JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22/03/2007 framing charge against him for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, Section 304B IPC and in the alternative Section 306 IPC. The learned Court of Sessions has highlighted two aspects while framing the charge. First is the statement made by Mukesh Agrawal, brother of the deceased and the second being a F.S.L. Report. The F.S.L. Report opines that Kerosene residue was detected in the burnt clothes of the deceased. 2. The petitioner was married with Indu on 21/05/1994. On 29/02/2000, just about when the night had set in, Indu suffered the burn injuries. The petitioner rushed her to the hospital. Even the petitioner had more than superficial burn injuries on his face and his fore-arms, which as per the petitioner were suffered by him when he responded to Indu's cries of anguish when she accidentally caught fire while working in the kitchen and had lit the stove. 3. The SHO PS Mahila Thana, Ajmer reached the hospital on information given by the duty constable at the hospital that a lady was brought to the hospital in a burn condition. At 2.20 am of 01/03/2000 the SHO recorded the statement of Indu in which she stated that she was married with the petitioner and was residing in her matrimonial house in Ajmer. She informed that she was working as an Assistant Clerk with the LIC. Her husband was a Station Master. That while she was preparing food in the kitchen, her husband was watching television. Due to malfunction of the valve there was a sudden burst of fire due to which her clothes caught fire. She yelled. Her husband rushed. She was married six years back and the couple were blessed with the children. She was never troubled by her in-laws. Her in-laws did not reside with her. 4. Information was given to the Judicial Magistrate who recorded Indu's statement in the afternoon of 01/03/2000. The statement is in question-answer form. Indu once again told the learned Magistrate that she caught fire accidentally. She had no grievance against her in-laws. She was treated well by the family of her in-laws. 5. Indu died on 05/03/2000. Inquest Report was prepared by the investigating officer in the presence of Indu's father Shambhu Dayal. The statement is in question-answer form. Indu once again told the learned Magistrate that she caught fire accidentally. She had no grievance against her in-laws. She was treated well by the family of her in-laws. 5. Indu died on 05/03/2000. Inquest Report was prepared by the investigating officer in the presence of Indu's father Shambhu Dayal. Even in the Inquest Report, nothing has been mentioned regarding Indu being set on fire or that Indu committed suicide by setting herself on fire. 6. Before Indu died, police recorded statement of Mukesh Agrawal, brother of Indu on 01/03/2000. Even in the said statement, Mukesh Agrawal did not speak a single word about his sister being harassed for dowry otherwise by her husband or her in-laws. 7. Suddenly, four days after Indu's death, on 09/03/2000 Mukesh made a statement to the investigating officer. The statement was a typed written report given by him as per which he accused the in-laws of his sister to demand dowry and because of which she was tense. 8. Thereafter, investigating officer claims to have seized the burnt clothes from the house. It needs to be highlighted that the seizure is more than nine days after the unfortunate day when Indu caught fire. 9. The impugned-order has overlooked nine days gap in the seizure of the burnt clothes of Indu. The learned Judge has prima-facie opined that in view of the statement made by Indu's brother on 09/03/2000 the charge had to be framed. 10. In my opinion, the impugned-order needs to be setaside for the reason it has overlooked two consistent dying declarations made by Indu which were filed along with the charge sheet. The two dying declarations are consistent. Whilst it may be true that the first dying declaration was made when Indu's husband was present in the hospital and thus, a suspicion of tutoring, but by the time when the second dying declaration was made her parents and her brother had reached the hospital. Her husband was admitted for treatment and was not present when the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded Indu's second dying declaration. The second dying declaration is consistent with the first. Mukesh also made an exculpatory statement regarding petitioner on 05/03/2000. It was later on after four days that he gave the incriminating statement. Her husband was admitted for treatment and was not present when the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded Indu's second dying declaration. The second dying declaration is consistent with the first. Mukesh also made an exculpatory statement regarding petitioner on 05/03/2000. It was later on after four days that he gave the incriminating statement. In the said statement, he gave no explanation as to why he did not say so at the first opportunity. The recovery of the burnt clothes, as noted above is after nine days of the incident. 11. The petition is allowed. Impugned-order dated 22/03/2007 framing the charge against the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence alleged against him.