JUDGMENT : Vibha Kankanwadi, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, by prosecution challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 and 504 of Indian Penal Code by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2007 on 01-02-2008. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case was that deceased Jayashree Dilip Bhosale was 18 years old girl resident of Jogshelu, Taluka Sindkheda, District Dhule. She was residing with her parents and sister. She was educated up to 10th standard. Her mother Nitabai was member of a Mahila Bachat Gat. Accused Ashabai Desale was also member of the same Bhachat Gat. Jayashree was admitted in Rural Hospital with burn injuries on 13-04-2007. She gave statement before Police Inspector that she had gone to one Sangeeta Patil around 10 a. m. on that day to give blouse for stitching. Accused uttered that there is misappropriation of amount of Rs.1,400/- of Bachat Gat. This was in fact addressed after witnessing Jayashree. When Jayashree asked accused about it, accused gave abuses in filthy language. At that time, mother and other persons from the vicinity were present. When Jayashree was in the courtyard of accused, accused brought kerosene drum and matchbox. Then she poured kerosene on the person of Jayashree and ignited the matchstick and set her to fire around 3.00 p.m. Jayashree was then admitted by her mother and others to the hospital. On the basis of said statement, offence came to be registered against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 of Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 20/07. 3. After the offence was registered, investigation was carried out. Panchnama of the spot was executed with the help of two panchas. Another statement of Jayashree came to be recorded through Executive Magistrate. Statement of some witnesses were recorded. Jayashree expired on 13-04-2007. Inquest panchnama was executed and dead body was sent for postmortem. Accused came to be arrested. Her clothes came to be seized. Clothes of deceased were also seized. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. Chargesheet has been filed after the completion of the investigation. 4. Accused appeared before the learned Trial Court. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC came to be framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Trial has been conducted. Clothes of deceased were also seized. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. Chargesheet has been filed after the completion of the investigation. 4. Accused appeared before the learned Trial Court. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC came to be framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Trial has been conducted. Taking into consideration the evidence and hearing both sides; the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Hence, present appeal was filed by the prosecution in order to challenge the acquittal. 5. Heard learned A.P.P. Shri. A.A. Jagatkar for the State/prosecution and learned Advocate Shri P.B. Pawar for respondent. Perused the record. 6. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. Prosecution has proved both the dying declarations given by deceased Jayashree. Both the dying declarations were consistent. Minor difference had not affected the story. It was categorically stated by the deceased that accused had brought the kerosene can and set her to fire. The reason behind the said act was that deceased was asking accused as to why she was blaming her for the misappropriation of funds of Bachat Gat. The evidence of dying declarations were supported by testimony of mother of the deceased. She was the eye witness to the incident. When there was direct evidence on record, learned Trial Court ought to have held accused guilty of committing murder of Jayashree. 7. Per contra, the learned Advocate for respondent/accused has relied on the reasons given by the learned Trial Court while acquitting accused. 8. In this case, accused has admitted the spot panchnama Ex. 12, Inquest panchanama Ex.13, Provisional Postmortem Ex.14, arrest panchnama Ex.15, letter to Chemical Analyser Ex.16. Thus, it can be seen that accused is almost admitting that Jayashree had sustained burn injuries. Prosecution has relied on two dying declarations and testimony of PW 4 Nita mother of the deceased. The first dying declaration, on the basis of which offence was registered, was recorded by P.I. Jadhav. He has deposed that after he had received the information about the admission of Jayashree in the hospital, he went to record her statement. He has recorded the statement between 11.40 a.m. To 12.00 p.m. PW 3 Dr. Kakde had given endorsement about mental state of Jayashree. According to him, the said statement was over by 11.55 a.m. He has made endorsement to that effect. He has recorded the statement between 11.40 a.m. To 12.00 p.m. PW 3 Dr. Kakde had given endorsement about mental state of Jayashree. According to him, the said statement was over by 11.55 a.m. He has made endorsement to that effect. There is another dying declaration of Jayashree which is stated to have been recorded by Executive Magistrate PW 2 Vilas Patil (Ex.24). The time on the said dying declaration is 11.55 a.m. To 12.05 p.m. Thus, there appears to be some overlapping in the time of recording of two dying declarations, which create doubt. In fact, when at the beginning of both the statements, when it was expected that PW 3 Dr. Kakde would have examined Jayashree, some time might have been consumed. Dr. Kakde does not say that since, Executive Magistrate came immediately, and he had examined Jayashree at the conclusion of earlier statement, he had not examined her again. Thus, it appears that Medical Officer has given the endorsements in causal manner. In the dying declaration written by Executive Magistrate, there is absolutely no mention about recording of statement earlier by the police. It is therefore, hard to believe that within few minutes, a second statement would have been recorded. The record rather shows that at one point of time i.e. between 11.55 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. both the persons recording dying declaration were present near deceased. But they both do not claim that there was such a situation. 