Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2187 (BOM)

Waman v. State Of Maharashtra

2019-09-23

K.K.SONAWANE, T.V.NALAWADE

body2019
JUDGMENT : K.K. Sonawane, J. The instant appeal calls-in-question the legality and propriety of impugned Judgment and order of conviction of the appellants-accused and resultant sentence awarded to them in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur, dated 16-01-2014. The appellant-accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they all are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine, as below :- Offences : Under Section 147 of IPC R.I. for 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and I.D. R.I. for one month. Under Section 148 of IPC R.I. for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and I.D. R.I. for one month. Under Section 323 of IPC R.I. for 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and I.D. R.I. for one month. Under Section 302 of IPC R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and I.D. R.I. for one month. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, the appellants-accused invoking remedy under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred the present appeal to redress their grievances. 2. The scenario of the prosecution case culled out in brief is that the ill-fated deceased victim Sandhya was the wife of Janardhan Dnyanoba Dakare resident of village Bakali, Taluka Shirur-Anantpal, District Latur. He was eking livelihood by doing agricultural labour work and residing with wife Sandhya, children, etc. in the house allotted to his father under "Gharkul" Scheme of the Government. The appellants-accused were also the residents of same locality in the neighbourhood of house of victim- Sandhya. The relations between the family of appellants accused and the victim - Sandhya were strained following land dispute. It has been alleged that Janardhan, the husband of victim- Sandhya made encroachment on the open plot of accused by erecting plinth of the house of Aunt Trivenibai and on that count there were frequent quarrels in between family of appellants-accused and victim-Sandhya. The aunt - Trivenibai and others made endeavour to give understanding to the appellants-accused, but all efforts found unavailing. The aunt - Trivenibai and others made endeavour to give understanding to the appellants-accused, but all efforts found unavailing. According to prosecution, on 09-01-2012 in the wee hours of night at about 12.30 a.m., the victim Sandhya was admitted in the Government Hospital, Latur for her 95% burns. After receipt of MLC from the hospital authority, the Police Personnel PHC - Shri Ranzunjare attended the burnt patient - Sandhya in the hospital and in consultation with concerned doctor recorded her statement to ascertain cause of her burns. The injured - Sandhya blamed the appellants accused and spill-the-beans that on 08-01-2012 the appellant-accused Waman Harge at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, urinated in front of the door of her house. He was reprimanded by victim- Sandhya for such indecent act. But, taking umbrage of such scolding, all the appellants-accused arrived in front of the house of victim Sandhya in the night hours. They picked-up quarrel with victim Sandhya and her husband Janardhan. They started pelting stones and hurled the abuses. The victim - Sandhya and her husband-Janardhan were beaten-up by the appellants accused by fist and kicks. The appellant-accused Waman Saibu Harge and Gunwant Saibu Harge caught hold her husband Janardhan and confined him in the room. Thereafter, appellants accused poured the kerosene on the person of Victim-Sandhya and set her on fire. The mother-in-law Rukminibai and other neighbourers thronged at the spot. The husband - Janardhan was set free by opening the latch of door of room. The victim-Sandya was engulfed in flame. The husband and neighbourers doused the fire. Thereafter, victim Sandhya was escorted to the hospital for medical treatment. 3. Pursuant to the dying declaration of victim-Sandhya recorded by Police Personnel ASI - Mr. Ranzunjare, the Police of Shirur Anantpal Police Station registered the Crime No. 03 of 2012 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and set the penal law in motion. The services of Executive Magistrate Mr. Jogdand was also requisitioned. He visited to the victim- Sandhya and recorded her dying declaration in the hospital. She reproduced the cause of her burn and blamed the appellants-accused being author of her injuries. Investigating Officer visited to the spot of incident and drawn panchnama of scene of occurrence. He recovered one plastic kerosene can, burnt pieces of Sari, kerosene mixed earth and simple earth, match-stick box from the spot of incident. She reproduced the cause of her burn and blamed the appellants-accused being author of her injuries. Investigating Officer visited to the spot of incident and drawn panchnama of scene of occurrence. He recovered one plastic kerosene can, burnt pieces of Sari, kerosene mixed earth and simple earth, match-stick box from the spot of incident. IO seized the weapon wooden stick at the behest of accused- Rajpal @ Madhav Harge. IO recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with facts of the case. Meanwhile, on 15-01-2012 during medical treatment the victim Sandhya succumbed to burn injuries. The police drawn inquest panchnama on the dead body of deceased Sandhya. The corpse of deceased Sandhya was referred to autopsy. PW-5 Dr. Dharamraj Dudde conducted the postmortem and opined that the death of deceased-Sandhya was caused due to shock following 95% burns. Thereafter, IO applied Section 302 of the IPC against appellants accused in this case. After compliance of procedural formalities, IO preferred the charge-sheet against the appellant-accused bearing Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012. 4. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to frame the charge against appellants-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in this case. The learned trial Court also recorded statement of each of the accused as prescribed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, learned trial Court considered the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record and held all the appellants-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 read with section 149 of the IPC. Accordingly, the learned trial Court passed impugned Judgment and order of the conviction of appellants-accused and imposed the resultant sentence as indicated above. The validity and propriety of the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is the subject matter of present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused vehemently submits that the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge is totally illegal, perverse and bad-in-law. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The appellants-accused did not commit any kind of offence as alleged on behalf of prosecution. They all are innocent of the charges of committing murder of victim- Sandhya pitted against them. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The appellants-accused did not commit any kind of offence as alleged on behalf of prosecution. They all are innocent of the charges of committing murder of victim- Sandhya pitted against them. The appellant-accused are falsely implicated in this case. According to learned counsel, there are material discrepancies in the dying declarations recorded by the Police Personnel (Exhibit-55) and Executive Magistrate (Exhibit-60). The attending circumstances on record categorically indicate that the occurrence of alleged burning incident as verbalized by the victim- Sandhya in her dying declaration was improbable and unbelievable one. The learned counsel drawn attention of this Court towards panchnama of scene of occurrence (Exhibit-88). The learned counsel explained that the incriminating articles like kerosene can, burnt pieces of clothes, matchstick box, etc., all are recovered from the house of victim-Sandhya. The burning incident of victim Sandhya was occurred inside her house and not on the road in front of her house. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of alleged eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellants harped on the circumstances that all the witnesses are relatives and interested witnesses. The independent witness i.e. neighbourer did not come forward to depose against the appellants-accused. In the alleged dying declarations, it has been mentioned that the neighbour Siddheshwar was accompanied with the deceased when she was taken to the hospital. But, he has not been examined by the prosecution. The vehicle owner, who carried the injured Sandhya, from the spot of incident to the hospital, also turned hostile. Therefore, it would unjust and improper to draw adverse inference against appellants-accused on the basis of evidence of interested witness of the prosecution. The dying declarations of the deceased (Exhibits-55 and 60) appears not voluntary genuine and truthful in nature. The victim - Sandhya might have committed suicide and to wreak vengeance against appellants, she embroiled them in this false case. The circumstances on record creates doubt about the veracity and trustworthiness of the allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution. It would fallacious to appreciate that the appellants-accused are the author of burn injuries sustained to deceased Sandhya. 6. Learned prosecutor raised the objection to the contentions propounded on behalf of appellants-accused and contended that the entire facts and circumstances of the case were strictly scrutinized and appreciated by the leaned trial Court. It would fallacious to appreciate that the appellants-accused are the author of burn injuries sustained to deceased Sandhya. 6. Learned prosecutor raised the objection to the contentions propounded on behalf of appellants-accused and contended that the entire facts and circumstances of the case were strictly scrutinized and appreciated by the leaned trial Court. The inference drawn by the learned trial Judge for the guilt of appellants-accused appears just, proper and reasonable one. There are no illegality or error committed by the learned trial Court. According to learned prosecutor the interference in the alleged findings expressed by learned trial Court at the behest of appellants-accused is totally unwarranted and unjustifiable one. He supported the findings of guilt of the appellants accused expressed by learned trial Court in this appeal. 7. