in view of the material inconsistencies therein. It was submitted that such dying declarations which do not find corroboration from any other evidence led by the prosecution cannot be relied upon for the purpose of basing a conviction. It was submitted that the evidence regarding the find of a can of kerosene in the house of the accused is of no consequence as kerosene is generally being used by the persons for their household purpose. 5.5 It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 6. Opposing the appeal, Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, in all, four dying declarations have been made by the deceased. 5.5 It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 6. Opposing the appeal, Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, in all, four dying declarations have been made by the deceased. Firstly, before the Medical Officer at the time when the deceased was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Kheralu; secondly before the Executive Magistrate; thirdly, before the Investigating Officer, which is in the nature of a first information report and lastly, before her father. It was submitted that what is required to be examined by this court is as to whether the dying declarations are trustworthy or not. It was submitted that having regard to the evidence which has come on record, the theory of suicide cannot be sustained. It was submitted that the cumulative effect of all the evidence is required to be considered and that the evidence on record clearly shows that the dying declarations given by deceased Gauriben are trustworthy. It was submitted that there is no material whatsoever on record to indicate that the death was on account of suicide and that the presence of the accused persons at the scene of offence and their involvement has been duly proved through the dying declarations. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the inconsistencies in the dying declarations, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are not material inconsistencies, consequently, if the dying declaration is found to be reliable and trustworthy, there is no need for further corroboration in support thereof. It was urged that the cumulative effect of all the evidence leads to the inference that the offence has been committed by the accused only and therefore, the trial court did not commit any error in holding that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has minutely perused the record and proceedings of the case. The trial court, in the impugned judgment, has referred to the testimonies of the witnesses at length and in great detail and hence, only a brief reference is made to the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence on record. 8. Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. The trial court, in the impugned judgment, has referred to the testimonies of the witnesses at length and in great detail and hence, only a brief reference is made to the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence on record. 8. Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. Pragnesh kumar Pravindbhai Patel, Medical Officer at Kheralu Civil Hospital has deposed that the deceased was brought for treatment on 25.6.2010 at 8:50 in the evening with a police yadi and in connection with the incident she had given history as under: "My mother-in-law, my jeth (brother-in-law), my jethani (sister-in-law) sprinkled kerosene and burnt me. Ever since I got married I have been subjected to a lot of harassment." The medical officer has further deposed that the deceased had given the above history herself and thereafter he had physically examined her. According to the witness, such injuries are possible if kerosene is sprinkled on anyone. He has produced the medical case papers as well as medical certificate at Exhibits-18 and 19 respectively. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he has stated that the patient had sustained 90 to 95% burn injuries. He has admitted that such burn injuries can be self inflicted. If a person sprinkles kerosene on himself, he can sustain injuries like those sustained by Gauriben. He has admitted that in the medical certificate he has not stated that smell of kerosene was emanating. He has also stated that he is not in a position to say as to what was the mental condition of the patient. 9. Prosecution Witness No. 2 Manjulikaben Virendrakumar Tyagi has been examined at Exhibit-24. She had performed the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased. In her cross-examination, it has come out that there was no smell of the kerosene from the dead body. The post-mortem report reveals that the cause of death was due to septicaemic shock due to extensive whole body burns (95%). 10. Prosecution Witness No. 3 Amratbhai Parshottambhai is a panch witness of the recovery of the clothes of the deceased. He has duly proved the panchnama Exhibit-28. 11. Prosecution Witness No. 4 Govindbhai Narsangbhai Choudhary is examined at Exhibit-29. He was the second panch witness of the panchnama Exhibit-28 but has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 12. He has duly proved the panchnama Exhibit-28. 11. Prosecution Witness No. 4 Govindbhai Narsangbhai Choudhary is examined at Exhibit-29. He was the second panch witness of the panchnama Exhibit-28 but has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 12. Prosecution Witness No. 5 Taharkhan Alikhan Pathan is the panch witness of the panchnama of the scene of offence Exhibit-31 but has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The panchnama, however, has been proved by the Investigating Officer in his testimony. In terms of the scene of offence panchnama, the place where the offence took place is an open space about ten feet to the north of the house under a neem tree. Pieces of a burnt saree from which smell of kerosene was emanating were found at the scene of offence. There was water on the ground and it was wet and smell of kerosene was emanating therefrom. A broken match box with the words "The Pipe" written on it in English and three half burnt matchsticks and four unburnt matchsticks lying scattered over the area were found. No kerosene can or other material connected with the offence was found at the scene of offence or nearby. At a height of about ten feet from the place of offence the branches of neem tree appear to have dried up on account of getting burnt by the flames. The trunk of the neem tree is at a distance of about eight feet from the scene of offence. 