ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Sessions Judge, after examining the evidence and, in particular, the statement of the deceased to her own brother as well as her cousin, which was also corroborated by one Vijay Kumar, in her dying declaration, clearly stated that the result of her burns was because of an accident and nobody was at fault. Based on this and other evidence, the Sessions Judge, by his order dated 03.04.2001, acquitted the appellant. 4. The High Court, however, remanded the case, after which the Sessions Judge, in his order dated 06.09.2010, after considering the evidence of PW-2, who was the 14 year old daughter and the mother of the deceased, and without Signature Not Verified considering the vital dying declaration by the deceased to her brother and her cousin, which was corroborated by one Vijay Kumar, convicted the appellant. 5. This was presumably done because the prosecution, after recording Section 161 statements of the brother and cousin and of Vijay Kumar, refused to make them witnesses even though their evidence was crucial. The High Court dismissed the appeal that was filed and had this to say about the dying declaration: "It is true that the brothers who participated in the inquest proceedings were not examined before the trial Court. They were neither eye witnesses nor witnesses to any of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution. Therefore, the nonexamination of the brothers of the deceased does not have an adverse impact on the case of the prosecution." 6. What was vital was the dying declaration made, and not the fact that the brother and the cousin were not eye witnesses or witnesses to any of the circumstances put-forth by the prosecution. Non-examination of the brother and two others does have an adverse impact on the case of the prosecution, which is obviously why they were not examined. 7. We are in agreement, therefore, with the original order of the Sessions Judge dated 03.04.2001 that this vital piece of evidence would have utterly destroyed the case of the prosecution and was, therefore, suppressed by the prosecution by not examining the brother and the two other witnesses to the dying declaration. This is enough, according to us, to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of any reasonable person. 8. This is enough, according to us, to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of any reasonable person. 8. The accused-appellant is, therefore, acquitted and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be released at once. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.