JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28/01/2005 recorded by the learned Assistant Judge, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2004 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Reetaben Popatsinh Chavda was residing at Block No. 40/3, Sector-27, Gandhinagar with her family. Her husband was working as a Police Constable. She had five elder brother-in-laws who are residing at Rangpur. The respondent-accused is her elder brother-in-law who was managing the affairs of the family. They all have their independent residential premises. On 23rd November 2002 at about 3:00 p.m., when the complainant was alone in her house, the respondent came there and demanded the money which was unpaid as the complainant had to pay Rs. 50,000/- out of which only Rs. 15,000/- was paid. The respondent demanded said unpaid money and gave threat that if she does not pay the remaining amount of money, she should die and on account of the same, she was feeling offended and poured kerosene over herself, set fire and committed suicide. Thereafter, as she started shouting, people gathered there and police van also came there. Thereafter, she was admitted to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar. From there, she was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital where the aforesaid complaint was registered. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. As during the course of treatment, the complainant has expired, report has been made to add Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the concerned Magistrate. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 100 of 2004. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined about six witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence in the nature of panchnama and pm report, dying declaration etc.. 4. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined about six witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence in the nature of panchnama and pm report, dying declaration etc.. 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 28/01/2005. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 6. This Court has heard Mr. Rutvij Oza, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent. 7. It is contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also submitted by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code which requires to be reverted as such and the accused is required to be convicted. Mr. Rutvij Oza, learned APP has argued that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence at Exh.16 as well as Exh.18 which were dying declarations before the Executive Magistrate as well as Police wherein the deceased is clearly involving the present respondent due to demand of unpaid money as well as he uttered the words that she has to either pay the remaining money or die which led her to commit suicide. In that view of the matter, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is required to be reversed and the accused is required to be convicted as such for the offences punishable under Section 498(a) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and has argued that except the aforesaid two dying declarations, there is no evidence on record. On the contrary, the parents of deceased Reetaben have narrated the incident as accidental burns due to which she died. Consequently therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court. 9. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as paper book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondent. 10. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties to the present proceedings and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, it clearly reveals that as per the prosecution version, the deceased was residing at Block No. 40/3, Sector No. 27, Gandhinagar and she was residing along with her husband who was serving as Police Constable. The respondent-accused was residing at village Rangpur, Taluka Mansa, District Gandhinagar and the respondent used to manage the affairs of the family of deceased as well as other five brothers and on 23/11/2002, at about 3:00 p.m. while the complainant was alone in her house, at that time, the respondent-accused came there and demanded remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- which was to be given as the share for the property purchased as joint ownership amongst the brothers and the deceased was also asked to pay the same or to die due to which she felt offended and therefore, poured kerosene over herself, set fire and thereby committed suicide and thereafter started shouting due to which people gathered there and she was admitted to the Hospital at Gandinagar and thereafter shifted to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad where her dying declarations were recorded. 11. 11. In order to bring home the guilt against the respondent, the prosecution has examined parents of the deceased Reetaben as prosecution witness Nos. 1 and 2. In their depositions, the parents of the deceased deposed that their daughter was married to Popatsinh Nathusinh seven years prior to the incident and while she was staying at Gandhinagar and while cooking, she got fire burns and due to which she sustained burn injuries. Over and above, the prosecution has also examined the doctor who had carried out the postmortem of deceased Reeta as well as Executive Magistrate and Investigating Officer and also learned trial court has taken on record the complaint, dying declaration, panchnamas as well as other relevant documents. 12. As per the postmortem report at Exh.13, injured Reeta Popatbhai died due to septicemia and extensive burns over her body on 03/12/2002 i.e. after about eleven days from the incident. The doctor who had performed autopsy has admitted that she died due to burn injuries and is not in a position to say whether the injuries are in the nature of accidental or suicidal. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, two stories are revealing before the learned trial court. One story as per the prosecution case wherein the parents of the deceased have deposed that she died due to accidental injury caused during the course of preparing food. The same story is also revealed from the janva jog entry No. 264 of 2002 which appears to have been recorded by the police on 23/11/2002 at 4:30 p.m. wherein also it was recorded that she accidentally got fire burns while preparing food and therefore she was brought to the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar. Another story which is revealed from the record and proceedings in dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 23/11/2002 at about 21:15 hours and completed at 21:35 hours wherein the injured Reetaben has narrated that she was residing with her husband at Block No. 40/3, Sector No. 27, Gandhinagar and the cause of injury narrated before the Executive Magistrate that today at about 3:00 o'clock, his brother-in-law i.e. respondent-Narendrasinh came and demanded money and threatened her to die due to which she poured kerosene over her body, set fire and committed suicide. The incident occurred due to cruelty meted out by her brother-in-law Narendrasinh. No one else has ill treated her. 13. Exh. The incident occurred due to cruelty meted out by her brother-in-law Narendrasinh. No one else has ill treated her. 13. Exh. 18 has been recorded by the Police Sub Inspector, Gandhinagar wherein she has narrated that her five brother-in-laws are residing at village Rangpur and she was residing with her husband at Gandhinagar and she has married for about seven years prior to the incident and there was no ill treatment from her husband. On 23/11/2002, at about 3:00 p.m. while she was alone, her brother-in-law Narendrasinh came to her house and demanded unpaid amount of Rs. 35,000/- of the joint property purchased by them. Narendrasinh directed her either to pay the remaining amount or to die due to which she pored kerosene on herself, set fire and committed suicide. She has further narrated that she was not fully conscious yesterday while her statement was recorded and at that time, due to excessive burn, she was suffering from severe pain due to which she has no idea as to what she had stated on the previous day. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no iota of oral evidence which connects the respondent with the crime. Only aforesaid two dying declarations at Exh.16 and Exh.18 are available. It may be scrutinized that while recording Exh.18, the Police Officer has not taken any fitness certificate from the doctor where she was been treated whereas the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Exh.16 discloses at the end of the certificate that she was conscious at 9:50 p.m. on 23/11/2002 whereas the dying declaration was recorded between 21:15 to 21:35 hours. In that view of the matter, it appears that the endorsement was made after recording the aforesaid dying declarations for about 15 minutes later on whereas in the complaint recorded on the subsequent day by the police, she has herself narrated that on the previous day, while her statement was recorded, she was suffering from severe pain due to which she did not knew what she had stated on the previous day. On conjoint reading of both the dying declarations, if we may read dying declaration at Exh.18 i.e. the dying declaration by the Executive Magistrate, the same got excluded in view of the statement made at Exh.18 that as she was suffering from severe pain at the time of recording her dying declaration on the previous day, she did not knew as to what she had stated. Even otherwise also the deceased has sustained more than 90% burn injuries and she was undergoing indoor treatment. Not only her consciousness is required to be ascertained but certificate in the nature of certifying that she is in fit condition of mind to give the dying declaration was required to be taken from the concerned doctor before recording aforesaid dying declaration as well as complaint which has not been done so far by the Executive Magistrate as well as PSI, Gandhinagar. In the result, taking into consideration the contrary evidence on record as she died due to accidental injury as per the say of her own parents, the dying declarations are not believable and it creates great doubt. The trial court has elaborately dealt with the aforesaid issue and discussed the same and rightly not believed the dying declarations and rightly acquitted the accused from the offence alleged against him. 15. For the reasons recorded as above, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him which calls for no interference by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 16. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.