13. Prosecution Witness No. 6 Azamkhan Memunkhan Pathan is the panch witness of the scene of offence panchnama. He too has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 14. Prosecution Witness No. 7 Kuberbhai Balchandas Shrimali is the panch witness of the panchnama Exhibit-34, which is a discovery panchnama made under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. In terms of the discovery panchnama Exhibit-34, an empty five litre kerosene can was recovered from the house of the accused at the instance of accused No. 1. 15. Prosecution Witness No. 8 Pravinsinh Chhaguji Rathod is the PSO, Kheralu Police Station who registered the first information report as Kheralu Police Station I-CR No. 39 of 2010 for the offence under section 307, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. 15. Prosecution Witness No. 8 Pravinsinh Chhaguji Rathod is the PSO, Kheralu Police Station who registered the first information report as Kheralu Police Station I-CR No. 39 of 2010 for the offence under section 307, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Prosecution Witness No. 9 Rasiklal Ramabhai Oza has been examined at Exhibit-40. He is the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. From the testimony of the said witness, it has come on record that he had ascertained about the consciousness of the patient from the doctor and after obtaining the same in writing, he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. He has deposed that he had recorded the dying declaration in terms of what she has stated. He has proved the police vardhi Exhibit-41 and the dying declaration Exhibit-42. He has also deposed that the Medical Officer had made an endorsement on the dying declaration and put his signature below the same. In his cross-examination at the instance of the learned advocate for the accused No. 3 he has admitted that there is overwriting as regards the timings in the dying declaration. The dying declaration is in question-answer form whereby the deceased has stated that her age is 27 years. Her husband is a driver at Ahmedabad and comes home in fifteen days or a month. Other members are her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and their four children and her two children aged five and seven years. As regards the manner in which the incident had occurred she has stated that in the evening at 6:00 she and her two children were at home and there was an exchange of words with her sister-in-law. On that day, her brother-in-law was at home. Upon exchange of words taking place, she had gone towards their house at that time her sister-in-law Jashodaben brought a plastic tumbler containing kerosene from her house and gave it to her brother-in-law and her brother-in-law sprinkled kerosene over her body and her sister-in-law lighted the matchstick. After setting her afire, her mother-in-law as well as her sister-in-law and brother-in-law ran away. Her distant brother-in-law Bhikhalal took her to the Kheralu Civil Hospital in a 108 Ambulance. Presently, she is under treatment. Her husband is not present. After setting her afire, her mother-in-law as well as her sister-in-law and brother-in-law ran away. Her distant brother-in-law Bhikhalal took her to the Kheralu Civil Hospital in a 108 Ambulance. Presently, she is under treatment. Her husband is not present. In answer to the query as to whether anyone had burnt her, she has stated "yes, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law have sprinkled kerosene over me and set me on fire and I have got burnt because of that". In answer to the query as to whether any quarrel or exchange of words had taken place previously, she had stated "yes, ever since I went to my matrimonial home, my brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law time and again used to quarrel with me. There used to be a lot of exchange of words. By and large, I used to stay at my parental home. I came from my parental home the day before yesterday. There is no harassment from my husband." 17. Prosecution Witness No. 10 Dilipkumar Pethubhai Makwana is the second panch of the discovery panchnama. He has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 18. Prosecution Witness No. 11 Rajeshkumar Rakeshchandra Mehta is the Scientific Officer, Mehsana, who has been examined at Exhibit-44. Pursuant to the message received from the police, he had come to the scene of offence. He has, inter-alia, deposed that at a height of about ten feet, the effect of heat and soot was seen on the branches and leaves of the neem tree. In his cross-examination, it has come out that the scene of offence was an open land. There were residential houses situated nearby. The quilt used to save the deceased was lying there. It was a place where there was movement of people. He has proved the document at Exhibit-45. 19. Prosecution Witness No.12 Ramanbhai Shivabhai Rathod is the father of the deceased who has been examined at Exhibit-47. He has deposed that he was informed by his son-in-law Dinesh about the incident. He did not have any talk with Gauriben at Kheralu as she was not conscious. He had talked with her at Mehsana and she had told him that her brother-in-law had told her sister-in-law to bring the kerosene can and thereafter her sister-in-law had poured kerosene over her and her brother-in-law had lighted the matchstick after which they had run away. He had talked with her at Mehsana and she had told him that her brother-in-law had told her sister-in-law to bring the kerosene can and thereafter her sister-in-law had poured kerosene over her and her brother-in-law had lighted the matchstick after which they had run away. Her mother-in-law was present at the time of the incident and was hurling abuses at her. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the deceased was unconscious at Kheralu but after being administered intravenous fluids, she had gained consciousness at Mehsana. He has admitted that Gauriben most of the time resided with them and had gone to Lunva village only two days prior to the incident. He has denied that Gauriben had not narrated the history to him. 20. Prosecution Witness No. 13 Ranjitsinh Pratapsinh Jhala is the Police Inspector at Kheralu Police Station and the Investigating Officer in the present case. He has been examined at Exhibit-48. He has deposed that he had received a vardhy from the 108 mobile that a woman from Lunva village has got burnt and has been taken for treatment to CHC Kheralu. Hence, he had gone to CHC Kheralu and upon inquiry found that Vankar Gauriben Dineshbhai having sustained burn injuries, her treatment was going on and upon contacting the doctor he informed him that since the burns were serious they were going to refer her to the Mehsana Civil Hospital and told him to follow the procedure later on. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and upon the Kheralu Police Station receiving a vardhi to come and record the statement of the woman at Mehsana Civil Hospital where she had been admitted for treatment, he had gone to the said hospital and since Gauriben's treatment was going on in the Burns Ward, he had met the Medical Officer during the course of treatment, and asked him as to whether the lady was fit for giving her statement, whereupon he (the Medical Officer) had visited the lady and stated that she was competent to give her statement, after which he had recorded the statement given by the lady in his presence and as such, after recording her statement, had contacted the doctor to inquire whether she was conscious till he recorded her statement and the doctor had said that she was fit and made an endorsement thereon in his own handwriting. He has further deposed that the accused were found on 28.6.2010 and were arrested. In his cross-examination it has come out that the scene of offence was a public land and was an open space and that there are residential houses around the spot. The scene of offence and the house of the victim are adjoining each other and at a distance of approximately 50 feet. There is no building between the house of the deceased and the accused and there is only a road which has a lot of people going to and fro. He has stated that it being evening and time for dinner, the traffic would be less. He has deposed that the incident must have taken place at about 7:30 to 8:00 in the evening and that there is no house between the house of the accused and the scene of offence. He has admitted that the offence had taken place in front of and near the house of Vankar Nanjibhai Muljibhai where the houses of Kuberbhai Ishwarbhai, Ishwarbhai Becharbhai and Maganbhai Gangarambhai are situated. He has admitted that there is an endorsement of the doctor below Gauriben's statement but there is no signature below it. He has admitted that when he recorded Gauriben's complaint her father Ramanbhai Shivabhai was present. He has also stated that Gauriben survived for approximately 9 to 10 days. He has also admitted that when the FSL Officer had come they had tried to search out but could not find the kerosene can at that time. He has recorded the complaint at Exhibit-49, the contents whereof have already been reproduced hereinabove. 21. This, in sum and substance, is more or less the nature of the evidence which has come on record. 22. From the evidence which has come on record, it is evident that the prosecution case is based upon the dying declarations of the deceased whereby she has implicated all the three accused persons. It is by now well settled that as a matter of law, the dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. The primary effort of the court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is, no question of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear or convincing that the court may, for its assurance look for corroboration to the dying declaration. The primary effort of the court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is, no question of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear or convincing that the court may, for its assurance look for corroboration to the dying declaration. 23. In Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 2 SCC 224 , it has been held that it is settled law that if the prosecution solely depends on the dying declaration, the normal rule is that the courts must exercise due care and caution to ensure genuineness of the dying declaration, keeping in mind that the accused had no opportunity to test the veracity of the statement of the deceased by cross-examination. It was held that the law does not insist upon the corroboration of dying declaration before it can be accepted. The insistence of corroboration to a dying declaration is only a rule of prudence. When the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is voluntary, not tainted by tutoring or animosity, and is not a product of the imagination of the declarant, in that event, there is no impediment in convicting the accused on the basis of such dying declaration. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assessed independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variations in the other. In the facts of the said case, though there were minor inconsistencies the dying declaration came to be relied upon. 24. In Amol Singh v. State of M.P., (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the court has held that it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declarations, they should be consistent. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declarations, they should be consistent. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances. 25. In the light of the principles enunciated in the above decisions, what the court is required to examine is as to whether the dying declarations given by deceased Gauriben are reliable and trustworthy and whether the inconsistencies in the dying declarations, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are material inconsistencies which would render the dying declarations unreliable. On a conjoint reading of all the dying declarations, the main inconsistency as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that before the Executive Magistrate the deceased had stated that her brother-in-law sprinkled kerosene over her body and her sister-in-law ignited a matchstick whereas in the first information report she has stated that her sister-in-law had caught hold of her and her brother-in-law had sprinkled kerosene over her and had lit the matchstick. Therefore, the only inconsistency is as to whether the accused No. 1 or the accused No. 2 lit the matchstick. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the fact that in all the dying declarations, the deceased has consistently stated that her sister-in-law brought the tumbler of kerosene and handed it over to her brother-in-law who had sprinkled the kerosene over her body and a matchstick was lighted and she was set ablaze, the discrepancy as regards who lit the matchstick, whether the accused No. 1 or the accused No. 2, cannot be said to be so material inconsistency so as to render the dying declaration unreliable. Having regard to the versions which have come on record, the same appear to be trustworthy and reliable and are by and large consistent. Having regard to the versions which have come on record, the same appear to be trustworthy and reliable and are by and large consistent. Moreover, as is evident from a reading of the dying declarations, while the deceased has stated that her mother-in-law had hurled abuses at her and had said that today she should be burnt alive, no overt role has been attributed to her. Had the deceased wanted to falsely implicate all the accused persons, she could have easily attributed an overt role to her mother-in-law also. Under the circumstances, the court finds the dying declarations given by the deceased to be both trustworthy as well as reliable. 26. As regards the theory of suicide which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prempal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 10 SCC 336 , in burn injury cases, two possible hypothesis arise in the judicial mind that was it suicide or was it homicide. In cases where the dying declaration projected by the prosecution gets credence, the alternative hypothesis of suicide has to be justifiably eliminated. In the present case, in the opinion of this court, had it been a case of suicide, the deceased, at the time of death had no reason to falsely implicate the accused herein who are her sister-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law. Besides, no material has been brought on record to show as to why a young mother of two children, who had no complaint or grouse against her husband, would commit suicide. Nothing has been brought on record as to why the deceased would falsely implicate the accused persons. Under the circumstances, the court does not find any substance in the defence version of the suicide theory. A perusal of the decisions referred to hereinabove shows that if the dying declaration is held to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration by any witness and conviction can be sustained on that basis alone. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate as well as the by the Investigating Officer in the nature of FIR as well as the history recorded by the Medical Officer all are found to be credible and trustworthy. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the approach adopted by the trial court in basing the conviction upon the dying declarations. 27. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the approach adopted by the trial court in basing the conviction upon the dying declarations. 27. As regards the contention that three matchsticks had been found at the scene of offence and that the deceased would not have stood still till three matchsticks were lighted by placing reliance upon an unreported decision of this court in the case of Prafulbhai Manilal Doshi Jain (supra), the court is of the view that the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the same was rendered in the context of a totally different set of facts and circumstances. In the present case, from the scene of offence panchnama it is found that half burnt and unburnt matchsticks containing petroleum hydrocarbons were found scattered on the ground. From the dying declaration of the deceased, it has come on record that after she was set ablaze she had fallen on the ground and was rolling on the ground. It is, therefore, quite possible that the matchsticks which were lying on the ground might have caught fire at the time when the deceased was rolling on the ground. Under the circumstances, the find of three half burnt matchsticks does not in any manner render the dying declaration given by the deceased to be improbable. The presence of hydrocarbons on the matchsticks and the matchbox is also quite natural having regard to the fact that it is the prosecution case that the accused No. 2 brought the tumbler containing kerosene and handed it over to the accused No. 1; therefore, both of them having handled the kerosene tumbler would have kerosene on their hands, resulting in the presence of kerosene on the matchbox and matchsticks. 28. Insofar as the contention that the branches of the trees at a height of ten feet could not have caught fire if the deceased was rolling on the ground and that, therefore, this is a case of suicide and that the deceased was standing at the time when she was ablaze is concerned, a perusal of the testimony of the Scientific Officer and the scene of offence panchnama reveal that the effect of the heat and soot on the branches and the leaves at a height of ten feet was visible. It cannot be gainsaid that if a person has sustained severe burn injuries to the extent of 90 to 95% on account of being burnt by kerosene, the flames would certainly give rise to soot and heat. Under the circumstances, such hypothesis put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants also does not merit consideration. Besides, no question has been put to the Scientific Officer in his cross examination as regards the branches and the leaves of the tree being burnt. 29. It may be noted that the trial court has also convicted the appellants of the offence under section 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence on record has already been briefly referred to hereinabove. From the evidence which has come on record, there is no material to establish the ingredients of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court has convicted the appellants for the offence under section 498A, IPC solely based upon the dying declaration. In the opinion of this court, the contents of the dying declaration cannot be said to make out a case under section 498A, IPC. Moreover, it has come on record that the deceased and the appellants were residing separately. Except the bare statement that the accused used to harass her right from the time she got married, no other material has been brought on record to establish the ingredients of section 498A, IPC. Under the circumstances, to the extent the trial court has convicted the appellants for the offence under section 498A, IPC, the judgment is not sustainable. 30. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal partly succeeds and is accordingly allowed to the following extent: The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence to the extent the appellants have been convicted of the offence under section 498A read with section 114, IPC is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence qua the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 114, IPC and section 307 read with section 114, IPC is hereby maintained. The appeal stands abated qua appellant No. 3 Parmar Hiraben Balchandbhai.