JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants, who are convicted by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 11/2005 are challenging their conviction and sufference of order of sentence in this present appeal. The appellants are original accused nos.1, 4, 5 and 6. They stand convicted by the impugned judgment for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause. Insofar as their conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court below awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for Five years and payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. 2. I have heard Mr. R. K. Tiwari, the learned counsel appointed by this Court to represent the appellants vide order dated 04.2.2019 since the counsel engaged by the appellants were not appearing. I have also heard Mr. V. P. Gangane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Both the learned counsel took me in detail through the record and proceedings. 3. It is the submission of Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appointed for the appellants that the Court below was not right in discarding the dying declaration (Exh.54) recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate when deceased Sanjeevani @ Geeta was admitted in the hospital, on the ground that the appellants failed to adduce evidence of the doctor in respect of her fitness as well as the scribe of the said document, especially when the learned Judge himself has placed reliance on the alleged oral dying declaration made by deceased Sanjeevani to PW3 Mahadev, who in turn transmitted the information to PW1 Nagorao when the prosecution did not adduce the evidence of doctor to show the fitness of the deceased at the time of giving oral dying declaration on the day when she made such oral dying declaration. 4. It is also the submission of Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants that if this oral dying declaration is excluded, then there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in proximity of the commission of alleged suicide. 4. It is also the submission of Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants that if this oral dying declaration is excluded, then there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in proximity of the commission of alleged suicide. It is also his submission that the earlier two cases filed against the appellants at the behest of deceased Sanjeevani for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code would not be helpful for the prosecution inasmuch as those were compromised in between the parties and thereafter, she led happy married life with appellant no.1 Arun and during her lifetime she delivered three children. 5. Mr. Gangane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. He invited my attention to the answers given by accused persons when they were examined by the learned Judge under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show that they admitted that deceased made oral dying declaration to PW3 Mahadev. To counter this submission, Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Singh alias Batya. vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3150 to show that since the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not recorded after administering oath to the accused, it cannot be considered as evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It is further his submission in that behalf that since there is not evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution about the mental status of the deceased, therefore, assuming there was an oral dying declaration, it would be unsafe to accept the same. Both the learned counsel after conclusion of their respective submissions prayed for respective reliefs in their favour. 6. Exhibit 52 is the post mortem report. The said was admitted during the course of the trial by the defence. Column no.17 of the post mortem report shows that the cause of death as observed by the Autopsy Surgeon in his post mortem notes was “septicemia due to infected burn injuries”. From the cause of death, as observed by the Autopsy Surgeon, there cannot be any doubt that Sanjeevani @ Geeta’s death is unnatural. 7. Column no.17 of the post mortem report shows that the cause of death as observed by the Autopsy Surgeon in his post mortem notes was “septicemia due to infected burn injuries”. From the cause of death, as observed by the Autopsy Surgeon, there cannot be any doubt that Sanjeevani @ Geeta’s death is unnatural. 7. The question that is posed before this Court to record its finding is as to whether such unnatural death is due to suicide committed by her because of the ill-treatment inflicted on her by the appellants as per the prosecution case or is it an accidental sufferance of burn injuries by deceased as submitted and suggested by the defence in view of the material appearing in the prosecution case itself. 