JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. The appellant/State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal by Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2005. 2. It is the case of prosecution against the respondent that deceased Ujwala was her daughter-in-law. The deceased was living with her husband and children with respondent/ mother-in-law jointly. On the day of incident i.e. on 17.05.2005, accused quarreled with deceased/daughter-in-law. The accused/respondent poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The deceased was admitted in the hospital. She died during treatment. On the basis of occurrence report, merg was registered. After receipt of dying declaration, offence was registered against the accused. 3. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, collected postmortem report etc. After completing investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot, who, in turn, committed it to the Court of Session. Charge was framed at Exh.6. The same was read over and explained to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard Smt. S.V. Kolhe, learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant/State. She has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the accused/respondent. Hence, appeal be allowed. 5. From the perusal of evidence, it is clear that the material witnesses not supported to the prosecution. PW-3 Sushila Ingle has stated in her evidence that at the time of incident, she was going to attend the wedding. When she was passing from the house of deceased, she saw that the deceased came out from her house in burning condition. Except this, she has not stated anything more. PW-4 Pandurang Dahibhat has stated in his evidence that he heard from the people that the house of Parnate (accused) was burning. Thereafter, he came to know that the deceased sustained burning injuries. She was admitted in the hospital. Her father (PW-5) has stated that in the hospital, his daughter told him that the accused quarreled with her, poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The material omissions are brought on record in cross-examination. 6. The case of the prosecution is based on oral dying declaration stated by PW-5 Gajanan Akhare and written dying declaration (Exh.36). Her father (PW-5) has stated that in the hospital, his daughter told him that the accused quarreled with her, poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The material omissions are brought on record in cross-examination. 6. The case of the prosecution is based on oral dying declaration stated by PW-5 Gajanan Akhare and written dying declaration (Exh.36). The deceased stated in her dying declaration that her mother-in-law had quarreled with her, poured kerosene and set her on fire. This dying declaration appears to be doubtful. It was recorded after the arrival of her father PW-5. She had sustained 90 per cent burn. Her condition was critical. Moreover, age of the deceased was about 26 years and her mother-in-law was about 65 years at the time of incident. The deceased could have resisted the act of accused. 7. The prosecution has created doubt about the incident by not examining material witness. Both the children of the deceased were in the house. But, they were not examined by the prosecution. Admission of PW-5, her father, shows that the deceased was under the treatment of Psychiatrist Dr. Sujay Patil. Dr. Sujay Patil was not examined by the prosecution. From the evidence of PW-5, it is clear that there was no such ill treatment or quarrel by the accused with the deceased. PW-5 only stated that accused was not providing food properly. Except this, there was no any instances to show any cruelty caused by the accused. 8. There was no reason for the accused to commit murder of her daughter-in-law. The dying declaration appears to be prompted by her relatives. Admission of Investigating Officer shows that the son of deceased namely Vivek was present at the time of incident and he had stated in the statement that the accused was in the kitchen at the time of incident. His evidence is as under:- “Question: Is it transpired in the investigation that at the time of incident, accused was working in kitchen, she had already prepared “Besan” and then she was baking chapatis and witness Vivek was present there near to accused and at that time, deceased came out while shouting from another room? Answer: Witness says that this fact is stated by Vivek in his statement.” 9. He has admitted that the statement of Vivek Parnate (son of deceased) was recorded. Answer: Witness says that this fact is stated by Vivek in his statement.” 9. He has admitted that the statement of Vivek Parnate (son of deceased) was recorded. It transpires in the investigation that Vivek was present in the house at the time of incident but statement of Vivek not filed on record. Therefore, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of crime. 10. The material witnesses not supported to the case of prosecution. On the other hand, evidence of PW-3 shows that she saw deceased in burning condition. In the cross-examination, she has stated that when deceased came out of her house, accused was in another room. It is pertinent to note that the son of deceased was in the hand of accused. Another son was also in the house. In such situation, pouring kerosene etc. by accused is not reliable. Moreover, accused is an old lady, she was aged about 65 years at the time of incident. 11. Evidence of PW-5 (father of deceased) itself shows that one year before her death, health of Ujwala (deceased) was deteriorating. There was growth of tumors in her abdomen. She was under the treatment of Dr. Kutaskar. It is stated by PW-1 that the deceased was under the treatment of Dr. Sujay Patil. The behaviour of deceased was not like a normal person. 12. Evidence of PW-5 shows that when he met his daughter in the hospital, her health condition was not good. In such situation, dying declaration (Exh.36) stated by deceased is not reliable. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, we are not inclined to allow the appeal. We proceed to pass the following order. 13. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.