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides. We have also delved into the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution on record. The intense scrutiny of the factual aspect and evidence of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the arguments advanced on behalf of appellants-accused appears formidable and much more comprehensible one. It is not put into controversy that the victim-Sandhya died due to 95% burn injuries. She sustained burn injuries in the wee hours of night on 08-01-2012, and immediately thereafter, she was escorted to the Government Hospital at Latur for medical treatment. The doctor made endeavour to resuscitate the victim Sandhya, but during medical treatment, she succumbed to burn injuries on 15-01-2012 at about 7.00 p.m. The Police drawn inquest panchnama (Exhibit-82) and referred the dead body of deceased Sandhya for autopsy to determine the cause of death. PW-5 Dr. Dharmraj Dudde conducted the postmortem (Exhibit-50) and opined that the deceased Sandhya died following shock due to 95% burns. All these circumstances substantially not put into controversy on behalf of appellants-accused. In such back-drop, the crucial issues to be ponder over in this case is to ascertain whether death of deceased Sandhya was homicidal in nature and the appellants-accused are to be held responsible for her death. 8. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant-accused, prosecution relied upon the evidence of multiple dying declarations of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-55) and (Exhibit-60). 8. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant-accused, prosecution relied upon the evidence of multiple dying declarations of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-55) and (Exhibit-60). In addition, prosecution adduced the evidence of so-called eye-witnesses of the incident, PW-8 Rukminibai (cousin mother-in-law of deceased), PW-9 Jananrdhan Dakare (husband of deceased) and PW-10 Kundlik Moterao (relative of deceased). There was abortive attempt on the part of prosecution to examine PW-11 Dhanraj Rakshale (Exhibit-73) being independent witness. He carried the injured Sandhya in his vehicle from the spot of incident to Government Hospital, Latur. But, he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The panch witnesses of the spot of incident (Exhibit-88), as well as memorandum panchnama for recovery of weapon wooden stick under Section 27 of Evidence Act at the behest of appellant-accused No.3 Rajpal @ Madhav, all found reluctant to nod in favour of prosecution. They all made volte-face and turned hostile. 9. Pw-6 ASI Narayan Ranzunjare reduced into writing the dying declaration of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-55), in Government Hospital, Latur. PW-6 ASI Ranzunjare deposed that on 09-01-2012, he was on duty in the Government Hospital, Latur. He received the MLC (Exhibit53), for information that the patient namely Sandhya Janardhan Dakare came to be admitted for her burn on 09-01-2012 at about 12.30 a.m. Thereafter, he issued the letter (Exhibit-54) to the concerned Doctor on duty for certificate about the fitness of patient Sandhya to record her statement. Accordingly, PW-2 Dr. Deshpande clinically examined the patient Sandhya and opined that she was in a fit condition, both mentally and physically, to give statement. The PW-2 Dr. Deshpande issued the fitness certificate of patient Sandhya on three occasions (Exhibits-38, 36 and 37), while recording statement of patient Sandhya (Exhibit-55) by the police personnel ASI Shri. Ranzunjare. Accordingly, the dying declaration of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-55) came to be recorded by ASI PW-6 Ranzunjare. The dying declaration (Exhibit-55) was recorded in between 2.30 p.m. to 3.05 p.m. on 09-01-2012. 10. In the dying declaration (Exhibit-55) the deceased Sandhya verbalized that on 08-01-2012, in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. the accused Waman attempted to urinate in front of door of her house, and therefore, she made enquiry with him. Taking umbrage of the same, all the appellants-accused in the night hours at about 11.00 p.m. picked-up quarrel with the victim Sandhya. Taking umbrage of the same, all the appellants-accused in the night hours at about 11.00 p.m. picked-up quarrel with the victim Sandhya. They hurled abuses and thrashed the victim Sandhya by kicks, fists and wooden stick. In the fight, the accused Urmila and Meena caught hold her, the accused Rajpal, Waman and Gunwant poured the kerosene oil from plastic container on her person and put her on fire. The victim Sandhya further disclosed that when she was engulfed with flames, the neighbourers extinguish the fire by pouring water. Thereafter, she was taken to Government hospital in private vehicle by her mother-in-law Rukminibai, husband Janardhan and neighbour Siddheshwar. In the midnight at about 12.30 a.m. on 09-01-2012, she was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment. 11. Pw-7 Shri. Jogdand, Executive Magistrate recorded another dying declaration of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-60). The alleged dying declaration came to be recorded on 11-01-2012 at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. in Government Hospital, Latur. He has also obtained fitness certificates of patient Sandhya for recording statement. These certificates are at (Exhibits-39 and 40). The PW-2 Dr. Deshpande proved these certificates of fitness of patient Sandhya. In the dying declaration (Exhibit-60) recorded by PW-7 Shri. Jogdand, Executive