JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. State has filed the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 50/2011. 2. The case of the prosecution/State against the respondents/accused can be summarized as under. (i) Deceased Shahanaz was married with respondent no. 1 in the month of May, 2010. After marriage, she went to the house of accused at Lohara for cohabitation. Accused was residing along with his parents and brother. After eight days, Shahanaz returned to her parents house. Shahanaz told her mother that her husband and in-laws were asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/-. They were also asking her to bring gold ring and gold chain from her parents. After eight days, her husband and mother-in-law Hamidabi took her back. After three days, Shahanaz made a phone call to her mother and told that accused persons were beating and ill-treating her saying that why she did not bring Rs. 50,000/, gold ring and gold chain as per the demand. Thereafter her mother, maternal uncle Niyamatkhan, Hussainkhan and Ahsankhan went to Lohara. Accused gave assurance of good treatment to deceased. On the next day, Shahanaz on phone requested her mother to take her back. Therefore, mother of Shahanaz sent her son Wasimkhan to Lohara. Shahanaz returned to her parents house with her brother. Shahanaz told her parents about the ill-treatment of accused persons. After three months, her husband with his parents came to fetch Shahanaz. Accused persons gave assurance to give good treatment to deceased. On the next day, parents of deceased were informed that deceased was burnt and admitted in the hospital at Shegaon. (ii) When deceased was admitted in the hospital at Shegaon, her statement was recorded by PI Subhash Pusande. In the statement/dying declaration, Shahanaz stated that she was burnt by her husband/respondent. On the basis of dying declaration, crime was registered. Statements of parents and relatives of deceased were recorded. Chargesheet came to be filed against the husband of deceased, her parents in laws and brother-in-law in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur. Same was committed to the Court of Sessions, Akola. (iii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 69. Same was readover and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Prosecution has examined in all total 5 witnesses. Same was committed to the Court of Sessions, Akola. (iii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 69. Same was readover and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Prosecution has examined in all total 5 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State has filed the present appeal against all accused. (iv) Vide order dated 1-2-2013, this Court has admitted appeal only against respondent no. 1 and rejected leave to prefer appeal against respondent nos. 2 to 6. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Pathan for the State/appellant. He has pointed out dying declaration. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that respondent poured kerosene and set deceased on fire, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel Shri Jaltare for the respondent. He has submitted that findings recorded by the learned trial Court are correct, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the evidence of P. W. 1 Shamabi w/o Kismatkhan who is mother of deceased. She has stated that deceased Shahanaz told her about the demands of her husband and in-laws of Rs. 50,000/, gold ring and gold chain. On that count, deceased was ill-treated. 6. Maternal uncle of deceased P. W. 2 Ahsan Khan Isak Khan stated that deceased told him about demand by accused persons. P. W. 2 has stated that he came to know that deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital at Shegaon, therefore, he went to Government Hospital, Shegaon. At that time, Shahanaz told that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. 7. P. W. 3 Dr. Yogesh Gawande has stated in his evidence that Shahanaz was admitted in the Government Hospital at Shegaon on 14-9-2010. He was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer. Police Officer Pusande came to Hospital. On his request, he examined the patient and found that patient was fit to make statement. Accordingly, he made endorsement on the dying declaration. Police Officer recorded the statement of Shahanaz in his presence. 8. P. W. 5 Police Inspector Shri Subhash Pusande has stated in his evidence that on 14-9-2010 at about 13. 10 hours, he went to the hospital and requested the Medical Officer Shri Gawande to examine the patient and issue certificate of fitness to give the statement. Police Officer recorded the statement of Shahanaz in his presence. 8. P. W. 5 Police Inspector Shri Subhash Pusande has stated in his evidence that on 14-9-2010 at about 13. 10 hours, he went to the hospital and requested the Medical Officer Shri Gawande to examine the patient and issue certificate of fitness to give the statement. He has recorded the statement. She has stated in her statement that "one day prior to the incident, her husband and parents-in-law brought her to Lohara. At about 11. 00 a.m., she was in the drawing room. Her husband quarreled with her saying why she was not coming to matrimonial home and beat her. He poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire with burning match stick. She shouted for help. Her mother-in-law and brother-in-law reached there and extinguished fire and took her to the hospital." 