8. Devidas Gite (PW5) is a Police Sub-Inspector. On 21.10.2004, he was attached to Police Station, Washim in the said capacity. On the said day, Mahadev Alat (PW3) approached to Police Station, Washim and lodged report (Exh.57) disclosing the fact that his sister Sanjeevani received burn injuries. PSI Gite thereafter went to village Sawargaon-Jire, the place of the occurrence. The spot of occurrence was the residential house of the appellants. There he drew the spot panchanama (Exh.43). From the place of the incident, which was a room, he noticed burnt saree, towel, cot, cooler, which were emitting smell of kerosene. He seized those articles in presence of the panchas from the said spot by drawing seizure panchanama (Exh. 44). On 26.10.2004, Nagorao Alat (PW1) lodged his oral report with Police Station, Washim (Exh.35). On the basis of the said, PSI Gite registered an offence against the appellants as well as Jyoti Wankhede and Chhaya Pariskar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 332/2004. After registration of the offence, PSI Gite took necessary steps for its investigation and he took various steps in that behalf. He seized various documents from the prosecution witnesses, mainly from Nagorao (PW1) under various seizure panchanamas. The accused persons were arrested under different arrest panchanamas. The Investigating Officer was of the opinion that during the course of the investigation, he has collected sufficient material against the accused persons to send them for trial and therefore, he filed final report in the Court of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 9. The accused persons were arrested under different arrest panchanamas. The Investigating Officer was of the opinion that during the course of the investigation, he has collected sufficient material against the accused persons to send them for trial and therefore, he filed final report in the Court of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 9. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After being done so, it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 11/2005 and was allotted on the file of learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. 10. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim framed the Charge against the appellants and accused Jyoti and Chhaya for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to bring home the guilt of the persons who were charged, the prosecution has examined in all Five witnesses and also relied upon various documents which were proved during course of the trial. 11. After a full dressed trial, the learned Judge of the Court below passed the impugned judgment. By the said, the learned Judge of the Court below acquitted accused no.2 Jyoti and accused no.3 Chhaya from the offences for which everybody was charged, however, convicted the appellants and awarded the sentence, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 12. It is to be noted that though, original accused no.2 Jyoti and accused no.3 Chhaya were acquitted by the Court below, the State chose not to prefer any appeal challenging their acquittal. 13. PW1 Nagorao Alat is the father of the deceased. PW2 is Suresh Vitole, a panch on the spot panchanama, who though did not support the prosecution, however, admitted his signature on spot panchanamas (Exhs.43 and 44). His evidence would show that on the day when his evidence was recorded, he came to the Court along with appellant no.1 Arun. It is sufficient, in my view, to record a finding as to why he did not support the prosecution as panch. Be that as it may. His evidence does not show that the contents of Exhs.43 and 44 were not read over to him. PW3 is Mahadev Alat. It is sufficient, in my view, to record a finding as to why he did not support the prosecution as panch. Be that as it may. His evidence does not show that the contents of Exhs.43 and 44 were not read over to him. PW3 is Mahadev Alat. He is the brother of deceased, who intimated the Investigating Officer about the fact that his sister received burn injuries and she is admitted in the hospital and lodged report (Exh.57). PW4 is Deepak Borgade, son-in-law of PW1 Nagorao, whose evidence would show that on earlier occasion, 498-A proceedings were filed against the accused persons, which were compromised ; and PW5 is the Investigating Officer PSI Devidas Gite. 14. The marriage between deceased Sanjeevani and appellant no.1 Arun took place prior to ten years of the incident of receiving burn injuries by her. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is not available to the prosecution and the prosecution will have to establish independently by a convincing evidence about the ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons to Sanjeevani. It is an admitted position that after the marriage and prior to her death, Sanjeevani filed two different proceedings against all the accused persons. 15. Exhibit 40 is the copy of the judgment in Regular Criminal Case No. 101/1998 (State. vs. Arun and others). In this criminal case de-facto complainant was Sanjeevani. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli on 18.11.2000 acquitted all the accused therein, who are the present appellants, from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the judgment would show that de-facto complainant turned hostile and nothing could be elicited through her cross-examination at the hands of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 16. Exhibit 38 is the certified copy of the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hingoli on 18.11.2000 in which a compromise decree was passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff/ deceased Sanjeevani against accused no.1 Arun claiming injunction against him that he should not remarry during the pendency of the Regular Civil suit No. 1/1999. The recitals of this compromise decree would show that Accused Arun and Sanjeevani agreed to cohabit with each other. 17. The recitals of this compromise decree would show that Accused Arun and Sanjeevani agreed to cohabit with each other. 17. On record, apart from these two, there are no orders in any judicial proceedings against the accused persons regarding ill-treatment. In addition to that, the prosecution has filed and proved an agreement (Exh.37) through PW1 Nagorao. Perusal of the said document would reveal that the agreement was executed in between PW1 Nagorao and accused no.1 Arun on 20.10.1997. In the said agreement, Arun has admitted that his parents, brothers and sisters used to illtreat his wife by making demand of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, PW1 Nagorao gave Rs.10,000/- to the father of the executant namely accused no.1 Arun. By the said agreement, Arun made a statement that henceforth, his family members will not give any ill-treatment to Sanjeevani. 18. There is another agreement on record (Exh.32), dated 30.6.2001 in between Arun (accused No.1) and Mahadev Bhagwan Kale on one hand and deceased Sanjeevani and her father Nagorao on the other hand. By the said agreement, Arun took Sanjeevani with him to her matrimonial house with an assurance that there will not be any taunting to her on account of previous cases lodged by her. 19. The prosecution has also relied upon two inland letters i.e. Exh.33 and Exh.34 dated 12.03.2004 and 14.03.2004, respectively, addressed to PW1 Nagorao, alleged to have written by deceased Sanjeevani. Thus, in the present prosecution case, in addition to the oral evidence of PW1 Nagorao and PW3 Mahadev, the prosecution is relying upon the aforesaid documentary evidence to establish that due to the harassment, which resulted into the abetment to the deceased, she committed suicide. 20. Exh.40, the judgment of the Criminal Court in Regular Criminal Case No. 101/1998, in which the deceased was the de-facto complainant, shows that the decision was on merit. Though, the complainant turned hostile, it was always open for the prosecution in the said case to prove the ill-treatment to the complainant by other evidence, which was not done by the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused persons that they subjected Sanjeevani to the cruelty. 21. Insofar as Regular Civil Suit No. 1/1999 is concerned, the said suit was simplicitor suit for injunction claiming an injunction by Sanjeevani against Arun alone that he shall not remarry during the subsistence of their marriage. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused persons that they subjected Sanjeevani to the cruelty. 21. Insofar as Regular Civil Suit No. 1/1999 is concerned, the said suit was simplicitor suit for injunction claiming an injunction by Sanjeevani against Arun alone that he shall not remarry during the subsistence of their marriage. In the said suit, a compromise pursis (Exh.31) was filed. As it could be seen from the decree (Exh.38) wherein the parties to the said suit agreed to reconcile their dispute and cohabit with each other. The decree was passed in the year 2000. The incident in question has occurred in 2004 and during this intervening period of four years, there is nothing on record to show that Sanjeevani was receiving ill-treatment prompting her to file any proceeding against the accused persons. 22. Sofar as Exhs.33 and 34 are concerned, according to the prosecution, these two inland letters are in the handwriting of the deceased. From the line of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence has denied that it was in the handwriting of the deceased, however, it was their suggestion that those documents are fabricated one. Perusal of these two letters would show that these two letters are sent within a span of two days in the month of March, 2004. Exh.33 recites that accused persons used to demand Rs.One lakh from the deceased for purchasing a vehicle, whereas Exh.34 which was alleged to have written after two days, shows that the demand was for Rs.60,000/- without disclosing the purpose for which it was demanded. 23. What is important to note is that though, the other handwriting of his daughter was available with Nagorao (PW1), he did not tender those documents/letters to the Investigating Officer. PW5 PSI Gite, the investigating officer has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not send Exhs.33 and 34 to the handwriting expert nor he seized any other material, except those two letters. In this backdrop, the suggestions given to PW1 Nagorao during his cross-examination that the letters were not authored by deceased Sanjeevani assumes its importance. In absence of any cogent evidence by which it could be said convincingly that Exhs.33 and 34 – inland letters, were authored by the deceased. In this backdrop, the suggestions given to PW1 Nagorao during his cross-examination that the letters were not authored by deceased Sanjeevani assumes its importance. In absence of any cogent evidence by which it could be said convincingly that Exhs.33 and 34 – inland letters, were authored by the deceased. In my view, it would be unsafe and dangerous to rely on these two letters to jump to the conclusion that those letters were authored by Sanjeevani herself. Apart from that, there is no proximity in respect of the demand alleged to have been made in these two letters and the date of the suicide. In view of these discussions, I have no hesitation in my mind to reject all these documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution to show that the deceased was subjected to the cruelty at the hands of accused persons. 24. Insofar as Kararnama (agreement) (Exh.37) executed by accused no.1 Arun in favour of Nagorao (PW1) is concerned, it is stated by Arun in the said agreement that his wife was subjected to cruelty at the hands of his family members and after receipt of Rs.10,000/- given to his father, there will not be any cruelty to Sanjeevani. This particular document is hardly supportive to the prosecution case simply because the statements made in this Kararnama are exculpatory. The other accused persons are not party to the said agreement. The face value of the said agreement would show that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not received by Arun, but by his father. A statement made in that, which according to the prosecution was a statement made by an accused, is not admissible against co-accused persons and it was the duty of the prosecution to prove this case in that behalf independently, qua, each accused person. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the said document. 25. Insofar as document Exh.32 is concerned, it only shows that Arun and one Mahadev, who is not at all concerned with this prosecution case, took Sanjeevani to her matrimonial house. The back portion of Exh.32 would show that it is dated 30.06.2001 and executant Arun and Mahadev also signed on 30.6.2001, however, on the front portion, there is a signature of two panchas and under their signature, the date is 01.11.2004. This itself is sufficient to discard said piece of evidence. 26. The back portion of Exh.32 would show that it is dated 30.06.2001 and executant Arun and Mahadev also signed on 30.6.2001, however, on the front portion, there is a signature of two panchas and under their signature, the date is 01.11.2004. This itself is sufficient to discard said piece of evidence. 26. After discarding the documentary evidence, relied upon by the prosecution to show that the appellants abeted the deceased to commit suicide, let us examine the oral evidence. 27. Mahadev Alat (PW3) is the brother of the deceased. As per evidence of PW5 PSI Gite, on 21.10.2004, he came to police station, Washim and lodged his report (Exh.57). Report (Exh.57) would show that prior to two years, after the disposal of 498-A case, deceased was residing at Sawargaon-Jire with her husband Arun. On 20.10.2004 at 10.30 in the night, he received a telephonic call from one person from Sawargaon-Jire that his sister received burn injuries and she is taken to Akola. Therefore, he came to Sawargaon-Jire where nobody was present and from neighbours he gathered knowledge that his sister received burn injuries on 19.10.2004 and she is admitted in the hospital at Akola. Therefore, he visited the said hospital and made enquiries with Sanjeevani. Upon that, she disclosed that the husband assaulted on her and his brother Gajanan (appellant no.4) abused and therefore, in heat of rage she set her ablaze. The last line of said report shows that due to abetment she was induced to set her ablaze. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, though, a cognizable offence was disclosed in the said report, no offence was registered and the offence was registered only after death of Sanjeevani. On the basis of the report lodged by her father Nagorao on 26.10.2004 (Exh.35), wherein a very detail account of previous happenings and the reason for Sanjeevani to commit suicide were described. The prosecution has treated the second report as the first information report, which in my view, is impermissible, inasmuch as in the report (Exh.35), there are much improvements than in Exh.57. 28. The spot of the incident is the matrimonial house of Sanjeevani. The spot panchanama is at Exh.43. The room in which the incident of burning took place as per Exh.43 would show presence of stove. 29. 28. The spot of the incident is the matrimonial house of Sanjeevani. The spot panchanama is at Exh.43. The room in which the incident of burning took place as per Exh.43 would show presence of stove. 29. From the record and proceedings, it is clear that when Sanjeevani was admitted in the hospital by her in-laws and her husband, her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Exh.54). The said absolves all accused and she did state that when she was preparing tea, due to accident she came in contact with fire resulting into burning injuries to her. Recording of this statement of deceased recorded by the Executive Magistrate is not at all disputed by the prosecution. It is also not disputed by the prosecution that this document was available with the Investigating Officer, however, this particular dying declaration was not made part and parcel of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer. This approach on the part of the Investigating Officer in not placing all material which he has collected during course of the investigation before the Court is impermissible. The Investigating Officer’s duty is to investigate impartially. It is not expected that he shall take side of either accused or complainant. The evidence collected during course of the investigation is required to be placed on record by the Investigating Officer. It is for the Court as to how to appreciate the evidence and the material collected by the Investigating Officer during course of the investigation. Surprisingly, merely because the statement of Sanjeevani which was in favour of the accused persons, was not filed by the Investigating Officer on record. 30. During course of the trial, the defence counsel moved application (Exh.26) seeking direction to the prosecution to produce the dying declaration of Sanjeevani, recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The learned Judge passed the appropriate order below Exh.26 and in compliance to the said order, the dying declaration was filed on record. Thus, the dying declaration filed on record was coming from proper custody. After the said dying declaration was filed, since it was in favour of the accused persons, obviously they admitted the said dying declaration and it was duly exhibited. However, the learned Judge of the Court below has rejected the said by ascribing the reason that the defence has failed to prove the same by not summoning the doctor and the scribe. However, the learned Judge of the Court below has rejected the said by ascribing the reason that the defence has failed to prove the same by not summoning the doctor and the scribe. I really failed to understand this approach on the part of the learned Judge of the Court below. It is not at all disputed by the prosecution that dying declaration of Sanjeevani was not recorded. Further, the said dying declaration is coming on record from proper custody. It is not coming on record from the defence side. Further, it is also not the prosecution case that in any way there is manipulation at the hands of the defence with the said dying declaration. It was also not the prosecution case that at the time of recording of dying declaration (Exh.54), deceased was not in fit mental condition. It was always open for the prosecution to prove contrary by examining the doctor. In my view, the Court below has committed mistake at law in shifting the said burden on the shoulder of the accused. 31. The Court below has given another reason for rejecting the said dying declaration in view of the oral dying declaration given by the deceased. The conjoint reading of entire evidence of PW1 Nagorao and PW3 Mahadev would show that the oral dying declaration was alleged to have been made to PW3 Mahadev and not to Nagorao. Evidence of Mahadev does not show the details of oral dying declaration made to him by the deceased. During course of his cross-examination, the learned crossexaminer referred to his report dated 21.10.2004 and therefore, it was exhibited as Exh.57. It also shows that on the date of the incident, the deceased was beaten by appellant Arun and abused by appellant Gajanan. The said report would show that therefore, in the heat of rage, she poured kerosene on herself. His evidence and Exh.57 are totally silent about any role played by other accused persons. 32. PW1 Nagorao, in his examination-in-chief did state that it was disclosed to him by the deceased herself that she was assaulted by Arun and at that time accused Gajanan took out belt, whereas accused Anusaya, Jyoti and Chhaya abused her. Even in examination-in-chief, he does not attribute any role to appellant Sopan. 32. PW1 Nagorao, in his examination-in-chief did state that it was disclosed to him by the deceased herself that she was assaulted by Arun and at that time accused Gajanan took out belt, whereas accused Anusaya, Jyoti and Chhaya abused her. Even in examination-in-chief, he does not attribute any role to appellant Sopan. However, in cross-examination PW1 Nagorao did admit that the information was not disclosed to him by the deceased, but by Mahadev, his son. Thus, the oral dying declaration, which he claimed during the course of examination-in-chief, in my view, cannot be treated as an oral dying declaration, since it will fall within the category of hearsay evidence i.e. information received by him from his son Mahadev. 