Magistrate, the deceased Sandhya divulged that on 09-01-2012, in the night at about 9.00 p.m., the accused Waman urinated on the cow rope, and therefore, victim Sandhya asked him about such act. But, he did not respond and went away. Thereafter, at about 10.00 p.m. the accused Waman, once again, came to the house of victim Sandhya, accompanied with accused Gunwant, Madhav, as well as his son and daughter-in-law Urmila. They all started pelting stone. The frantic victim Sandhya pushed her husband inside the house and put the latch on the door from outside. She herself tried to hide in the bathroom located in court-yard. But, accused Waman, Sunita, Urmila and Meena caught-hold her hand and accused Waman, Gunwant and Madhav poured kerosene from container and set her ablaze. Thereafter, the assailants made their escape good from the spot. Her mother-in-law Rukminibai, husband Janardhan and neighbour Siddheshwar took her to hospital. 12. PW-8 Rukminibai Gaikwad was the maternal aunt of Jananrdhan - husband of deceased Sandhya. She was examined on behalf of prosecution as an eye witness of the incident. PW-8 Rukminibai, in her evidence before the Court, in paragraphs No. 5 and 6, deposed as under :- "5. Her mother-in-law Rukminibai, husband Janardhan and neighbour Siddheshwar took her to hospital. 12. PW-8 Rukminibai Gaikwad was the maternal aunt of Jananrdhan - husband of deceased Sandhya. She was examined on behalf of prosecution as an eye witness of the incident. PW-8 Rukminibai, in her evidence before the Court, in paragraphs No. 5 and 6, deposed as under :- "5. Sandhya is no more. Incident took place about year or year and half year ago. On that night, I myself and my mother were at home. I heard commotion at about 9.00 p.m. and therefore, myself and my mother came over the road. Madhav was armed with stick. He was assaulting Janardhan and Sandhya by stick. Gunwant and Waman were assaulting them by fist and kicks. The women were holding Janardhan and Sandhya. The women were Urmila and Meena. Waman and Urmila put Janardhan inside their house and bolted the door from outside. Sandhya was trying to run towards their house. Madhav caught hold hair of Sandhya and snatched her over a road. He also brought kerosene can by going to his house. He poured kerosene on her person while all others were holding Sandhya and put her on fire by match-stick and all ran away. 6. I unbolted the door and rescued Janardhan. By that time Sandhya had come in front of their house's door in burning condition. Her son Hansaraj was inside the house. Janardhan went inside the house by opening the tin-sheet and rescued the said child from the house as Sandhya was burning in front of the door. He has handed said Hansaraj from tin-sheet to Pundalik. Thereafter, I myself, Pundalik and Janardhan extinguished the fire by putting the blankets over the person of Sandhya. When we extinguished the fire, Sandhya was speaking. Thereafter, Police Patil of the village came there. He called a vehicle (OMNI) to carry Sandhya to Latur Civil Hospital. I myself, Pundalik and Janardhan sat in the said vehicle with burnt Sandhya and brought her to Civil Hospital. Sandhya was in the hospital for eight days. Thereafter, she died." 13. PW-9 Janardhan Dakare is the husband of deceased Sandhya. He has also stepped into the shoes of PW-8 Rukminibai on the circumstances of occurrence of alleged burning incident of victim Sandhya. Sandhya was in the hospital for eight days. Thereafter, she died." 13. PW-9 Janardhan Dakare is the husband of deceased Sandhya. He has also stepped into the shoes of PW-8 Rukminibai on the circumstances of occurrence of alleged burning incident of victim Sandhya. He deposed that on 08-01-2012, in the night hours at about 11.30 p.m. all accused persons arrived in front of his house. They all started abusing them. Therefore, he and his wife victim Sandhya came out of the house. The accused assaulted them. According to PW-9, Janardhan, accused Waman and Gunwant caught-hold him and confined in the room putting latch of the door from outside. His wife was out of the house. Thereafter, he heard scremes of victim Sandhya as "Save - Save". She was saying that accused put her on fire by pouring kerosene. Thereafter, somebody had opened the door and allowed him to come out of the room. He saw wife Sandhya engulfed with flame in front of the door of room. Thereafter, he doused the fire by putting blanket and escorted the victim Sandhya to the hospital. 14. PW-10 Kundlik S/o. Baburao Moterao was also examined as one of the eye witness of burning incident of victim Sandhya. He was brother-in-law of the husband of deceased Sandhya. On the day of incident, he had been to the house of deceased Sandhya for some errand. According to PW-10 Kundlik, on the day of incident at about 10.45 p.m. in the night, all accused arrived in front of the house of Janardhan and started abusing to Janardhan and his wife deceased Sandhya. Therefore, Janardhan and deceased Sandhya, both spouses came out of the house. He was also accompanied with them. PW-10 Kundlik deposed that accused Rajpal gave kick blow to Janardhan and made him to fall on the ground. They started beating Janardhan by kick and fist blows. PW-10 Kundlik made endeavour to intervene in the fight. After commotion, the neighbourers thronged at the spot. The accused Waman and Gunwant dragged Janardhan inside the room and