JUDGMENT : By the present appeal, the appellant – State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 7-11-2003 of respondents/accused, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 136/2001. 2. It is the case of prosecution/appellant that deceased Anita was married with respondent/accused no. 2 Vijay on 29-1-2001. Respondent/accused nos. 1 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased Anita. After the marriage, respondents/ accused started ill-treatment to the deceased. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law directed her to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parents. On that count, they were ill-treating the deceased. There was meeting and in that meeting, respondents/accused agreed not to give any ill-treatment, therefore, she was sent to the matrimonial home on 30-3-2001. On the day of incident, there was some religious program at the house of her father/P.W.1, he gave invitation to the accused. Accused not allowed her to go to her parents house and threatened her to beat and, therefore, she herself poured kerosene and set her on fire. On the report of P.W.1 vide Exhibit 21, crime was registered against the accused by Police Station, Barshitakli, District Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital at Akola. P.W.5 Noor Ahamadkha Kalandarkha, Executive Magistrate went to the Government Hospital and recorded dying declaration, Exhibit 47 in which she has stated that due to continuous harassment of her mother-in-law, she has committed suicide. 4. Again on the same day, P.W.11, A.P.S.I. Shantaram Tayade recorded her dying declaration, Exhibit 67 in which she has stated that due to continuous ill treatment of accused persons, she has committed suicide. Investigating Officer, P.W.7 Shri Sable recorded statements of witnesses. P.W.7 investigated the crime and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli who in turn committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Akola. 5. Learned Adhoc Sessions Judge framed charge at Exhibit 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has examined in all total 11 witnesses. After hearing the prosecution and defence, trial Court come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, acquitted all the accused for the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by judgment of acquittal, present appeal is filed by the State. Prosecution has examined in all total 11 witnesses. After hearing the prosecution and defence, trial Court come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, acquitted all the accused for the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by judgment of acquittal, present appeal is filed by the State. 6. Heard Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. He has pointed out me evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that evidence of P.W.1 shows that there was ill-treatment by the accused persons and, therefore, there was meeting. He has stated that his daughter when visited to his house told him that her mother-in-law and father-in-law told her to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parents. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a meeting on 28-3-2001. In the meeting, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were also present. All accused undertook not to ill-treat the deceased, therefore, she was sent back. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are proved by the prosecution. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out me evidence of P.W. 4 and submitted that when deceased was burning in the house, he saw accused no. 2 Vijay and asked him as to what happened, on that, he did not talk with him. P.W. 4 along with one Suresh Dagar opened the door and extinguished fire by pouring water on her person. Suresh Dagar brought auto-rickshaw. P.W. 4, Suresh Dagar and Madhukar Chatarkar had taken deceased to Government Hospital, Akola. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that conduct of accused shows that he was silent at the time of incident, without taking any effort to extinguish fire and, therefore, conduct of accused is relevant as per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out dying declaration, Exhibit 47 recorded by P.W. 5 Executive Magistrate and dying declaration, Exhibit 67 recorded by A.P.S.I. Tayade (P.W.11). He has submitted that in both the dying declarations, she has stated the name of accused no. 1 who was responsible for her death. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence against accused no. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. He has submitted that in both the dying declarations, she has stated the name of accused no. 1 who was responsible for her death. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence against accused no. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that death of deceased Anita was within 34 months from the date of marriage, therefore, presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is against the accused. Accused have not given any explanation in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution are sufficient to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. At last, he submitted that accused/respondents be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. None appears for the respondents. Perused the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is based on dying declaration recorded by P.W. 5 i.e. Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 67 recorded by P.W.11 A.P.S.I. Tayade. The case of the prosecution is also based on oral dying declaration stated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. 11. Evidence of P.W. 1 before the Court shows that his daughter Anita was married to accused no. 2 Vijay on 29-1-2001. After marriage, she was residing with accused. After 15 days of the marriage, Anita came to his house and told them that her mother-in-law and father-in-law asking her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from him/parents. She also told that her father-in-law was saying to press his legs and hands. He gave understanding to his daughter and sent her back to matrimonial home. P.W.1 brought his daughter after 23 days. Again, she told him that accused persons were ill-treating her. She resided at his house for about 78 days. A meeting was called on 28-3-2001. In that meeting, father-in-law and husband of deceased told them that hereinafter they would not ill-treat her, therefore, he sent his daughter on 30-3-2001. He has further stated that on the day of incident, he gave invitation to the father-in-law and husband of his daughter. She resided at his house for about 78 days. A meeting was called on 28-3-2001. In that meeting, father-in-law and husband of deceased told them that hereinafter they would not ill-treat her, therefore, he sent his daughter on 30-3-2001. He has further stated that on the day of incident, he gave invitation to the father-in-law and husband of his daughter. He told them that he will take his daughter to his residence, at that time, accused not sent her with him. At 10.00 to 10.30 a.m., he came to know about the incident. When they reached, he saw deceased in burnt condition. Madhukar Chatarkar, Sunil Palaskar and others taken her in auto-rickshaw in Government Hospital, Akola. He has further stated that his daughter told him that her husband pressed her neck and her mother-in-law beaten her and father-in-law abused her in filthy language and prevented her to go to her parents house. Her husband threatened her to cut her hands and legs and, therefore, she has committed suicide. 12. From perusal of his cross-examination, material omissions are brought on record. In the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 stated on the point of ill-treatment and harassment but those are also material omissions. If the omissions are taken into consideration, then it is clear that there is no evidence on the point of ill-treatment to deceased on account of demand of dowry. 13. The evidence of prosecution is of full of omissions and contradictions. Prosecution has relied on oral as well as written dying declarations, Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 67. From perusal of first written dying declaration recorded by P.W. 5, it is clear that she has stated in Exhibit 47 that on 5-4-2001, deceased herself poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire because her mother-in-law was abusing her in filthy language and because of that harassment, she burned her. 14. In the second dying declaration recorded by P.W.11, she has stated that “there was programme/ceremony at the residence of her father on 5-4-2001, she told her husband that she wanted to go to her parental home for the same. Her husband Vijay told her that if she goes for the said ceremony, he would cut her hands and legs. 14. In the second dying declaration recorded by P.W.11, she has stated that “there was programme/ceremony at the residence of her father on 5-4-2001, she told her husband that she wanted to go to her parental home for the same. Her husband Vijay told her that if she goes for the said ceremony, he would cut her hands and legs. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were giving harassment to her and were also abusing and since she was not allowed to go to her father's residence for the said ceremony, therefore, she went in a room of her house and poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire by igniting a match stick.” 15. Oral dying declaration stated by P.W.1 that “she told him that her husband had pressed her neck and her mother-in-law beaten her. And her father-in-law had abused her in filthy language and her husband had threatened her that if she goes to her parental home, he would cut her hands and legs. Therefore, she has committed suicide.” 16. Dying declaration recorded by P.W. 5 i.e. Exhibit 47 and dying declaration recorded by P.W. 11 Exhibit 67 and oral dying declaration stated by the witnesses are not reliable because P.W.1 himself has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he saw his daughter after burning, her voice was not coming from the mouth. She was completely burnt, entire body of his daughter was burnt. In his cross-examination, he stated that her face was burnt, tongue was also burnt and her eyes came out. This shows that she was not in a position to tell anything. Exhibit 60 is the history stated by deceased at the time of admission in the hospital. She has stated in her history that 'she was accidentally burnt'. At the time of admission of deceased, she was found having 100% burnt. Cross-examination of P.W. 5 shows that his evidence is not reliable. He has stated that entire body of deceased was burnt. He has not mentioned that thumb impression of deceased was attested. He has stated that he has not mentioned that statement, Exhibit 47 was read over to the deceased. Exhibit 60 proved by Dr. Mankar (P.W.8) clearly show that she was accidentally burnt. This Exhibit 60 is first dying declaration. 17. He has not mentioned that thumb impression of deceased was attested. He has stated that he has not mentioned that statement, Exhibit 47 was read over to the deceased. Exhibit 60 proved by Dr. Mankar (P.W.8) clearly show that she was accidentally burnt. This Exhibit 60 is first dying declaration. 17. Evidence of P.W.11 shows that he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased at about 3.50 p.m. She has stated that there was ceremony at the house of her parents. Her husband not allowed her to go her parent's house and threatened her if she goes, he would cut her legs and hands. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were giving harassment to her and were also abusing. Since she was not allowed to go to her father's residence for the said ceremony, therefore, she went in a room, poured kerosene and set herself on fire. 18. Evidence of P.W. 11 is also not reliable because condition of patient was very serious. She had 100% burns. As per evidence of P.W.1, her mouth, tongue etc. were burnt, therefore, evidence of Doctor that she was in a position to give a statement is not reliable. Moreover, evidence on record shows that she died at 4.30 p.m. i.e. within a short period after recording of dying declaration, Exhibit 67. 19. Evidence on record shows that on the point of dying declaration i.e. Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 67 and oral dying declaration stated by the witnesses are contradictory. In dying declaration, Exhibit 47, she has only stated name of mother-in-law. She has not stated any other name of accused whereas in dying declaration, Exhibit 67, she has stated that if she go to the house of her parent, then her husband threatened her that he would cut her hands and legs. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law were abusing, therefore, she was not allowed to go to her parents house and, therefore, she committed suicide. Whereas P.W. 1 has stated that his daughter told him that accused no. 2 pressed her neck, accused nos. 1 and 3 beaten her and abused her, therefore, she has committed suicide. History (dying declaration) Exhibit 60 in hospital show that she burnt accidentally. 20. Dying declaration is the last statement of deceased. Conviction can be based on dying declaration provided that it should inspire confidence of the Court. 2 pressed her neck, accused nos. 1 and 3 beaten her and abused her, therefore, she has committed suicide. History (dying declaration) Exhibit 60 in hospital show that she burnt accidentally. 20. Dying declaration is the last statement of deceased. Conviction can be based on dying declaration provided that it should inspire confidence of the Court. In the present case, written dying declaration and oral dying declaration are contradictory. On the other hand in first dying declaration, she has only named her mother-in-law whereas in second dying declaration, Exhibit 67, she has roped accused nos. 1 to 3. In the oral dying declaration, deceased had stated different version. Moreover, in Exhibit 60, history stated by deceased at the time of admission shows that she sustained burn injuries accidentally. 21. P.W.5 and P.W.11 have stated that nobody was present at the time of recording dying declaration. P.W.4 has stated in his cross-examination that he was sitting near Anita in the hospital till her death. This itself shows that dying declaration is not reliable. Those dying declarations might be stated by other person like P.W.4 because the condition of deceased as stated in the medical papers shows that she was in critical condition. She had 100% burns. Her father P.W. 1 has stated that her whole body was burnt even her tongue was burnt. In such situation, she was not in a position to talk. Even P.W.1 has stated that deceased was not in a position to talk. Therefore, dying declarations recorded by P.W.5 and P.W. 11 are not reliable. Moreover, there is material infirmities brought on record in their cross-examination. Oral dying declarations are stated differently by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. 22. It appears from the dying declaration, Exhibit 67 that deceased was sensitive. She has stated in the last paragraph of Exhibit 67 that there was religious ceremony at the house of her parents. She was not allowed to go to the house of her parents and, therefore, she has committed suicide. This might be the reason for committing suicide. Moreover, it has brought on record in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that his elder daughter had come to his residence one day before day of incident. Deceased was not allowed to go to her parents house. She did not meet her sister and, therefore, in hit of anger, she might have committed suicide. Moreover, it has brought on record in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that his elder daughter had come to his residence one day before day of incident. Deceased was not allowed to go to her parents house. She did not meet her sister and, therefore, in hit of anger, she might have committed suicide. This possibility cannot be ruled out. Hence, oral dying declaration stated by the witnesses and written dying declaration, Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 67 are not reliable. Exhibit 60 clearly shows that she burnt accidentally. 23. There is no dispute that death of deceased was suicidal but prosecution has failed to prove that she was abetted by accused nos. 1 to 3 to commit suicide. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused is not proved by the prosecution. 24. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. P.W. 1 has stated about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- by the accused persons but deceased herself not stated in any of her dying declaration that accused were ill-treating her on account of demand of money. Therefore, material ingredients of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are not proved by the prosecution. 25. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that conduct of accused is relevant because he has not taken any steps to extinguish fire though he was present. It is pertinent to note that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter burden shifts on the accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that accused have not explained in their Statements under Section of 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure as to why deceased has committed suicide. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has failed to prove its burden, therefore, burden cannot shift on the accused to give any explanation. Therefore, conduct as stated by the P.W. 4 is not relevant. Moreover, his evidence is not corroborated by any other witness to show that accused no. 2 was present at the time of incident and not taken any action to extinguish fire. 26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that deceased Anita was married with accused no. 2 on 29-1-2001 and she died on 5-4-2001, therefore, presumption arise under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. 2 was present at the time of incident and not taken any action to extinguish fire. 26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that deceased Anita was married with accused no. 2 on 29-1-2001 and she died on 5-4-2001, therefore, presumption arise under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. It is pertinent to note that though there is a presumption under Section 113A, but that ipso facto is not sufficient to convict the accused. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt, then burden shift on the accused to rebut the presumption. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Exhibit 67 dying declaration recorded by P.W.11 shows that there was religious ceremony at the house of her parents. She was not allowed to go and, therefore, she has committed suicide might be the only reason to commit suicide. Hence presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted. 27. Learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the right conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, acquitted all the accused for the offences charged against them. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bonds of accused/respondents stand cancelled. R & P be sent back to trial Court.