33. As per the evidence of PW3 Mahadev, he received telephonic call from one unknown person from Sawargaon-Jire about burning incident on night of 20th October, prompting them to visit firstly to Sawargaon-Jire and thereafter to the hospital at Akola. What was the mental and physical condition of Sanjeevani at the time when Mahadev and others visited at Hospital, is not brought on record by the prosecution. The bedhead ticket of Sanjeevani ought to have been filed on record, which would have shown the physical condition of the patient from 19.10.2004 till her death on 26.10.2004. Apart from that, it was always open for the prosecution to examine the attending doctor to throw light as to whether Sanjeevani was in a position to speak with anybody. This assumes importance because PW3 Mahadev admitted in his cross-examination that when he visited the hospital, that time he noticed that saline was administered to his sister. What were the medicines those were administered through saline could also have been brought on record by producing the bedhead ticket of the deceased. In absence of positive evidence about the health of Sanjeevani, everything is in realm of guessing. In such a situation, in my view, it would be hazardous to accept the oral dying declaration made to Mahadev as claimed by him. 34. Exhibit 43, as observed in the preceding paragraphs, recites presence of stove in the room. Time of the incident is also at 3.40 in the afternoon as it could be seen from Exh.54, written dying declaration. As per the said, when she was preparing tea, accidentally she came in contact with fire. Preparing tea at 3.40 pm is not unusual. Exhibit 43, as observed in the preceding paragraphs, recites presence of stove in the room. Time of the incident is also at 3.40 in the afternoon as it could be seen from Exh.54, written dying declaration. As per the said, when she was preparing tea, accidentally she came in contact with fire. Preparing tea at 3.40 pm is not unusual. Presence of stove on the spot of incident where, even according to the prosecution, the incident has occurred, gives strength to the dying declaration made by the deceased (Exh.54). 35. According to the Investigating Officer, he seized various articles from the spot emitting kerosene smell. Those included the saree worn by the deceased and the other articles. If those really were emitting smell of kerosene, the reduces of kerosene could have been easily established by sending the said articles to the Chemical Analyser. However, in the present case, there is no Chemical Analyser’s report available on record. Thus, the scientific evidence about noticing kerosene residues on the clothes of the deceased is also not available on record. In my view, that probabalises the defence of the accused persons in the light of other material as discussed herein above that there is possibility of accident. 36. By now, the law on abetment is well settled by numerous decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and by this Court. As discussed, there was no proximity of demand and the cruelty which was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the earlier round of litigation. The solitary incident is, therefore, on the date of the incident and even if that solitary incident is accepted, on the said day, the husband assaulted on his wife and at that time his brother abused the deceased. In absence of any demand as observed, it may be the incident which no civilized society will approve, however, it cannot be termed as an abetment by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide. 37. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the statement of accused persons recorded during the time when they were examined by the learned Judge of the Court below under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they admitted that the deceased made oral dying declaration to Mahadev. 37. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the statement of accused persons recorded during the time when they were examined by the learned Judge of the Court below under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they admitted that the deceased made oral dying declaration to Mahadev. The submission hardly supports the prosecution case for securing the conviction on the said for the reason the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju alias Batya's case (supra), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that statement made by the accused when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot take place of the evidence since no oath is administered to them. Apart from that, I have my own doubt for the reasons stated hereinabove about the factum of oral dying declaration made to Mahadev. 38. The conspectus of all the afotesaid discussion leads me to pass the following order : ORDER 1. The criminal appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 11/2005 against the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. The appellants stand acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. R. K. Tiwari, the learned counsel appointed for the appellants is entitled to receive the professional charges from the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur and I quantify it at Rs.7,500/-. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel submits that in stead of giving said amount to him, it may be deposited with the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur. 5. With this, the criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.