JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the appellant/sole accused as against the conviction and sentence, dated 13.02.2008, made in S.C. No. 215 of 2007, on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows : (i) The accused and the deceased-Kannagi are the husband and wife. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased. The accused and the deceased were residing at separate house after their marriage. On 10.02.2007 at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased suffered burn injuries. On hearing the same, P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed to the hospital. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were informed by the deceased that the accused poured kerosene and the deceased set herself ablaze, in respect of which, P.W.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P.7. (ii) P.W.4, the Medical Officer, attached to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, on 10.02.2007, at about 07.35 p.m., admitted the deceased in the hospital for the purpose of giving treatment to the burn injuries suffered by her and at that time, the deceased stated that she has sustained injuries due to stove burst, in respect of which, he has issued Ex.P.4-Accident Register. The accused was also treated for burn injuries, in respect of which, he has issued Ex.P.5-Accident Register. (iii) P.W.6, on intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital to record the statement of the deceased. However, as she was unconscious, he could not record the statement on that day. However, after the death of the deceased, he received the complaint-Ex.P.7 from P.W.1 on 11.02.2007, i.e., on the next day and registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2007 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C., under Ex.P.8-printed First Information Report. (iv) P.W.8, the auto driver, immediately after the incident, rushed to the house of the deceased, at the request of the accused, with an auto and helped the accused to take the deceased to hospital. At that time, the deceased told him that she sustained burn injuries due to stove burst. (v) P.W.9, the Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body, as the deceased died within a period of seven years of marriage and filed a report-Ex.P.9. (vi) P.W.5, the Medical Officer, attached to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.6-Post-mortem Certificate stating that the deceased died due to burn injuries. (vi) P.W.5, the Medical Officer, attached to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.6-Post-mortem Certificate stating that the deceased died due to burn injuries. (vii) In the meanwhile, P.W.-12, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration from the deceased in the presence of P.W.10-Medical Officer. In the dying declaration, the deceased has stated that while the deceased and the accused were playing, the husband poured kerosene on her and she herself set ablaze. Ex.P.14 is the dying declaration and Ex.P.15 is the certificate issued by the Medical Officer. (viii) P.W.14 conducted investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses and on investigation, altered the case into one under Section 306 IPC and Ex.P.17 is the alteration report and finally, concluded the investigation and laid final report as against the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal code. (ix) Based on the evidence and materials, the learned Trial Judge found the appellant/sole accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are three inconsistent statements of the deceased. The dying declaration is also tutored version and hence, the same cannot be relied upon. Further, it is submitted that there is no evidence available on record to show that the accused has instigated or incited the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate clearly shows that only the accused has poured kerosene on the deceased and the deceased set herself ablaze. The above act itself would amount to instigation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analyzed, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. The above act itself would amount to instigation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analyzed, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that on 10.02.2007, the deceased sustained burn injuries and immediately, was taken to the hospital. The evidence of P.W.4, the Medical Officer, who admitted the deceased first in the hospital, makes it clear that at the time of admission, the deceased was oriented and stated that she sustained burn injuries due to stove burst. It is also relevant to be noted that the accused also sustained burn injuries while attempting to save his wife. The evidence of P.W.8, the auto driver, who helped the accused to take the deceased to hospital, shows that he was also informed by the deceased that she sustained burn injuries due to stove burst at the relevant point of time. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the parents of the deceased, clearly indicated that there was no dispute between the husband and wife till such incident. The earlier version of the deceased before P.W.4 and P.W.8 would go to show that it was only an accident. Only after P.W.1, P.W.2 and others rushed to the hospital, when the dying declaration was recorded at 10.15 p.m., on 10.02.2007, the deceased gave a statement to the effect that while she and her husband were playing, there arose a quarrel and at that time, her husband poured kerosene on her and she set herself ablaze. Except that, she has not stated anything. 8. It is to be noted that the earlier version of the deceased before P.W.4 and P.W.8 was to the effect that she sustained burn injuries due to stove burst. Only at the time of Magistrate recording her statement, she has stated that her husband had poured kerosene and she herself set ablaze in a fit of anger. The statements of the deceased were inconsistent with each other. Therefore, in view of the inconsistent statements, it is clearly unsafe to act upon the dying declaration of the deceased to base the conviction. 9. Admittedly, the accused also sustained injuries while attempting to save his wife, as per the medical evidence. The statements of the deceased were inconsistent with each other. Therefore, in view of the inconsistent statements, it is clearly unsafe to act upon the dying declaration of the deceased to base the conviction. 9. Admittedly, the accused also sustained injuries while attempting to save his wife, as per the medical evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnesses do not show any other continuous quarrels between the husband and wife. No doubt, the deceased died due to burn injuries and the medical evidence also shows that kerosene was found on her body. However, the fact remains that there are three different versions given by the deceased herself. In such a situation, it is very unsafe to rely upon the third version of the deceased, i.e., the dying declaration of the deceased, which is totally contradicted to her earlier versions given before P.W.4 and P.W.8. Even in the dying declaration given by the deceased before the Magistrate, she has stated that she and her husband were playing at the relevant point of time and there arose a wordy quarrel, as a result, the accused poured kerosene and, thereafter, she set herself ablaze. When the husband and wife were playing, suddenly, in a fit of anger, the deceased took extreme step of setting herself ablaze. Whether such an act would amount to abetment to bring the act of the accused within the ambit of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentional aid of a person doing of a thing. Without any positive act of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of some statement. Even assuming that the deceased set herself ablaze, while playing with her husband and she took such step in a fit of anger and due to over sensitive attitude, such extreme step has been taken by the deceased suddenly without any active role of the accused and incitement on the part of the accused cannot be presumed. Therefore, I am of the view that the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be a sole ground to base conviction, in view of inconsistency in her statements. Therefore, I am of the view that the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be a sole ground to base conviction, in view of inconsistency in her statements. Though P.W.10 and P.W.12 have also stated that the deceased was conscious and mentally fit to give a statement at the relevant point of time, the evidence of P.W.6, the Head-Constable, when carefully seen, he has categorically stated that on intimation from the hospital, when he rushed to the hospital, he could not get the statement from the deceased as she was unconscious. Therefore, he could get a formal report only on the next day from P.W.1. This fact also cannot be ignored altogether. 10. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the appellant/sole accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/Sole accused, by Judgment dated 13.02.2008, made in S.C. No. 215 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur, are set aside and the appellant/sole accused is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any, executed by him and the sureties shall stand terminated.