put latch on the door from outside. PW-10 Kundlik further added that accused Rajpal put kerosene oil on the person of victim Sandhya and set her ablaze by igniting match-stick. Thereafter, all assailants made their escape good from the spot. The victim Sandhya was engulfed in flame. The accused Waman and Gunwant dragged Janardhan inside the room and put latch on the door from outside. PW-10 Kundlik further added that accused Rajpal put kerosene oil on the person of victim Sandhya and set her ablaze by igniting match-stick. Thereafter, all assailants made their escape good from the spot. The victim Sandhya was engulfed in flame. PW-8 Rukminibai opened the latch of door of the room from outside and set the Janardhan, husband of victim Sandhya free from the room. They all extinguished fire. The minor son of victim Sandhya was inside the room. He was also taken out of the room by removing tins from the roof of the room. Thereafter, Sandhya was taken to hospital. But, she succumbed to burns. 15. At this juncture, the intense scrutiny of multiple dying declarations of deceased Sandhya (Exhibits-55 and 60) as well as ocular evidence of eye witnesses account PW-8 Rukminibai, PW-9 Janardhan, husband of deceased Sandhya and PW-10 Kundlik, relative of deceased, reveals that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of all these witnesses as well as version of deceased recorded in her dying declarations (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60) in regard to actual events occurred at the time of burning incident of victim Sandhya. These variances and discrepancies in the dying declarations and ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses create clouds of doubt as to complicity of the accused persons causing burn injuries to the person of deceased Sandhya. 16. Following are the instances of apparent discrepancies and variance in the dying declarations of victim Sandhya (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60) as well as in the evidence of eye witnesses account. In the dying declaration (Exhibit-55), the victim Sandhya did not disclose about the presence of her husband at the spot or his confinement in room after putting latch on the door from outside. In the dying declaration (Exhibit-60), the victim Sandhya divulged that after pelting stones by the accused, the frantic victim Sandhya attempted to hide in a bathroom and also she pushed her husband in the house and bolted the door from outside. In the dying declaration (Exhibit-60), the victim Sandhya divulged that after pelting stones by the accused, the frantic victim Sandhya attempted to hide in a bathroom and also she pushed her husband in the house and bolted the door from outside. But, the eye-witness PW-8 Rukminibai deposed that the accused Waman and Urmila put the Janardhan (husband of victim Sandhya) inside their house and bolted the door from outside, whereas, the PW-9 Janardhan himself disclosed that he was caught hold by the accused Waman and Gunwant and confined him in the room and bolted the door from outside. In the dying declaration (Exhibit-60) victim Sandhya added the name of one another woman namely "Sunita" and alleged that she alongwith other woman culprits i.e. Urmila and Meena caught-hold her hands and the trio accused Waman, Gunwant and Madhav poured kerosene and put her on fire. The most significant and material discrepancy noticed in the evidence of eye witnesses and dying declarations of victim Sandhya was in regard to actual spot of occurrence of the burning incident of victim Sandhya. According to eye-witnesses and dying declarations (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60), the alleged burning incident of Sandhya was occurred out side of her house in the court-yard or road. But, the document of panchnama of spot (Exhibit-88) adumbrates that the burning incident of victim Sandhya occurred inside the house in her kitchen room. The IO recovered articles like plastic kerosene can, burn pieces of saree, matchstick box and earth socked with kerosene oil, etc. The sooty blackening was also seen on the walls of the room. It is also essential to take note that the very first dying declaration (Exhibit-55) of victim Sandhya came to be recorded on 09-01-2012 in between 2.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. i.e. after about 15-16 hours of occurrence of burning incident. The second dying declaration (Exhibit-60) was recorded on 11-01-2012 at about 3.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. i.e. after about 2 to 3 days of the occurrence of burning incident of victim Sandhya. Both the dying declarations were recorded after efflux of sufficient period from alleged incident. The offence came to be registered in the Police Station at 7.30 p.m. on 09-01-2012 on the basis of dying declaration of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-55) recorded by police personnel PW-6 Shri. Ranzunjare. Both the dying declarations were recorded after efflux of sufficient period from alleged incident. The offence came to be registered in the Police Station at 7.30 p.m. on 09-01-2012 on the basis of dying declaration of deceased Sandhya (Exhibit-55) recorded by police personnel PW-6 Shri. Ranzunjare. There was no whisper in the evidence of prosecution witness as to where from accused procured the kerosene oil and match-stick box to set the victim Sandhya on fire. The PW-8 Rukminibai stated that accused Madhav brought kerosene can after going to his house. Then, the question would arise how the IO recovered all these articles from kitchen room of victim Sandhya under spot panchnama (Exhibit-88) ? These circumstances remained unanswered on behalf of prosecution in this case. 17. The cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid circumstances, on the touchstone of multiple dying declarations of victim Sandhya together with the circumstances proved by the eye-witnesses catalogued above, leads to one and only conclusion that the alleged theory of complicity of the appellants-accused for burning incident of Sandhya, projected on behalf of prosecution would be an fallout of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. 18. As referred above, it was substantially not put into controversy that there was burning incident occurred on 09-01-2012 in the night hours with victim Sandhya. She received 95% burns and during the course of medical treatment, she succumbed to burns on 15-01-2012. It is to be noted that pursuant to dying declaration of victim Sandhya (Exhibit-55) recorded by PW-6 PHC Ranzunjare, the Police of Shirur - Anantpal Police Station registered the Crime No. 3 of 2012 on 10-01- 2012 at 7.20 p.m. and set the penal law in motion. We are at a loss to understand that when the appellants-accused ventured to put the wife-Sandhya on fire in front of husband and other relatives, then for what reason the husband PW-9 Janardhan did not prefer to rush to the concerned Police authority to ventilate his grievances against the appellants-accused. PW-9 husband Janardhan in his evidence deposed that the Village Police Patil Shri. Sharad Patil also arrived on the spot at the relevant time of burning incident of his wife Sandhya. But, the Village Police Patil or relatives, who were thronged at the spot, did not take care to inform the police about the alleged crime committed by the appellants-accused. PW-9 husband Janardhan in his evidence deposed that the Village Police Patil Shri. Sharad Patil also arrived on the spot at the relevant time of burning incident of his wife Sandhya. But, the Village Police Patil or relatives, who were thronged at the spot, did not take care to inform the police about the alleged crime committed by the appellants-accused. The Police Patil was not examined by the prosecution in this case to unfurl the attending circumstances occurred on the spot. These circumstances found consistent with the innocence of accused. 19. Moreover, it has brought on record that at the time of burning incident of victim Sandhya, her minor son was crying inside the room. The victim Sandhya was engulfed in the flame standing near the door of the room. Therefore, the husband Janardhan and relative Kundlik, both scaled on the tin-roof of the room. They removed the tin and extricated the minor son from the fire. 20. These proved circumstances brought on record in the evidence of prosecution witnesses smacks something fishy about the reliability and credibility of version of deceased Sandhya as well as prosecution witnesses viz. PW-8 Rukminibai, PW-9 Janardhan and PW-10 relative - Kundlik. It remains a conundrum that when the burning incident of victim Sandhya occurred in the courtyard or on the road side. Then, what was the necessity for PW-9 and PW-10 to climb on the roof and to remove the tin for extricating the minor son. It was also possible to get access in the house/room from the front door after extinguishing the fire or pushing/putting the victim aside at some distance from front side door of the room. But, instead of all these efforts, the PW-9 and PW-10 scaled on the wall and removed the tin-roof to extricate the minor child. These circumstances conjures-up an image that the victim Sandhya might have put herself on fire inside the house in the kitchen for self immolation by putting the latch to the door from inside. The reasons for attempt to commit suicide may be due to frequent quarrel in between herself and the accused. Unfortunately, the minor son was trapped inside the room when she was engulfed in flame. The door was also closed from the inside, and therefore, the circumstances constrained the husband and others to climb on the roof, removed the tin and extricated the minor son. Unfortunately, the minor son was trapped inside the room when she was engulfed in flame. The door was also closed from the inside, and therefore, the circumstances constrained the husband and others to climb on the roof, removed the tin and extricated the minor son. As per evidence of PW-9 Janardhan, the bathroom was also located in the courtyard for source of water to extinguish the fire. But, instead of the same, the husband gave priority to bring minor son out of the room. 21. Be that as it may, there are variance and material discrepancies in the alleged dying declarations of victim Sandhya (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60). The evidence of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 also not consistent on the material aspects of alleged participation and overt-act of appellants-accused for gruesome act of pouring kerosene and setting the victim Sandhya ablazed. 