JUDGMENT : The appellant – State has challenged the judgment of acquittal of respondents/accused dated 4-2-2002 passed by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Criminal Case No. 42/1993. 2. The case of the appellant/prosecution in short is as under : (i) Deceased Sindhu was married with son of the respondents/accused nos. 1 and 2. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8, parents of deceased Sindhu, respondents/accused were ill-treating deceased. Her father-in-law i.e. accused no. 2 suggested her father to transfer 10 acre agricultural land in the name of husband of deceased so that they will get loan for tractor. P.W. 1 father of deceased refused to give 10 Acre land saying that he would be landless. On that count, accused persons were ill-treating her and abusing her. Deceased along with her husband left matrimonial place and started residing at Dhamangaon. After some months, they returned back. On the day of incident, deceased along with her co-sister went to the field for performing agricultural operation. (ii) It is the case of prosecution that accused nos. 1 to 3 abused deceased. They also abused her parents. She could not tolerate, returned to the house, poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. She was admitted in the Government Hospital at Umarkhed. Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration, Exhibit 63. P.W. 1 came to know about the incident, went to Umarkhed and asked her as to how she burnt ? Then she told him that “she and her co-sister had gone to the field for performing agricultural operation. She also told him that accused nos. 2 and 3 started abusing her without any reason. She also told him that they were abusing that xxxxx. She also told him that she told accused that what they had to say they should say to her only and they should not abuse her parents. Thereupon, accused no. 2 said 'shut up', xxxx. Thereupon she came back to house, went inside the house and set herself on fire after pouring kerosene on her.” (iii) Deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Nanded from Umarkhed. Again her dying declaration was recorded by A.S.I. Sharma (Exhibit 60). Her parents went to Nanded. Her mother P.W.8 inquired the deceased whereupon deceased told her that “accused persons abused her parents, her brother and sister which was beyond her tolerance, therefore, she set herself on fire”. Again her dying declaration was recorded by A.S.I. Sharma (Exhibit 60). Her parents went to Nanded. Her mother P.W.8 inquired the deceased whereupon deceased told her that “accused persons abused her parents, her brother and sister which was beyond her tolerance, therefore, she set herself on fire”. Statement of her mother P.W. 8 was recorded by police. It was treated as report, Exhibit 54. On the basis of report, crime was registered against the accused/respondents. (iv) During the treatment, Sindhu died. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. Bilolikar. As per the post mortem report, Sindhu died due to burn injuries. Post mortem report is at Exhibit 53. After complete investigation, charge-sheet was filed. (v) Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad framed charge vide Exhibit 23. Prosecution has examined in all total 12 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded. They have denied the material incriminating evidence against them. After hearing the prosecution and defence, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State has filed present appeal. 3. Heard Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/appellant. He has submitted that prosecution has proved the dying declarations, Exhibit 56, Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63. In Exhibit 56, she has stated that her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law resided together. Since there used to be frequent quarrel between her mother-in-law, brother-in-law on one side and she herself and her husband on other side, she along with her husband used to reside separately. On the day of incident, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had a serious quarrel with her putting a blame on her that she convinced her husband to reside separately. She could not tolerate the gravity of quarrel, she went inside the house, poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. When she raised shouts, her husband extinguished fire by pouring water on her person. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode pointed out evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 and at last, submitted that all evidence if considered is sufficient. 4. Shri D.R. Upadhyay, learned Advocate holding for Shri S.U. Nemade, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 has strongly supported the impugned judgment of trial Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode pointed out evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 and at last, submitted that all evidence if considered is sufficient. 4. Shri D.R. Upadhyay, learned Advocate holding for Shri S.U. Nemade, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 has strongly supported the impugned judgment of trial Court. Shri Upadhyay, learned Advocate has submitted that all the dying declarations, if taken into consideration, then it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. 5. First written dying declaration, Exhibit 63 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 12-8-1992 at 8.20 p.m. She has stated in her dying declaration, Exhibit 63 that “when she was preparing tea, the stove flared up and her saree caught fire. She was alone at home. Nobody set her on fire.” 6. Second dying declaration, Exhibit 60 was recorded by ASI Shri Sharma at Umarkhed. In the second dying declaration/statement, she has stated that, “she did not have issue, she was preparing tea on the stove, it flared up and her clothes caught fire and she sustained burns. Her husband was not at home. Her neighbours extinguished fire. Nobody set her on fire. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law resided with them but neither she had any trouble from them nor from her husband. She burnt because of flaring up of a stove.” 7. After recording second dying declaration, Exhibit 60, she was shifted to hospital at Nanded. Third dying declaration, Exhibit 56 was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, Nanded at about 8.05 a.m. on 13-8-1992. In this dying declaration, Exhibit 56, she has stated that “one year back, she got married. She did not have any issue. Her husband, mother-in-law Gunabai, brother-in-law Dutta and she resided in her house. Since, there used to be frequent quarrel between her mother-in-law, brother-in-law on one side and she on the other side, they, husband and wife used to reside separately. Yesterday, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had serious quarrel with her, putting a blame on her that she convinced her husband to reside separately. As she could not tolerate the gravity of quarrel, she went inside the house, poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. When she raised shouts, her husband came and extinguished her by pouring water on her person.” 8. As she could not tolerate the gravity of quarrel, she went inside the house, poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. When she raised shouts, her husband came and extinguished her by pouring water on her person.” 8. In oral evidence, P.W.1 has stated that father-in-law of deceased suggested him to transfer 10 acres of agricultural land in the name of his son. He refused saying that he would be landless, since then accused nos. 1 to 3 started ill-treating his daughter/deceased. Due to their ill-treatment, deceased with her husband started living separately. They were residing at Dhamangaon. Few days before the incident, they returned. He came to know about the incident and went to the hospital at Umarkhed. He asked the deceased as to how she burnt, then she told him that she along with her co-sister Kamal had gone to field for agriculture work. Accused nos. 2 and 3 started abusing her without any reason. They were abusing saying that “xxxxx” She told them that whatever they had to say they should say to her only and should not abuse her parents. Thereupon, accused no. 2 said 'shut up', xxxx. Thereupon, Sindhu returned back to he house, poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. 9. P.W.8 mother of deceased stated that there was ill treatment to her daughter on account of demand of 10 acre agriculture land. Her daughter and son-in-law started residing separately. Few days before the incident, they returned back to Krisanpur. Her husband brought Sindhu, then she told them about the ill-treatment. Her son-in-law taken her back saying that they would live separately. Thereafter deceased and her husband were living separately. 10. P.W.8, mother of deceased came to know about the incident. She went to hospital at Nanded and asked her daughter as to how she burnt. Then she told that “accused persons abused her parent, her brother and her sister which was beyond her tolerance, because of which she set herself on fire. 11. Dying declaration, Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63 not implicated any of the accused. In both the dying declarations i.e. Exhibit 60 and 63, she has stated that she was preparing tea on stove, stove flared up and her clothes caught fire, therefore, she sustained burn injuries. Last dying declaration, Exhibit 56 was recorded after arrival of her relatives. 11. Dying declaration, Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63 not implicated any of the accused. In both the dying declarations i.e. Exhibit 60 and 63, she has stated that she was preparing tea on stove, stove flared up and her clothes caught fire, therefore, she sustained burn injuries. Last dying declaration, Exhibit 56 was recorded after arrival of her relatives. There is material substance in the defence of accused that it was recorded as per the say of her parents. This defence is supported by cross-examination of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 (Police Patil). P.W.2 is nearest relative of deceased and her father P.W.1 Narayan, who is husband of his wife's sister. Therefore, his evidence is material. He has stated in his cross-examination that accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing separately in the field. Deceased and her husband (accused no. 3) were residing in the village. He has further stated that accused no. 2 had gone to Maregaon on the day of incident. This witness had gone to Nanded. He had talk with deceased in the hospital at Nanded. That time, she told him that she was burnt because of explosion of stove. 12. P.W.6 Kashirao Kadam, Police Patil of village has stated in his evidence that he came to know about the incident, therefore, he lodged report about the incident. In the cross-examination, he has stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 used to live in farm house. Deceased and her husband used to reside in the house in front of flour mill. He learnt at the time of lodging report that Sindhu was burnt due to explosion of stove. P.W.7 has stated in his cross-examination that deceased told him that accused no. 2 was not present on the day of incident. There is material omission brought in his evidence in respect of ill-treatment made by the accused. 13. Now, it is settled law that accused can be convicted only on the basis of dying declaration provided that dying declaration should inspire confidence of the Court. In the present case, first and second dying declaration, Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63 clearly show that deceased was preparing tea on stove, due to flaring up of stove, her cloths caught fire and she sustained burn injuries. Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63 are corroborated by evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 (Police Patil). In the present case, first and second dying declaration, Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63 clearly show that deceased was preparing tea on stove, due to flaring up of stove, her cloths caught fire and she sustained burn injuries. Exhibit 60 and Exhibit 63 are corroborated by evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 (Police Patil). P.W.2 has specifically stated that when he asked deceased about the burns, then she replied that she was preparing tea on stove, she caught fire and burned. P.W. 6 has stated in his cross-examination that while lodging the report, he came to know that deceased was preparing tea on stove, she caught fire because of flaring up of stove. 14. Dying declaration, Exhibit 56 was recorded after arrival of her parents. There is every possibility of tutoring her. Exhibit 56 itself not implicated accused no. 3. P.W.2 and P.W.7 admitted that accused no. 2 was not present at the time of incident. 15. During the trial, accused/respondent nos. 1 and 2 died, therefore, the appeal abated against them vide order dated 12-4-2017. The appeal is pending against only accused/ respondent no. 3. From perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8, the material allegations appears to be against accused nos. 1 and 2. Oral dying declarations and dying declaration, Exhibit 56 are not reliable and trustworthy. 16. The burden to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution whereas burden to prove the defence is very lesser. Accused has to prove his defence by preponderance of probability. The defence of accused that deceased was preparing tea on stove and while preparing tea on stove, she caught fire and sustained burn injuries and died. The probable defence is proved by the accused persons. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly given its finding holding that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused. Findings recorded by trial Court are perfectly legal and correct. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, appeal deserves to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond of accused/respondent no. 3 stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court.