JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. Present appeal is filed by the State challenging judgment of acquittal of accused/respondents in Sessions Case No. 118/1997 passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. 2. The case of the prosecution against the respondents/accused can be summarized as under. (i) Deceased Gayatri married with Sanjay/accused No. 3 in the year 1995. At the time of marriage, dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and golden ornaments were given as per custom. After the marriage, she went to cohabit with her husband. After the marriage, Gayatri came to her parents house. She resided there for about six months. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law taken her back. She resided there for three months. After three months, her husband Sanjay and Gayatri came to the house of her mother at Ballarsha. Gayatri told her mother that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law beat her. That time she resided with her mother for two months. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law came to fetch her and taken her to matrimonial house. (ii) Brother of deceased, namely, Kisan and one Chhabinath Keskar went to Majari to attend the marriage. After attending the marriage, Kisan told her mother that Gayatri was ill and she became weak. After 10 days, mother of deceased went to Majari to see the health of Gayatri. Gayatri told her that she was not feeling well. She told that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law always quarreled with her. She requested parents-in-law of deceased saying that she is your daughter and gave good treatment to her. Her mother-in-law replied that she will do as per her wish. (iii) On the day of incident, Gayatri had been to nature's call. When she returned back, her mother-in-law scolded her, poured kerosene and set her on fire. Deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital at Chandrapur. Her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate. On the basis of dying declaration, First Information Report, Exhibit 64 came to be registered. Investigating Officer PSI Mohadekar registered crime against the accused persons. API Pimpre investigated the crime. After complete investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warora and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. (iv) Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Exhibit 13. Same was read-over and explained to the accused. (iv) Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Exhibit 13. Same was read-over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Prosecution has examined in all total 19 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused/ respondents for the offences charged against them. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Patil for the State/appellant. He has submitted that dying declarations show that accused No. 1 poured kerosene on Gayatri and set her on fire. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W.5 have stated about the ill-treatment. At last, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that appeal be allowed and respondents be convicted for the offences charged against them. 4. None appeared for the respondents/accused. 5. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 are the relatives of deceased. P.W. 2 Chhabinath Keskar has stated in his evidence that house of mother of Gayatri was adjacent to his house. Gayatri was disclosing everything. Her marriage was solemnized in the year 1995. He has stated that as per custom, Rs. 10,000/- and golden ornaments were given at the time of marriage. He has stated that when Gayatri came to her parents house, she told him that her husband was having illicit relations with other girl. They convinced her. 6. P.W. 3 Vinod Keskar has stated that deceased Gayatri was disclosed everything to his father (P.W. 2). Gayatri told him that her husband was having illicit relations with other girl. Gayatri came to Ballarsha prior to one month of her death. Her husband was demanding Rs. 10,000/- to her mother. Due to economical condition, mother of Gayatri could not give the said amount. 7. P.W. 5 Parmidevi w/o Dipchand Keskar, mother of deceased has stated that as per the custom, Rs. 10,000/- and golden ornaments were given to accused Sanjay. After 1¼ months, Gayatri came to her house and resided with her for about 6 months. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law came and took her to Majari. After three months, Gayatri again came to her house with her husband. Gayatri told her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law beat her. That time, she resided with her mother for about two months. After 1¼ months, Gayatri came to her house and resided with her for about 6 months. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law came and took her to Majari. After three months, Gayatri again came to her house with her husband. Gayatri told her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law beat her. That time, she resided with her mother for about two months. She was taken back to her parents-in-law. 8. The case of prosecution is based on dying declarations, Exhibit 68 recorded by Head Constable Bhoyar and Exhibit 77 recorded by Executive Magistrate Shri Gajbhe. 9. Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused. The evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 are not reliable because P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that whenever Gayatri came to house of her mother, she disclosed to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that her husband was having illicit relations with other girl but mother of deceased P.W. 5 not stated in that respect. P.W. 5 has stated that Gayatri disclosed that she was beaten by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. This fact is not stated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 not corroborating to each other. 10. There is no dispute that deceased died due to burn injuries. P.W. 8 Medical Officer Dr. Priyadarshan Muthal has stated in his evidence about the postmortem report, Exhibit 54. As per the opinion of Dr. Muthal (P.W.8), deceased sustained 93% burns. 11. Prosecution case is based on dying declarations, Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77 recorded by Head Constable Bhoyar and Executive Magistrate Shri Gajbhe. P.W.8 Dr. Muthal has stated in his evidence that both time, he examined patient. She was fit to give statement, accordingly, he certified at the time of recording dying declarations, Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77. But his evidence is not reliable about the fitness of patient/deceased. In his cross-examination, he has admitted as under : It is true to say that in the present case pain killer and stranquilizers were given to the patient to minimise shock. The effect of the tranquilizer start within about 15 to 20 minutes of administration. The patient was given tranquilizer at 2.50 a.m. of 26-6-1997. I have not mentioned the time about examination of patient on Exh. 48. The effect of the tranquilizer start within about 15 to 20 minutes of administration. The patient was given tranquilizer at 2.50 a.m. of 26-6-1997. I have not mentioned the time about examination of patient on Exh. 48. Similarly, I have not mentioned the time about examination of the patient while issuing Exh. 49. From the case papers at the hospital I can not tell the name of the persons who had administered tranquilizer to the patient. 12. Medical Officer Dr. Muthal (P.W. 8) has admitted in his cross-examination that if the patient is under effect of tranquilizer then said patient will not be mentally fit. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that deceased was given pain killer and tranquilizer. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether deceased was mentally fit to give the dying declarations. 13. Dying declarations, Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77 are contradictory to each other. In Exhibit 68, deceased stated that “incident took place on 2561997 at about 5.30 a.m. She had gone out to latrine alone. Her mother-in-law asked her why did she go to latrine alone and over the said issue, quarrelled and abused her for whole day. Then in the night after having meals, when she was sleeping in the house, her mother-in-law woke up her at about 12.00 a.m. and asked her to open water tap. Hence she woke up and came outside. Then her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her person, ignited the matchstick and set her on fire and fled. Then she doused herself. Her family members woke up and they brought her to the hospital.” 14. In the second dying declaration, Exhibit 77, she has stated that “on 2561997, at about 12.00 a.m., she had gone to latrine. Her mother-in-law had accompanied her. Her mother-in-law quarreled with her intensely. She was at no fault. Her mother-in-law returned home from latrine, she poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Then she raised shouts. Her husband was asleep. Then he rushed to her. He doused the flame. She was taken to Majri Hospital. Doctor referred her to Government Hospital, Chandrapur. She was admitted in the hospital by her husband at Chandrapur. Her husband was not at fault in that incident. Her mother-in-law Sau. Didawati Devi was having hand in this. She poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Except her husband, nobody doused the flame.” 15. Doctor referred her to Government Hospital, Chandrapur. She was admitted in the hospital by her husband at Chandrapur. Her husband was not at fault in that incident. Her mother-in-law Sau. Didawati Devi was having hand in this. She poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Except her husband, nobody doused the flame.” 15. Both dying declarations, Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77 are contradictory. In her dying declaration recorded by Head Constable Bhoyar, she has stated that she went to attend nature's call early in the morning at 5.30 a.m. alone and, therefore, her mother-in-law quarrelled with her saying that why she had gone alone. Thereafter her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set her on fire. In the second dying declaration, she has stated that in the night at about 12.00 Hours, she along with her mother-in-law had gone to nature's call. Her mother-in-law quarreled with her. She was sleeping. Her mother-in-law woke her up saying that to open the water tap. She woke up. Her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set her on fire. Her husband extinguished the fire. She has stated that her husband was not at fault. Her mother-in-law was behind it. 16. Now, it is well settled law that conviction can be awarded only on the basis of dying declaration provided that it should be truthful and inspire the confidence of the Court. Except Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77, there is no evidence to show that deceased was burned by her mother-in-law. Both dying declarations are contradictory to each other. In first dying declaration, she has stated the incident took place in the morning whereas in the second dying declaration, she stated the incident took place in the night. In first dying declaration, she has stated that she herself extinguished fire whereas in second dying declaration, she has stated that her husband extinguished fire. 17. P.W. 14 Executive Magistrate Shri Gajbhe has stated about the recording of dying declaration, Exhibit 77. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Muthal (P.W.8), painkiller and tranquilizer were given to deceased to minimize the shock. As per his admission, if the patient is under the effect of tranquilizer, then patient will not be mentally fit. This admission of Dr. Muthal shows that she was not mentally fit at the time of recording dying declaration, Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77. Muthal (P.W.8), painkiller and tranquilizer were given to deceased to minimize the shock. As per his admission, if the patient is under the effect of tranquilizer, then patient will not be mentally fit. This admission of Dr. Muthal shows that she was not mentally fit at the time of recording dying declaration, Exhibit 68 and Exhibit 77. Therefore, the case of prosecution that accused No. 1 Diyawati Rama Prasad poured kerosene and set her on fire is not reliable. Both dying declarations under sections 68 and 77 are contradictory. Those cannot be relied. Whenever dying declarations suspicious, then further corroboration is necessary. There is no other evidence to show that deceased was burnt by her mother in law. 18. In respect of allegations of cruelty etc., P.W.2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 made vague allegations against accused persons. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that husband of deceased was demanding Rs. 10,000/- after the marriage but P.W.5 not stated anything about the same. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that deceased disclosed them that her husband was having illicit relations with another girl. Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 not stated that deceased was beaten by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. But P.W.5 stated that deceased disclosed her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law beat her. There is no other allegations by P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5. It is pertinent to note that deceased not stated a single word against her husband. On the other hand, she has stated in Exhibit 77 that her husband was not at fault. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the ingredients of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 19. There is no dispute that Gayatri died within 7 years from the time of marriage. Her death was unnatural. But prosecution has failed to prove that her death was due to demand of dowry or cruelty as defined in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 20. As per the defence, deceased was insisting her husband to reside separately. Her husband could not reside separately with deceased and, therefore, she has committed suicide. Defence appears to be probable because after one month of the marriage, she came to her parents house. That time she resided for about six months. She again came to her parents house with her husband. That time, she resided for two months. Her husband could not reside separately with deceased and, therefore, she has committed suicide. Defence appears to be probable because after one month of the marriage, she came to her parents house. That time she resided for about six months. She again came to her parents house with her husband. That time, she resided for two months. This itself show that deceased was not interested to reside in a joint family. The defence appears to be probable. 21. Prosecution has failed to establish that deceased was ill-treated by her husband and her parents-in-law and accused No. 1 poured kerosene and set her on fire. Prosecution has failed to prove that there was demand of dowry by the husband. Prosecution has failed prove any of the ingredients of sections 498A, 304B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court rightly acquitted all the accused. Judgment is well reasoned, hence, we are not inclined to allow the appeal. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court. (iii) Bail bonds of accused/respondents stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.