JUDGMENT : ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused in Sessions Case No.10/2009 against the judgment dated 29.09.2010, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In default to pay fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one (1) year. Further accused was sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. In default to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Shyla was the wife of the accused No.1 Shivaji, she was residing along with her husband at Nimbal village, Taluka Aland along with her mother-in-law namely the accused No.2 and her father-in-law. She has got two daughters out of the wedlock. On 16.06.2004 evening at about 6.00 p.m. The accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with the Shyla on the reason as to why she did not bring new sari from her parents house and then accused No.1 assaulted. At that time, the accused No.2 namely the mother-in-law closed the door, the accused No.1 poured kerosene and lit fire. On account of the burn injuries sustained, she was admitted to Civil Hospital at Solapur for treatment, while she was on treatment, succumbed to the injuries. 3. When the deceased was in the Hospital for treatment, three dying declarations were recorded. On the basis of third dying declaration recorded on 17.06.2004. The police have registered the case at P.S.Crime No.40/2004. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 4. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court and appearance of the accused, the charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A R/w 34 IPC and under Section 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses as PW1 to PW28 and the documents are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P45. The material objects were marked as MO1 to 4. After recording the evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses as PW1 to PW28 and the documents are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P45. The material objects were marked as MO1 to 4. After recording the evidence, the statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. On hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence, the accused were held guilty for the offences of alleged against them. 5. The trial court has given findings that the evidence placed on record in respect of one of the dying declaration is worth believable in spite of the hostility of some of the witnesses and there is ample evidence to prove the charges leveled against accused. 6. The learned counsel for the accused taking us through the material on the record submits that the trial court is not justified in convicting the accused for the alleged offences. The evidence placed on record do not make out a case that the accused has committed the murder. Two dying declarations recorded earlier on 16.06.2004 are disbelieved and the third dying declaration said to have been recorded is relied on for convicting the accused. There is inordinate delay in registering the case, the same has not been considered by the trial court. There is no plausible explanation for the delay caused in registering the case. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against them. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State argues in support of the judgment of the court below and has submitted that the dying declaration recorded on 17.06.2004 clearly goes to prove the harassment caused by the accused No.1 and 2 and murder committed by them by pouring kerosene. There are no doubtful circumstances to disbelieve the prosecution case. As such, the judgment rendered and the sentence imposed are proper and justified. 8. The present case rests mainly on the dying declarations of the deceased Shyla. Even though, the dying declaration is entitled to great weight, the court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not a result of a either tutoring, prompting and product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and there was a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once a court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and there was a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once a court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary. The court cannot rely on the dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction unless it is corroborated the rule requiring corroboration. 9. In a decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 374 between Smt. Kamla vs. State of Punjab. The Apex Court has observed that in the dying declarations made by deceased revealing inconsistently vis-à-vis naming the culprit, one of the dying declaration indicating the incident as an accident conviction under Section 302 IPC based on one of the dying declarations implicating the accused is liable to be set aside. 10. In the instant case, there are three dying declarations. When there are more than one dying declaration, the intersect contradictions in those dying declarations are of extreme importance, it cannot be said that a dying declaration which supports the prosecution alone can be accepted while the other innocuous dying declarations has to be rejected, such decision would be extremely dangerous. However, the courts below can act on the dying declarations and make them basis for conviction, if they are voluntary, truthful and made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in the success of the investigation or which may be negligence on account of I.O. while recording the dying declaration. 11. According to the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 16.06.2004. On the same day the injured victim was taken to hospital at Solapur and three dying declarations have been recorded. The first and second dying declarations were recorded on 16.06.2004 and the third dying declaration was recorded on 17.06.2004. In order to prove the prosecution case namely the dying declaration and the harassment caused by the accused No.1 and 2 prior to the incident, the prosecution has examined in all 28 witnesses as PWs 1 to 28. P.W.1 Bassamma, P.W.2 Mahananda and P.W.4 to 6 Srishail, Siddamma and Arjun are all witnesses who are suppose to speak about the alleged illtreatment by the accused. P.W.3 Laxman is the Jeep driver who took the injured to the hospital. P.W.1 Bassamma, P.W.2 Mahananda and P.W.4 to 6 Srishail, Siddamma and Arjun are all witnesses who are suppose to speak about the alleged illtreatment by the accused. P.W.3 Laxman is the Jeep driver who took the injured to the hospital. P.W.7 Shanker is the complainant who is the uncle of the deceased, P.W.8 Beliram is the father, P.W.9 Shardabai is the mother of the deceased Shaila. P.W.10 Siddanna and P.W.11 Ramchandra are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.12 Kamalabi is the sister of P.W.8 Beliram, P.W.13 Putalibai and P.W.14 Suresh are the witnesses to the inquest Ex.P28. P.W.15 Kashinath and P.W.18 Arvind are the witnesses to the spot mahazar Ex.P29. P.W.16 Dr. Sudhir Telkar is the Medical officer who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Shaila. P.W.17 Ramdas is the head constable of Sadar Bazar Police Station Solapur who registered a case on the basis of the complaint which was given to him by A.S.I. NandaKumar Shane. P.W.19 Ashok is a constable who was deputed to trace the accused. P.W.20 Karimunissa is an Advocate and a social worker in whose presence the dying declaration was said to have been recorded as per Ex.P35. P.W.21 Shivaraj is the Special Judicial Magistrate Solapur who recorded the dying declaration as per Ex.P36. P.W.22 Nand Kumar A.S.I. of Sadar Bazar Police Station who has recorded the dying declaration as per Ex.P45 on 16.06.2004 and also conducted an inquest on 20.06.2004. P.W.23 Dr. Shantanoo is the Medical officer who has certified the mental and physical fitness of the injured to give statement before the police who recorded it as per Ex.P35, P.W.24. Chandrakant is the A.S.I. of Sadar Bazar Police Station who recorded the dying declaration in the presence of the Medical Officer and two witnesses on 17.06.2004 as per Ex.P35. P.W.25 Balraj is the Circle Police Inspector Aland Circle. P.W.26 Sadashiva Swamy is the Police Sub Inspector of Madan Hipparga Police station. P.W.27 Gangaram is the Head Constable of Aland Police Station who had translated the documents which are in Marathi to Kannada language and P.W.28 Chandrashekhar is the Circle Police Inspector of Aland Circle who certified the translation made by P.W.27 as correct by attesting the same. 12. P.W.26 Sadashiva Swamy is the Police Sub Inspector of Madan Hipparga Police station. P.W.27 Gangaram is the Head Constable of Aland Police Station who had translated the documents which are in Marathi to Kannada language and P.W.28 Chandrashekhar is the Circle Police Inspector of Aland Circle who certified the translation made by P.W.27 as correct by attesting the same. 12. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 to P.W.6 who are said to be acquainted with the accused his parents and the deceased Shyla have not supported the prosecution case and have not stated about the illtreatment by the accused on his parents to the deceased Shyla. All these witnesses were treated as hostile and cross examined by prosecution, but nothing is elicited in the cross examination. Likewise, P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.15, P.W.18 who are the independent witnesses for spot mahazar have also not supported the prosecution case. 13. The remaining witnesses are P.W.7 who is the complaint, P.W.8 and P.W.9 parents of the deceased, P.W.12 aunt of the deceased, P.W.13 and P.W.14 inquest panchas. P.W.16 and P.W.23 who are the doctors, present at the time of recording two different dying declarations and P.W.18 to P.W.26 are the officials. It is necessary to ascertain whether the evidence of these aforesaid witnesses is reliable to hold the accused guilty. Thus, we have given a cursory glance at the evidence of the said witnesses. 14. “In a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully….. But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim’s hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence. Courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence….. In dealing with such evidence. Courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence….. If the criminal Court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinized.” 15. P.W.7 namely the complainant is the uncle of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that few days prior to the incident of death, the deceased Shyla was in her parental house and she was presented a new sari while sending back to the matrimonial home. But in a hurry, she did not carry the new sari to matrimonial home. Because of this reason, the accused No.1 and 2 quarreled with the victim of the deceased Shyla. Thereafter, the accused No.1 lit the fire to the deceased by pouring kerosene. P.W.8 and P.W.9 have also given the same evidence. P.W.12 Kamalabai who is aunt of the deceased has stated that she visited hospital at Solapur and noticed the burn injuries and police have conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P28. The evidence of these relatives do not lead to a irresistible conclusion about the continuous harassment done by accused No.1 and 2. 16. Since the entire case rest on the three different dying declarations namely Ex.P35, Ex.36 and Ex.P45, it is very much essential to scrutinize the contents of these dying declarations and also the evidence of the scribes and other concerned witnesses in whose presence the dying declarations were recorded. According to the prosecution, the first dying declaration was recorded on 16.06.2004. The first dying declaration was recorded by the special judicial magistrate on 16.06.2004 at 11.45 .m. On the same day i.e. on 16.06.2004 another dying declaration was recorded by the A.S.I. Sadar Bazar Police Station in the presence of Chief medical officer of Chattrapati Shivaji General Hospital, Solapur. On 17.06.2004, the third dying declaration was recorded by A.S.I. of Sadar Bazar Police Station between 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m in the presence of Medical officer. The trial court has discussed in detail about the earlier two dying declarations and has come to the conclusion that these two declarations cannot be believed. On 17.06.2004, the third dying declaration was recorded by A.S.I. of Sadar Bazar Police Station between 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m in the presence of Medical officer. The trial court has discussed in detail about the earlier two dying declarations and has come to the conclusion that these two declarations cannot be believed. It is pertinent to note that the third dying declaration Ex.P35 is recorded by P.W.24. In the cross examination, he has clearly admitted while recording the dying declaration that it had come to his notice about the earlier dying declaration statements of injured recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate and AsI on 16.06.2004. He has also deposed that in his examination-in-chief on 16.06.2004, he had received information from Civil Hospital, Solapur that a patient by name Shyla was admitted and there are no chances of survival. If that is so, there is no explanation as to why he caused delay in recording the dying declaration statement till next date. The first and foremost doubt that arises as to what was the necessity to record the third dying declaration, even when he knew about the earlier dying declarations recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate and ASI on 16.06.2004. 17. The next aspect to be considered is regarding the contents of dying declaration. It is pertinent to note that in earlier two dying declarations recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate and the A.S.I. on 16.06.2004, there is no mention whatsoever regarding harassment caused by accused No.1 and 2 or specific narration about the kerosene poured and fire lit by them. It is only in the third dying declaration which was recorded on 17.06.2004 that too after arrival of the parents of the deceased, there is a narration of harassment caused to the accused persons and murder committed by pouring kerosene. It is relevant to note here that on 17.06.2004 PW7 who had come to the hospital along with the parents of the deceased was a retired Police officer, but the complainant was registered on 20.06.2004. He has admitted in the cross examination that no complaint was given to the police till the date of death of Shyla. It is relevant to note here that on 17.06.2004 PW7 who had come to the hospital along with the parents of the deceased was a retired Police officer, but the complainant was registered on 20.06.2004. He has admitted in the cross examination that no complaint was given to the police till the date of death of Shyla. There is no plausible explanation as to why he has caused the delay in filing the complaint, PW7 very well knew about the incident on 17.06.2004 when he had come to the hospital and when the third dying declaration was recorded, but no complaint was registered on the same day, but it was registered on 20.06.2004. It is only after his arrival, the third dying declaration has come into existence. This circumstance create the doubts to disbelieve the prosecution version about the harassment done by the accused or murder by pouring kerosene on the deceased. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2423, Ishwar Singh V/s The State of Uttar Pradesh, has held as under: “(A) Criminal P.C. (1898), S. 157 – F.I.R. in respect of cognizable offence to be sent ‘forthwith’ to a Magistrate competent to take cognizance of offence – Unexplained delay of two days in sending F.I.R. to Magistrate – Effect. The extraordinary delay in sending the F.I.R. is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when the case made in court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the F.I.R. In such a case, the evidence of the eyewitnesses “cannot be accepted at its face value.” AIR 1976 SC 1156 . Rel.on 19. The prosecution has failed to give the explanation for recording the third dying declaration. According to prosecution, the justification for recording third dying declaration is that earlier two dying declarations were recorded when the parents deceased or the complainant or any other relatives were not present as such the accused persons had threatened the deceased not to disclose about the harassment done by them or about the incident of pouring kerosene and setting ablaze. According to prosecution, the justification for recording third dying declaration is that earlier two dying declarations were recorded when the parents deceased or the complainant or any other relatives were not present as such the accused persons had threatened the deceased not to disclose about the harassment done by them or about the incident of pouring kerosene and setting ablaze. It is also explained that since the accused No.1 and 2 threatened the injured that her two children will not be looked after by them, if she speaks the truth while giving the dying declaration. It is very much necessary to note here that one of the earlier i.e. first dying declaration is recorded by none other than the Special Judicial Magistrate. Another dying declaration was also recorded by the A.S.I. on the same day in the presence of the Chief Medical Officer and there are no doubtful circumstances, to disbelieve the said dying declarations or the truthfulness of statement made in the said dying declarations. According to the prosecution case, the father-in-law of the deceased Shyla had brought her to the hospital for treatment and he had informed aunt of the deceased about the said incident. There is no cogent evidence that on the date of recording earlier two dying declarations. The accused No.1 and 2 were present at the spot and they had threatened the deceased Shyla. The trial Court has raised the doubts as to why the parents of the deceased were not informed about the fire incident and the conduct of the accused persons is suspected on the reason that they being the real culprits have not informed the parents of the deceased. The trial court has made the lengthy discussions about the three dying declarations and has come to the conclusion that the initial two dying declarations cannot be believed on flimsy grounds brushing aside the other doubtful circumstances. No doubt, in earlier two dying declarations, there is no mention about the harassment done by accused and other acts of pouring kerosene and fire lit by the accused, but there is no cogent evidence to show that on account of threat given by accused No.1 and 2, the victim Shyla did not disclose about the harassment and other acts of pouring kerosene. It is only after arrival of P.W.7 and her parents, there was creation of third dying declaration narrating harassment caused by the accused and other acts. But when there is no convincing explanation as to why the third dying declaration was created, it is not justified to hold that the said third dying declaration alone as reliable document. Even assuming that if two views are possible, the one which is favorable to the accused has to be considered. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1624-1625 of 2013 in the case of Harbeer Singh V/s Sheeshpal and others, has held as under: “(11.) It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 21. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances and also on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions judge has committed serious error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. The Sessions judge has not given benefit of the above said doubtful circumstances in favour of the accused. Hence, the appeal deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following.. ORDER The Criminal Appeal filed by the accused is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2010 passed by the 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Gulbarga in S.C.No.10/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC is hereby set aside. Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the offence levelled against him under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case or if the accused is in custody. If the accused has deposited any fine amount, the same is ordered to be refunded to him on proper identification and acknowledgment. If the accused has deposited any fine amount, the same is ordered to be refunded to him on proper identification and acknowledgment. The bail bonds and surety bonds, if any executed by the appellant and his sureties stand cancelled. Registry is hereby directed to send the copy of this judgment to Jail Authority to take necessary action for release.