9. Pi Pusande has further stated that after recording dying declaration, it was readover to her. She has admitted contents of it. Her thumb impression was obtained. He also signed it. It is at Exhibit 123. 10. There is no evidence about the demand of dowry etc. Nothing is brought on record to corroborate the dying declaration. Now, it is well settled law that conviction can be awarded only on the basis of dying declaration provided that it should inspire the confidence of the Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) AllMR(Cri) 696, (S.C.) has held that "dying declaration when suspicious, cannot be acted upon without corroborative evidence". 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision in the case of Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, (1958) AIR SC 22, has observed that : "In order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. But once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities, referred to above or from such other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case. " 12. In the present case, dying declaration, Exhibit 123 is not reliable. It is defence of the accused that marriage of deceased was not performed as per her wish. She was not willing to cohabit with her husband at Lohara. Therefore she herself committed suicide. 13. The defence appears to be probable because as per the evidence of mother of deceased, deceased resided at the house of her husband initially for 8 days. Thereafter she went to the house of her parents. Accused taken her, she resided there for about 4 days. She was brought by her brother. She resided at her parents house for about 3 months. Thereafter she was taken by the accused on 13-9-2010 and on 14-9-2010, incident took place. 14. If all the period of her residence at matrimonial home is calculated, then it is clear that deceased might have resided with her husband for about 13/14 days. This itself shows that deceased was not willing to cohabit with her husband. After marriage, deceased resided with her parents for considerable long period. Before the incident, she resided with her parents for about three months. She was taken by her husband and on the next day, incident took place. 15. Dying declaration, Exhibit 123 appears to be doubtful because PI Pusande has stated in his evidence that Dr. Gawande made endorsement on the dying declaration about the fitness of patient after he recorded the same. She was taken by her husband and on the next day, incident took place. 15. Dying declaration, Exhibit 123 appears to be doubtful because PI Pusande has stated in his evidence that Dr. Gawande made endorsement on the dying declaration about the fitness of patient after he recorded the same. Medical Officer Shri Gawande himself has stated in his cross-examination that he made endorsement, that patient was fit to give statement after recording the statement. Therefore, it is clear that evidence of Medical Officer and PI Pusande is not reliable about mental fitness of deceased. 16. Medical Officer Gawande has stated in his evidence that deceased was completely burnt having 100% burns. Her face was totally burnt including eye brows and eyelids. Therefore it is clear that deceased was not in a fit state of mind to give the statement. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 that immediately, deceased Shahanaz was referred to the General Hospital, Akola from the Government Hospital, Shegaon. This itself shows that condition of patient was critical. This fact was admitted by Dr. Gawande and P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. They have stated that due to the critical condition of deceased, she was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Akola. Dying declaration, Exhibit 123 was recorded at Government Hospital, Shegaon. Deceased was having 100% burns, she was not in a position to talk. Therefore, dying declaration, Exhibit 123 is not reliable. Dying declaration is not corroborated by any other evidence. 17. Evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 do not show any specific incident of ill-treatment. They have made general allegations. It is pertinent to note that on 1-2-2013, this Court only admitted appeal against accused/respondent no. 1. The material ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not proved by the prosecution. Deceased resided with her husband/respondent no. 1 only for a period of 13/14 days. After the marriage, she resided with her parents for long period. Therefore, defence that marriage of deceased with respondent no. 1 was performed against her will, therefore, she was not willing to cohabit with him, appears to be probable. Due to frustration, she might have committed suicide. Probable defence appears to be established. After the marriage, she resided with her parents for long period. Therefore, defence that marriage of deceased with respondent no. 1 was performed against her will, therefore, she was not willing to cohabit with him, appears to be probable. Due to frustration, she might have committed suicide. Probable defence appears to be established. Prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients of Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent no. 1. We find no merit in 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 bond of accused/respondent no. 1 stands cancelled.