22. We are also at our wit's end that the alleged burning incident of victim Sandhya was occurred on the public road or in the court-yard of the house abutting to the road. The spot was located in the residential area. The neighbourer and on-lookers were thronged at the spot after hearing commotion. They must have received opportunity to watch the spectacle about role played by the accused while putting the victim Sandhya on fire. The Police Patil - Sharad Patil also arrived on the spot. But, no one else came forward to deposed in favour of prosecution. The neighbour Siddheshwar, who was accompanied with injured Sandhya for her hospitalization, also did not examine by the prosecution. In such circumstances, in absence of evidence of independent witness for alleged accusation of murder of victim Sandhya, it would hard to believe the version of relatives for adverse inference against the accused. 23. The alleged dying declarations (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60) came to be recorded after efflux of sufficient time from the alleged incident. There was opportunity for the victim Sandhya and relatives including PW-9 husband Janardhan for consultation and deliberation. The possibility could not be ruled out that the alleged dying declarations (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60) would be the fallout of such exercise to wreak vengeance against the appellants-accused. 24. The law contemplates that credibility of the dying declarations should be decided in the light of attendant circumstances and only after it passes strict scrutiny. The possibility could not be ruled out that the alleged dying declarations (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-60) would be the fallout of such exercise to wreak vengeance against the appellants-accused. 24. The law contemplates that credibility of the dying declarations should be decided in the light of attendant circumstances and only after it passes strict scrutiny. The dying declarations must be truthful and reliable and it must be subjected to a close scrutiny, because it was made in absence of accused, who had no opportunity to test its veracity by cross-examination. If Court finds that declaration is not reliable and material integral portion of the declaration is found untrue and unbelievable, it would be imperative for the Court to discard the same. It would hazardous to convict the accused on the basis of such suspicious, incredulous and dubious dying declarations. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Gopal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 600 , in paragraph No. 13 elucidated that - "13. Law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there is more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. (See Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P.) However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scrutinizing the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances." 25. In the above premises, it is evident that the alleged dying declarations of the victim Sandhya (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-66) are incredulous and not free from blemish. There are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in her evidence. The evidence of PW8 Rukminibai, PW-9 Janardhan (husband of Sandhya) and PW-10 Kundlik (relative) also found unbelievable and unreliable one. In the above premises, it is evident that the alleged dying declarations of the victim Sandhya (Exhibit-55 and Exhibit-66) are incredulous and not free from blemish. There are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in her evidence. The evidence of PW8 Rukminibai, PW-9 Janardhan (husband of Sandhya) and PW-10 Kundlik (relative) also found unbelievable and unreliable one. In absence of evidence of independent witnesses, it would be unsafe to draw any sort of adverse inference against the appellants-accused for the serious allegation of murder of victim Sandhya. The attending circumstances on record are not sufficient to persuade ourselves to favour the prosecution for conclusion of guilt of the appellants-accused. We find that the evidence adduced on record on behalf of prosecution is not sufficient to nail the appellants-accused for allegation of murder of victim Sandhya. There are clouds of doubt in the prosecution case. Learned trial Court did not consider the circumstances on record in its proper perspective and committed error while convicting the appellants-accused in this case. The attending circumstances on record seems to be inconsistent with guilt of the appellants-accused and more consistent with their innocence. Therefore, we do not find any impediment to conclude that the impugned findings of the guilt of appellants-accused rendered by learned trial Court is perverse, illegal and erroneous one. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and order deserves to be set-aside and quashed. 26. In sequel, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012 dated 16-01-2014, against present appellants-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set-aside. They are acquitted from the offences pitted against them. If the appellants-accused are in jail, they all be set at liberty forth-with, if not required in any other crime. The bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount be obtained from each of the appellants-accused for a period of six months as prescribed under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants be refunded to them. The order about destruction of muddemal property is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.