JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant assailed the judgment awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 231/2005 by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 8 days. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant in short is as under. (i) Deceased Preeti d/o Ravindra Kokate aged about 14 years was learning in school. On the Independence Day i.e. on 15-8-2005 she was returning home after flag hoisting ceremony in the school. Appellant Bandu and his friend caught hold her on the road with bad intention and asked her as to what was her opinion. He was also threatened her that he would kill her father if she disclosed to him anything. As a result, she became anguish and felt bad, therefore, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. She was admitted in the hospital by her mother, Vinod Gole and one Mrs. Mathurkar taken her to the hospital. (ii) When she was admitted in the hospital, Assistant Police Inspector Shri Raut went to the hospital and recorded statement of deceased Preeti. He also requested Special Judicial Magistrate to record the statement of deceased. Special Judicial Magistrate Anuradha Vidhate went to the hospital and recorded statement of deceased. In both the statements recorded by API Raut and Secial Judicial Magistrate Vidhate, she has stated that “at the time of incident, she was preparing tea on stove, all of a sudden, stove flared up and her odhni (scarf) fell on the stove and, therefore, she burnt”. In both the statements recorded by API Raut and Secial Judicial Magistrate Vidhate, she has stated that “at the time of incident, she was preparing tea on stove, all of a sudden, stove flared up and her odhni (scarf) fell on the stove and, therefore, she burnt”. (iii) Father of deceased was not satisfied and, therefore, he approached to the police and lodged the complaint (Exhibit 20). He requested police to record the statement of his daughter again. Again, Special Judicial Magistrate Anuradha Vidhate recorded her statement (Exhibit 29) in which she has stated that “appellant caught her hands on the road, therefore, due to anguish, she poured kerosene and set herself on fire”. On the basis of dying declaration, Exhibit 29, crime was registered against the appellant. (iv) Charge was framed at Exhibit 7. Prosecution has examined in all total 10 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, accused/ appellant came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as stated above. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri Agrawal for the appellant. He has submitted that the learned trial Court wrongly relied on dying declaration, Exhibit 29 and convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He has pointed out that dying declaration recorded by API Raut and Special Judicial Magistrate Vidhate clearly show that she sustained burn injuries while preparing tea. There is no other evidence to show that appellant obstructed her, threatened her and outraged her modesty. Learned trial Court committed error while convicting the appellant, hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Ukey for the State/respondent. He has supported the impugned judgment. 5. Perused the evidence on record. Evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate shows that she went to the hospital and recorded dying declaration of deceased, Exhibit 12. In Exhibit 12, deceased has stated that while preparing tea, stove was flared and, therefore, she sustained burn injuries. Her statement was recorded by API Raut vide Exhibit 27 in which she has stated as under : “This day 15/8/05, my father had gone out of station. As it was 15th August my mother Sau. Sharda, my two sisters and brother were at home. Her statement was recorded by API Raut vide Exhibit 27 in which she has stated as under : “This day 15/8/05, my father had gone out of station. As it was 15th August my mother Sau. Sharda, my two sisters and brother were at home. My mother and brother were watching television in the room. At about 4.30 O'Clock in the afternoon, I went in the kitchen to prepare tea. The cylinder of my house had become empty. As there was another stove kept on the platform, I ignited that stove to prepare tea. When I kept utensil containing tea on it, my odhani (long piece of cloth usually worn by Indian women on the shoulders and on the head) got stuck to it, as a result stove fell down from the platform and the kerosene from it fell on my person and then all of a sudden the stove got flared up. So the clothes from my person were burnt and reduced to ashes. My neck, breasts, abdomen, back, both the hands and both the thighs are burnt. As a result skin at several place has peeled off. Since I burnt, I started shouting loudly. Thereupon my mother immediately came in the kitchen and extinguished me. Thereafter my mother called the neighbourers, put me in auto rickshaw and admitted me in Irvin Hospital for undergoing treatment.” 6. After both dying declarations, recorded by API Raut and Special Judicial Magistrate Anuradha Vidhate, father of deceased approached to the police and lodged the complaint, Exhibit 20 and requested again to record the statement of deceased. Special Judicial Magistrate Anuradha Vidhate went to the hospital and again recorded statement of deceased, Exhibit 29 in which deceased has stated as under. “I was coming home after attending flag hoisting ceremony in the school. Both Bandu Bopulkar and his friend whose name I do not know had caught hold of me on the road. Prior to this also, they had caught hold of me on the road. He had caught hold of me with the bad intention and asked me as to what was my opinion? He was also threatening me that he would kill my father if I disclosed to him anything. As a result I became anguished and felt bad. Therefore I poured kerosene on my person and set myself on fire.” 7. He had caught hold of me with the bad intention and asked me as to what was my opinion? He was also threatening me that he would kill my father if I disclosed to him anything. As a result I became anguished and felt bad. Therefore I poured kerosene on my person and set myself on fire.” 7. From the evidence of mother of deceased P.W. 6 Sharda Kokate, it is clear that at the time of incident, Vinod Gole and Mrs. Mathurkar taken deceased to the hospital. P.W. 1 Vinod Gole stated that her father Ravindra Kokate made enquiry with deceased in the hospital in his presence she told him that appellant caught her hand and therefore, she set herself on fire. But this fact first time stated by this witness in the Court. He has admitted that for the first time, he has deposed in the Court that in his presence, Ravinda Kokate made enquiry with Preeti and she stated about causing burns to herself as accused caught her hand. Therefore, his evidence is nothing but on the say of father of deceased, therefore, is not reliable. 8. P.W. 3 Ravindra Kokate has stated in his evidence that deceased gave earlier dying declaration because appellant threatened to kill him but it is brought on record as a omission. 9. P.W. 4 Pradip Kadam and P.W. 5 Rampad Prajapati have stated that they immediately rushed to the house of deceased. Some persons were making enquiry with Preeti and she stated that two boys teased her on the way and therefore, she set herself on fire. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 specifically denied that they asked deceased and she told that appellant caught hold hand and teased her and, therefore, she felt bad and set herself on fire. Both these independent witnesses have not supported to the case of prosecution. 10. Evidence of P.W. 6 Sharda Kokate, mother of deceased shows that she was with deceased from the time of admission in the hospital till her death. Therefore, there was no question of any threatening by appellant to give dying declaration, Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 27 under pressure. 11. It appears that Exhibit 29 was recorded on the say of father of deceased Ravindra Kokate. Mother of deceased herself admitted in her cross-examination that police came to the hospital and recorded statement of Preeti. Therefore, there was no question of any threatening by appellant to give dying declaration, Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 27 under pressure. 11. It appears that Exhibit 29 was recorded on the say of father of deceased Ravindra Kokate. Mother of deceased herself admitted in her cross-examination that police came to the hospital and recorded statement of Preeti. Preeti stated before police that stove was burst, due to which, she sustained burns. In her examination-in-chief, P.W. 6 has stated that she and Preeti were watching T.V. at about 3.00 p.m. Thereafter Preeti went to the kitchen room and after sometime, she came out of room in burnt condition. This itself shows that Preeti sustained burn injuries at the time of preparing tea. 12. First two dying declarations recorded by P.W. 7 API Raut vide Exhibit 27 and dying declaration, Exhibit 12 recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate P.W. 8 Anuradha Vidhate clearly show that deceased sustained burn injuries while preparing tea. Both these dying declarations are not considered by the trial Court. 13. Now, it is well settled law that conviction can be based on sole dying declaration, provided it inspire the confidence of Court. In the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 696 (S.C.), Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the dying declaration creates doubt in the mind of Court, then further corroboration is necessary. In the present case, Exhibit 29 relied by the trial Court is not reliable. It is contradictory to dying declarations, Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 27. There is no corroborative evidence to rely Exhibit 29. 14. Learned trial Court wrongly relied some part of dying declaration, Exhibit 29. It appears from the evidence on record that deceased gave dying declaration, Exhibit 29 under the pressure of her father. Learned trial Court partly relied on Exhibit 29. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Exhibit 29 is not free from doubt. There is no corroboration to Exhibit 29. Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Appellant is on bail. Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. (v) Fine amount, if paid, same shall be refunded to the appellant. (vi) R & P be sent back to the trial Court.