9. Another fact, that is required to be noted in respect of dying declarations that PW 4 Nita has admitted that she was present at the time of recording of the statements of her daughter. She had also given the history at the time of admitting Jayashree in the hospital. If Jayashree was conscious and was able to speak, as per the testimony of Dr. Kakde, then why the history was not taken from her ? No doubt, mere presence of relative of the deceased at the time of recording of dying declaration is not the circumstance which can be inferred against prosecution. However, in order to make such statement believable, it was necessary for the prosecution to remove the shadow of doubts from the dying declarations. No doubt, mere presence of relative of the deceased at the time of recording of dying declaration is not the circumstance which can be inferred against prosecution. However, in order to make such statement believable, it was necessary for the prosecution to remove the shadow of doubts from the dying declarations. Why both the persons, who had recorded the statements of Jayashree, had not taken precaution and had asked the relatives of deceased to go out side, has not been explained by them. 10. PW 4 Nita is the only so called eye witness who has been examined by the prosecution. In fact, other persons were also stated to be present at the time of alleged incident. No reasonable ground has been shown for not examining other eyewitnesses. PW 4 Nita has deposed that Jayashree had gone to make inquiry about the say of accused regarding misappropriation of amount in Bachat Gat. According to her, Jayashree had gone in front of house of accused. PW 4 Nita claims that she was inside the kitchen. PW 4 Nita heard noise and then came out. The distance between the house of accused and that of deceased is said to be 25 feet. PW 4 Nita has deposed that she saw that accused went and brought kerosene and matchbox. Accused poured kerosene on the person of deceased and then set her to fire. The natural conduct on her part would have been to interfere and stop accused from doing any act. But she does not say anything about it. According to PW 4 Nita, about 20 persons had gathered at the spot. How any one could not have resisted accused is a question. How they extinguished the fire has not been stated properly. PW 4 Nita has deposed in cross, that she had not seen her daughter going towards the house of accused. That means, mother had no idea that daughter would go to accused to question about remark. According to her, when accused told deceased that her mother has misappropriated the amount, the quarrel had started. The dying declaration gives different picture. Important point to be noted is that even after allegedly pouring kerosene, how Jayashree would not have tried to run away? Therefore, the said story itself is unbelievable. 11. Another fact to be noted is that, Jayashree was not a member of Bachat Gat. The dying declaration gives different picture. Important point to be noted is that even after allegedly pouring kerosene, how Jayashree would not have tried to run away? Therefore, the said story itself is unbelievable. 11. Another fact to be noted is that, Jayashree was not a member of Bachat Gat. Neither Jayashree nor Nita have stated that Nita was entrusted with the money of the Bachat Gat. She has stated that her mother is member of the Bachat Gat. If she was not holding any post in the group, then there was no question of misappropriation by Nita or making of any allegation against her. There would have been no reason for the deceased to go to accused to ask anything. Even if the scanty evidence about Nita being Chairman of the Bachat Gat is taken into consideration, yet, Nita would have been the proper person to ask questions to accused. There was nothing for Jayashree to act in such way. It appears that due to some enmity, name of the accused has been disclosed. The independent witness PW 5 Anitabai has turned hostile. Thus, the dying declarations appear to be tutored one. A dying declaration can be solely relied for convicting an accused only when it inspires confidence. The corroborating evidence of PW 4 Nita cast doubt over the dying declarations, so also independently also they appear to be not reliable for the reasons stated above. In Rasheed Beg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1974 (4) SCC 264 : AIR 1974 SC 332 ], it has been held that, “Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence”. Here in this case, though the report of Chemical Analyser states that there were kerosene residues on the saree, seized from accused; yet, when the other facts are not proved by the prosecution, the said circumstance is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. The learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was the possible view on the basis of evidence that was adduced, hence, merely because second view is possible, it can not be taken by the appellate Court. Hence, following order : ORDER 1. Appeal is hereby dismissed. 2. It was the possible view on the basis of evidence that was adduced, hence, merely because second view is possible, it can not be taken by the appellate Court. Hence, following order : ORDER 1. Appeal is hereby dismissed. 2. The bail bonds of accused to continue for a further period of 6 months in view of Sec. 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure.