JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 348 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC for causing the death of one, Nagamani by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze on 24.2.2010 and also for committing theft of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased. By its judgment dated 08.02.2011, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused under both counts and sentenced him to undergo 'imprisonment for life' for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.M. Os. 1 to 3 were directed to be returned to mother of the deceased. The facts as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as under: The marriage between P.W. 4 and the deceased took place a year prior to the date of the incident. It is said that after the marriage, the deceased joined her husband and both of them lived happily, but however, they were not blessed with any children. Eight days prior to the Sivarathri festival, P.W. 1 brought the deceased to his house from the house of the son-in-law. P.W. 1, 2 and the deceased attended the marriage and returned back to the house at 12.00 mid night and were sleeping. On that night, the accused took the deceased from the house and robbed her two gold ear studs along with angles, two silver anklets and ran away. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that the deceased returned home with burn injuries and told him that the accused robbed her gold ornaments and poured acid/kerosene on her resulting in injuries on her body. When the deceased narrated the incident to P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and other relatives were present in the house. P.W. 1 in his evidence deposed that the deceased sustained burn injuries on the right side of the face, right neck portion and on the right chest. Immediately, P.W. 1 called 108 ambulance and shifted the deceased to Government Hospital for treatment. 2. On that day at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m., P.W.12 - Head Constable, Hindupur Police Station, received Ex. P15 - intimation from the Government Hospital, Hindupur for recording the statement of the injured. Immediately, P.W. 1 called 108 ambulance and shifted the deceased to Government Hospital for treatment. 2. On that day at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m., P.W.12 - Head Constable, Hindupur Police Station, received Ex. P15 - intimation from the Government Hospital, Hindupur for recording the statement of the injured. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital and found the injured undergoing treatment. She was in a fit state of mind to give statement. In the presence of P.W.9 - duty Doctor, the Head Constable - P.W. 12 recorded the statement of the injured. The Doctor, who is present there, also certified with regard to the state of mind of the injured at the time of giving the said statement. On point of jurisdiction, he sent the statement and requisition to the Taluk Police, Hindupur. 3. On 25.2.2010 at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.10-S.I. of Police, who was present in the Police Station, received the statement of the injured - Ex. P10 along with Ex. P11-medical intimation, basing on which, he registered a case in crime No. 17 of 2010 under Sections 326, 379 and 307 I.P.C. of Hindupur Police Station and issued Ex. P12 - F.I.R. Thereafter, he rushed to the Government Hospital, Hindupur and secured the presence of injured Nagamani and P.W. 1 and recorded their statements. The statement of the injured is recorded as Ex. P13. Thereafter, P.W. 10 went to Thumukunta Village and secured the presence of P.W. 2- mother of the injured and P. W.4 - husband of the injured and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence and prepared panchanama over the scene in the presence of P.W. 5 and another. Ex. P1 is the observation mahazar of the scene of offence. He seized M.O.5 - Broken bangles, M.O.4- plastic empty kerosene bottle and M.O.6-burnt sweater with hair. He also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence - Ex. P14. On 14.4.2010 at about 8 a.m. he received intimation about the death of the deceased from the Hospital. Ex. P15 is the death intimation of the deceased, based on which he re-registered a case under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. Ex. P16 is the express F.I.R. issued to all concerned. 4. P.W. 13 - C.I. of Police took up further investigation. Ex. P15 is the death intimation of the deceased, based on which he re-registered a case under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. Ex. P16 is the express F.I.R. issued to all concerned. 4. P.W. 13 - C.I. of Police took up further investigation. According to him, he proceeded to the hospital and sent requisition to P.W. 11 - Mandal Executive Magistrate, who held inquest panchanama over the dead body. Ex. P2 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. 5. P.W. 8 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex. P8 - Postmortem Report. According to him, the cause of death appears to be due to septicemia shock due to deep burns. 6. P.W. 13 proceeded with the investigation and on 23.4.2010 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W. 5 and others. On interrogation, the accused confessed about the commission of offence and Ex. P3 is the admissible portion of the accused in his arrest mahazar. Pursuant to the confession made, the police recovered M.Os. 1 to 3, which were identified by P.W. 2 as that of the deceased in the test identification proceedings conducted in the presence of P.W. 7 - V.R.O. on 3.5.2010. After completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 29 of 2010, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C., by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur. 7. After following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and as the offence alleged is triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions, which came to be numbered as S.C. No. 348 of 2010. 8. Charges under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 9. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P1 to P16 and M.Os. 1 to 6 were got marked. 10. Believing the dying declarations of the deceased and oral evidence of P.W.1, the learned Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated supra. Assailing the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 11. 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P1 to P16 and M.Os. 1 to 6 were got marked. 10. Believing the dying declarations of the deceased and oral evidence of P.W.1, the learned Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated supra. Assailing the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly would submit that there is any amount of doubt with regard to the manner in which the incident took place. According to her, three dying declarations of the deceased are mutually inconsistent with each other and as such, the trial Court erred in relying upon the same to base conviction. She took us through three dying declarations and oral evidence to show that there is any amount of doubt with regard to the manner in which the incident took place. Coming to the recoveries of M.Os. 1 to 3, she would contend that the same is in violation of Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice, as the same was not conducted before a Magistrate. 12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that even if the statements recorded by the Police are excluded from consideration, still there remains dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate, which, if inspires confidence, can be made a basis to convict the accused. He would contend, if there is some inconsistency in the version of the deceased in three dying declarations made, the Court can as well pick up the one which inspires the confidence to connect the accused with the crime, hence, pleads that findings of the trial Court warrant no interference. 13. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was right in holding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. 14. The first statement was recorded by the Head Constable pursuant to intimation received from the Hospital, which is placed on record as Ex. P10. In the said statement the version of the deceased is that on 24.2.2010, while she was sleeping in the house at about 1.00 a.m., the accused came and woke her up, and took her to Thumakunta Railway Gate, where they picked up quarrel. Thereafter the accused pulled her ear studs, hangings, leg chains forcibly. P10. In the said statement the version of the deceased is that on 24.2.2010, while she was sleeping in the house at about 1.00 a.m., the accused came and woke her up, and took her to Thumakunta Railway Gate, where they picked up quarrel. Thereafter the accused pulled her ear studs, hangings, leg chains forcibly. When she questioned as to why he is taking gold ornaments and requested him to give back, he replied that he will not give and asked her to do whatever she wants. When the deceased told him that she would inform the same to her parents, the accused is said to have set fire to her sweater, which led to burn injuries on right hand, right shoulder, right eye and face. Thereafter, she is said to have removed the sweater and returned to the house and her father took her to Government Hospital, Hindupur in 108 ambulance. This is the first statement recorded by the Head Constable which was made basis for F.I.R. 15. The second statement was recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as P.W. 6, and it is placed on record as Ex. P6. The statement was recorded on 25.2.2010 at 10.25 a.m. i.e., on the next day after her admission in the hospital. In the said statement, the deceased stated that on the previous night at about 10 p.m. while she was coming with goats, the accused came to her, took away two pairs of chains, ear studs, ginni bottu and lakshmi bottu forcibly, poured kerosene and set her on fire. Thereafter, the accused fled away. She further stated that her father took her to the hospital at 6.00 a.m. on the next day. 16. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said dying declaration, which is as under : "On the previous night at about 10 p.m., when I am coming with goats, Narasimha Murthy S/o. Thimmappa of my village, came to me and took away two pairs of chains, ear studs (Hangings), Ginne Bottu and Lakshmi Bottu forcibly, and poured kerosene on me and set fire and later Narasimha Murthy fled away. My father took me today at 6 a.m.., to the Hospital." 17. From the two dying declarations referred to above, it is clear that the versions set out therein are not consistent with each other. My father took me today at 6 a.m.., to the Hospital." 17. From the two dying declarations referred to above, it is clear that the versions set out therein are not consistent with each other. In the first dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable, which set the criminal law into motion, it was stated that on 24.2.2010 while she was sleeping in the house at about 1.00 a.m. the accused came and woke her up and took her to Thumakunta Railway Gate where they picked up quarrel, thereafter the accused pulled her ear studs, hangings, leg chains forcibly and said to have set fire to her sweater which led to burn injuries on right hand, right shoulder, right eye and face. But, in the statement recorded by the Magistrate, she refers to the incident taking place at about 10 p.m. while she was returning home along with sheep. 18. The oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before P.W.1 gives different picture altogether. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on that day his wife, deceased and himself went to attend the marriage and returned back at 12.00 mid night and while they were sleeping, the accused took his daughter from their house, robbed her gold ornaments and the deceased returned to the house with burn injuries. She told him that accused robbed her gold ornaments and poured acid/kerosene on her resulting in injuries on her body. His version is to the effect that deceased came at 4.00 a.m. and narrated as to how she sustained injuries. 19. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W. 1 is as under : "1, L.W.2 my wife and my deceased daughter attended a marriage and return back to the house at 12.00 Mid night and sleeping. The accused took my daughter Nagamani from my house on that night near Vipro factory, Gollapuram road. The accused robbed her two gold ear studs along with angles, two silver ankles and ran away. My daughter came to the house with burn injuries and told me that the accused robbed her gold ornaments and my daughter told me that the accused poured acid and kerosene on her resulting injuries on her body. When my daughter narrated I, L.W.2 my wife and also relatives were present in the house. My daughter came to the house with burn injuries and told me that the accused robbed her gold ornaments and my daughter told me that the accused poured acid and kerosene on her resulting injuries on her body. When my daughter narrated I, L.W.2 my wife and also relatives were present in the house. My daughter Nagamani came with injuries to my house at about 4.00 a.m. and narrated the incident how she sustained injuries from the hands of the accused." 20. In this oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before P.W. 1 it was stated that they came to the house from the marriage at 12.00 mid night and thereafter while they were sleeping, the accused took the deceased to Vipro factory, Gollapuram road, where the accused is said to have robbed her gold ornaments and set her ablaze. His version is to the effect that at 4.00 a.m. the deceased returned to house with burn injuries and narrated the incident to him and his relatives who were present in the house. The timing of the incident does not correlate with other material on record. Neither in Ex. P10 nor in Ex. P13 nor in Ex. P6, there was reference to the time when the deceased returned to home. In order to cover the delay, the time of her returning home appears to have introduced in the evidence of P.W. 1. 21. In view of the inconsistent statements made by the deceased from time to time, there arises doubt as to whether the deceased is really speaking the truth. 22. Coming to recoveries made, P.W. 13 in his evidence deposed as under : "On 23.4.2010 I received credible information about the movement of the accused. I along with mediators namely P.W.5, L.W.8 Buddappa left circle office at 6.30 a.m. along with P.W. 10 and also staff and reached Santhebidanur cross and found one person under suspicious circumstances. On noticing we the police the said person tried to ran away. We apprehended him and disclosed his identity in this crime. I arrested the accused. The accused also confessed for having involved in the incident before those mediators. Ex. P3 is the admissible potion of the accused in his arrest Mahazar dt. On noticing we the police the said person tried to ran away. We apprehended him and disclosed his identity in this crime. I arrested the accused. The accused also confessed for having involved in the incident before those mediators. Ex. P3 is the admissible potion of the accused in his arrest Mahazar dt. 23.4.2010 at 6.30 a.m. The accused led we the police and mediators to his house and produced M.O.I to 3 stolen articles from his house which belongs to the deceased and the same were seized under Ex. P4 seizure mahazar dated 23.4.2010 at 8.00 a.m. Then, I brought the accused to the police station on the same day and sent him to remand. I have sent M.O. 1 to 3 stolen articles to P.W. 7 V.R.O. for test identification proceedings, and P.W.2 mother of the deceased identified M.O.1 to 3 during test of identification parade in the presence of P.W. 7 V.R.O." 23. From the evidence of P.W.13 it is clear that the arrest of the accused led to recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3. The stolen articles were said to have identified by P.W.2 in the test identification proceedings conducted in the presence of P.W.7 - V.R.O. which is in violation of Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice. 24. With regard to multiple dying declarations, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the judgments of the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court dealt with issues relating to multiple dying declarations. 25. In Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 7 SCC 569 the Apex Court held as under: "21. Having referred to the law relating to dying declaration, now we may examine the issue that in cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, which of the various dying declarations should be believed by the court and what are the principles governing such determination. This becomes important where the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased are either contradictory or are at variance with each other to a large extent. The test of common prudence would be to first examine which of the dying declarations is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. This becomes important where the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased are either contradictory or are at variance with each other to a large extent. The test of common prudence would be to first examine which of the dying declarations is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. Further, the attendant circumstances, the condition of the deceased at the relevant time, the medical evidence, the voluntariness and genuineness of the statement made by the deceased, physical and mental fitness of the deceased and possibility of the deceased being tutored are some of the factors which would guide the exercise of judicial discretion by the court in such matters." 26. In Raju Devade v. State of Maharashtra 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 24 (SC) : AIR 2016 SC 3209 the Apex Court held as under: "Each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit so as to appreciate its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. In cases where there is more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the court to consider the each one of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself that which one of them reflects the true state of affairs." 27. Keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court and in view of inconsistencies in the Dying Declarations and in the absence of any direct evidence with regard to the incident and in view of discrepancies with regard to material facts in three statements given by the deceased and in the absence of any oral evidence supporting any one of the statements, we are unable to agree with the observations of the trial court and we feel that benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. 28. For the reasons set out, neither the oral evidence nor the documentary evidence is sufficient to hold the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused vide judgment dated 8.2.2011 in S.C. No. 348 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. 30. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. 30. The order regarding custody of M.Os. shall be maintained. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.