JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the State as against respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.01.2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.44/2010 acquitting respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are, P.W.1- father of the deceased lodged the complaint as per Ex.P13 stating that accused No.1-Dharmendra married his daughter deceased Roopa. Accused No.2-Ramegowda and accused No.3 Sunandamma are uncle and aunt of accused No.1, accused No.4 Devaki is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.5 Smt. G. Harini @ Baby is the sister of accused No.1. After the marriage, the deceased was residing along with her husband accused No.1, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 with a common intention, harassed the deceased physically and mentally and caused cruelty to her in order to get her vacated from the house. On 7.8.2009, accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 with an intention to kill her since she did not vacate the room, instigated accused No.1 to set fire to her by pouring kerosene. On account of the said abetment by other accused persons, accused No.1 poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased Roopa. After hearing the scream of the deceased, the neighbours one Gundanna and one Rajesh came there and extinguished the fire. In the meanwhile, the mother of the deceased also came there and all of them, shifted her to Government Hospital, K.R. Pet and from there, she was taken to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.121/2009 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and after the demise of Roopa and as per the requisition by the police, an offence under Section 302 in place of 307 of IPC came to be inserted in the case. It is also the prosecution case that police have recorded the dying declaration of deceased Roopa in the form of her statement as per Ex.P5, so also, the Taluka Executive Magistrate also recorded the dying declaration of Roopa under Ex.P12. It is also the prosecution case that police have recorded the dying declaration of deceased Roopa in the form of her statement as per Ex.P5, so also, the Taluka Executive Magistrate also recorded the dying declaration of Roopa under Ex.P12. The Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.5 Smt. G. Harini @ Baby was not tried. As accused No.1 remained absconding, after hearing both sides, charges were framed against accused Nos.2 to 4 and case as against accused No.1 was split up. When the charge was read over and explained to accused Nos.2 to 4, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, case was set down for recording the evidence. The prosecution in support of its case, in all, has examined 16 witnesses and got marked 19 documents with sub-markings and got marked 6 material objects M.Os.1 to 6. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and their statements came to be recorded. Thereafter, on the side of the defence one witness has been examined as D.W.1 and during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, 8 documents i.e., Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. When the trial was going on, it was reported that accused No.2 died. Hence, proceedings as against him stood abated. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned addl. Sessions Judge has held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has acquitted accused Nos.3 and 4 from the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the State is before this Court in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader (‘HCGP’ for short) appearing for the State and also the arguments of learned counsel for respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4. 4. Sessions Judge, the State is before this Court in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader (‘HCGP’ for short) appearing for the State and also the arguments of learned counsel for respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4. 4. Learned HCGP has submitted that so far as the alleged act of pouring the kerosene and setting fire to deceased Roopa is concerned, there is a dying declaration in the form of statement of deceased Roopa under Ex.P5 recorded by the concerned police. Learned HCGP has further submitted that there is one more dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate as per Ex.P12. She drew our attention to the entire material, both oral and documentary and also the paper book and submitted that so far as the ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased Roopa is concerned, P.W.1-father and P.W.4-mother of the deceased Roopa have consistently deposed in their evidence. In the two dying declarations, deceased Roopa has clearly stated about the involvement of these two accused persons i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 in the commission of the alleged offence. She also drew our attention to the medical records produced in the case, the MLC register and also the oral evidence of P.W.10-Dr.Pushpalatha and submitted that all these materials put together would clearly make out a case about the involvement of respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4 in the case and this aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and he has wrongly proceeded to record acquittal of respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4. Learned HCGP further submitted that in Ex.P5 there is a clear mention of the involvement of accused No.3 Sunandamma that she instigated accused No.1 to eliminate Roopa. Hence, there is both oral and documentary material produced by the prosecution to establish the charges as against the respondents herein. Hence, submitted to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and to convict the respondents for the said offences. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4 submitted that there is no consistency between the two dying declarations Exs.P5 and P12 and they are contradictory to each other. Sessions Judge and to convict the respondents for the said offences. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4 submitted that there is no consistency between the two dying declarations Exs.P5 and P12 and they are contradictory to each other. So far as the involvement of accused No.4 Devaki is concerned, even as per Ex.P5, the alleged dying declaration, the deceased Roopa has made it clear that except Accused Nos.1 to 3 no other persons were present in the house when the incident took place, which clearly shows that accused No.4 Devaki was not at all present in the house at the time when the alleged incident is said to have taken place. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, so also, the documents and submitted that in so far as accused No.3 Sunandamma is concerned, again there is no consistency in the case of prosecution. In this regard, he referred to the oral evidence of P.W.1-father, P.W.4- mother of deceased Roopa and also the evidence of other witnesses and submitted that there is no material placed by the prosecution to show her involvement in committing the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC or even the alleged offence of instigating accused No.1. He has submitted that when the deceased was taken to the hospital at the first instance, she has given a statement that she herself poured kerosene, lit fire and committed suicide. He further referred to the medical records and also the oral evidence of D.W.1- Dr. M.N. Hemanthkumar and more particularly, to the document Ex.P7 and submitted that all these materials were properly appreciated by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. No illegality has been committed nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in coming to such conclusion. Hence, submitted that there are no grounds for this Court to interfere into the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below. Accordingly, submitted to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 16, the documents Exs.P1 to P19 and also the oral evidence of D.W.1. Accordingly, submitted to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 16, the documents Exs.P1 to P19 and also the oral evidence of D.W.1. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned HCGP appearing for the State, so also, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused Nos.3 and 4. 7. So far as the alleged offence is concerned, prosecution has produced documentary evidence Ex.P5, the statement of deceased Roopa. We have perused the said document Ex.P5 wherein it is stated by deceased Roopa that she married accused No.1 Dharmendra about 1 ½ years prior to the incident and in the wedlock a male child is born to the couple. Her husband Dharmendra was working in the canteen run by his elder sister Baby. Herself and her son are residing in the house of her father-in-law at Mylanahalli. When she went to her native place Rayasamudra for the purpose of delivery, her husband used to come to Rayasamudra once in a month and even at that time, he was making galata against deceased Roopa picking up quarrel with her and in this regard, a panchayath was also held. After delivery and completion of post natal period when she again came back to the husband’s house, accused No.1 came from Bengaluru to see his son on 6.8.2009. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 poisoned the mind of accused No.1 and they instigated accused No.1 and because of that reason, whole night he made galata and abused her in filthy words. On the next day i.e., on 7.8.2009 also, accused No.1 abused her and thereafterwards, accused Nos.2 and 3 told her that they have taken the house from her husband on mortgage by paying money to him and they also gave ill-treatment to her and abused her. Her husband told her that she has to vacate the house since he has borrowed the money from accused Nos.2 and 3 and mortgaged the house property to them and also told that she is not his wife. At that time, Ramegowda and Sunandamma-Accused Nos.2 and 3 also insisted her to vacate the house and abused her. Her husband told her that she has to vacate the house since he has borrowed the money from accused Nos.2 and 3 and mortgaged the house property to them and also told that she is not his wife. At that time, Ramegowda and Sunandamma-Accused Nos.2 and 3 also insisted her to vacate the house and abused her. When she claimed that the house belong to her father-in-law and she is also having the right to stay there and that she will not vacate the house, at that time, accused No.1 drawn kerosene oil from the stove to the glass and poured on her and took her to the corner of the house and set fire to her. Accused Nos.2 and 3 who were also present there were instigating her husband to burn her and not to leave her. Accordingly, they all made attempt to commit her murder by pouring kerosene and litting fire to her. When she screamed loudly, accused No.1 went out of the house, so also, Ramegowda and Sunandamma. She has stated that when the incident took place, her husband, Ramegowda and Sunandamma, accused Nos.1 to 3, were present and no other persons were present in the house. Thereafter, people gathered. Then one Gundanna P.W.2 and Mohan shifted her in the ambulance to K.R. Pet Government Hospital and thereafter, again she was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. 8. Deceased Roopa has also given the dying declaration in the presence of Taluka Executive Magistrate as per P.W.12. We have perused the said document Ex.P12 wherein it is stated that all the four accused persons gave physical and mental ill-treatment to her and that on 7.8.2009 at about 3.00 p.m. they have drawn kerosene oil from the stove to the glass and poured it on her body and made an attempt to commit her murder and went away. When she screamed Gundanna and Mohan came and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, she was shifted to the hospital. In respect of Ex.P12, the dying declaration, the Taluka Executive Magistrate has been examined as P.W.12. In his oral evidence P.W.12 has deposed that he went to the burns ward of K.R. Hospital on 8.8.2009 at 12.30 p.m. and met the Doctor who was on duty and enquired as to whether Roopa is in a position to give her statement or not. In his oral evidence P.W.12 has deposed that he went to the burns ward of K.R. Hospital on 8.8.2009 at 12.30 p.m. and met the Doctor who was on duty and enquired as to whether Roopa is in a position to give her statement or not. After the Doctor told that she is in a position to give her statement, he also verified from Roopa and noticed that she is in a position to give her statement. Accordingly, he recorded the dying declaration from 12.30 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. and he has also obtained the signature of the deceased Roopa. The injured told before him that her husband, aunt, uncle and mother of accused No.1 were giving physical and mental ill-treatment to her and that on 7.8.2009 at 3.00 p.m. after giving her ill-treatment, they have drawn kerosene oil from the stove to the glass and poured it on her body and made an attempt to commit her murder by setting fire and all the four persons are responsible for her condition. In the cross examination when this witness was asked that in Ex.P12 in an answer to question No.21, first it was written as three’ and later it was corrected as ‘four’, the witness has admitted it as true. 9. We have also perused the oral evidence of P.W.1, father and P.W.4, mother of deceased Roopa. In the oral evidence of P.W.1, at paragraph No.7, he deposed that his daughter told before him that her husband, Sunandamma, Ramegowda and her mother-in-law Devaki poured kerosene and lit fire to her. However, P.W.4, mother of the deceased has also deposed in paragraph No.6 of her evidence that when she went and saw there were burn injuries to her daughter and she was sitting by pouring water on herself. Thereafterwards ambulance came. At that time, herself and C.Ws.2 to 4 shifted her daughter to the Government Hospital at K.R. Pet and from there to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. When she enquired her daughter, she told that Dharmendra, Devaki, Sunandamma and Ramegowda together poured kerosene and lit fire to her. 10. Thereafterwards ambulance came. At that time, herself and C.Ws.2 to 4 shifted her daughter to the Government Hospital at K.R. Pet and from there to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. When she enquired her daughter, she told that Dharmendra, Devaki, Sunandamma and Ramegowda together poured kerosene and lit fire to her. 10. Perusing these materials i.e. Exs.P5 and P12-the dying declarations of deceased Roopa, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 as to the cause of death of deceased Roopa, we are conscious of the fact that the dying declaration is the statement not made on oath and the declarant or the person making the dying declaration is not subjected to cross examination. Therefore, while appreciating the truthfulness or otherwise of the dying declaration, the Court has to examine all the materials placed on record and ascertain as to whether the evidence of the persons before whom it is said to have been made is worth believable or not. If there are more than one dying declaration, the Court has to consider about the consistency in the dying declarations. After the dying declaration is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that it is a worth believable material, it can be the sole basis for conviction. Keeping these things in mind, when we appreciated the material placed on record, in Ex.P5, the statement of the deceased made at the first instance, she has not stated the name of accused No.4 Devaki and that she has stated that her husband-accused No.1, uncle of accused No.1 Ramegowda and Sunandamma, aunt of accused No.1, only these three persons were present in the house and except them, no other persons were present in the house. Therefore, her statement has made it clear to the Court that accused No.4 Devaki was not present in the house when the alleged incident took place. So far as accused No.3 Sunandamma is concerned, in Ex.P5 the exact allegation against her is she was instigating accused No.1 Dharmendra to set fire to her and to eliminate her and not to leave her. There is no allegation that accused No.3 Sunandamma also poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. But coming to the contents of Ex.P12, wherein it is alleged that all the four accused persons i.e., even accused No.4 Devaki poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her. There is no allegation that accused No.3 Sunandamma also poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. But coming to the contents of Ex.P12, wherein it is alleged that all the four accused persons i.e., even accused No.4 Devaki poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 also goes to show that when they enquired deceased Roopa she told before them that accused Nos.1 to 4 all of them took out kerosene oil in a glass and poured on her body and lit fire to her. 11. Looking to this evidence placed by the prosecution, we do not find that there is consistency in the two dying declarations Exs.P5 and P12. Apart from that, to show that accused No.3 Sunandamma was also present in the house at the relevant point of time, prosecution though examined P.W.2 Gundappa and P.W.3 Rajesh, P.W.3 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Even when P.W.3 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor nothing worth was elicited from him to the effect that accused No.3 Sunandamma was also present in the house at the relevant point of time and he has seen her coming out of the house after the incident. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 Gundanna he also turned hostile, partly supporting the prosecution case only with regard to shifting of Roopa to the hospital after the incident. He has also not deposed before the Court that immediately after the incident when they came to the house of accused after hearing the scream, he has seen accused No.3 Sunandamma coming out of the house. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence placed by the prosecution to show that accused No.3 Sunandamma was present in the said house at the relevant point of time and in view of the inconsistency in the statements Exs.P5 and P12, regarding her presence, it is difficult for the Court to accept the contention of the prosecution that Accused No.3 Sunandamma was seen in the house immediately after the incident. These aspects were considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and he has rightly come to the conclusion in disbelieving the case of the prosecution regarding the involvement of these two accused persons i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 and accordingly, recorded acquittal of these two accused persons from the case. 12. These aspects were considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and he has rightly come to the conclusion in disbelieving the case of the prosecution regarding the involvement of these two accused persons i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 and accordingly, recorded acquittal of these two accused persons from the case. 12. Even with regard to the medical records produced in the case and the oral evidence of the Doctors P.W.8 Dr. S.S. Prakash, P.W.10 Dr. Pushpalatha, P.W.11 Dr. Shivanand and P.W.14 Dr. Udayashankar, we do not find any supporting material to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has produced the acceptable material to show the involvement of these two accused persons in the case. 13. Considering these materials placed on record, so also, the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we do not find any glaring illegality in the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. We are of the opinion that there are no valid and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere, either to modify or to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed.