JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellants herein stand convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 03.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.89/2011 (88/2010). Name of the appellantapplicant Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 1. Imran @ Tatu Qureshi 2. Yunus Qureshi 3. Smt. Munni 4. Sarfaraz @ Bhura 5. Saddam @ Chunna 498-A IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment 304-B IPCQ Life term imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences awarded, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 4. The appellant Smt. Munni is the sister of the first informant Mohd. Aslam (P.W.2). Four daughters of Shri Mohd. Aslam had been married to four sons of the appellant Smt. Munni five years before the incident in the following order :- (1) Alkama to Farooq (2) Manowwar to Firoz (3) Sanowwar to Mohd. Imran @ Tatu Kureshi (4) Farhana to Saddam @ Chunna 5. While Manowwar and Alkama were sent to matrimonial home right at the time of marriage, Gauna of Sanowwar and Farhana was deferred on account of their tender age. Gauna of Sanowwar, who was married to Mohd. Imran @ Tatu, was performed two and half years before the incident. Smt. Sanowwar received burn injuries at the matrimonial home on 10.05.2010, upon which, she was admitted for treatment by the accused persons initially at the Government Hospital, Chittorgarh, from where, she was taken to the Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur and was admitted in the Female Burn Ward. It is alleged that Daulat Singh (P.W.14) recorded a statement (Ex.P/2) of Smt. Sanowwar at the Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur on 10.05.2010 at 8.30 p.m., wherein, Smt. Sanowwar alleged that she was married to Imran about two and half years to three years ago. She had a son from her wedlock with Imran. In the morning at about 8 o'clock, her husband beat her up owing to a dispute of preparing tea. A little later, her brother-in-laws Yunus, Bhura (Jeths) and Chunna (Devar) came. All of them poured kerosine upon her and her jeth Bhura set her to fire by a matchstick. She received burn injuries on her entire body. In the morning at about 8 o'clock, her husband beat her up owing to a dispute of preparing tea. A little later, her brother-in-laws Yunus, Bhura (Jeths) and Chunna (Devar) came. All of them poured kerosine upon her and her jeth Bhura set her to fire by a matchstick. She received burn injuries on her entire body. She alleged that these accused used to pressurize and torment her on account of dowry and upon her failure to meet the demands, she was set to fire. Strangely enough, despite the allegation of cognizable offence of attempted murder being made out from this statement, Daulat Singh (P.W.14) did not take any step for registering any FIR. The father of the girl, namely, Shri Mohd. Aslam, reached the hospital at Udaipur and he allegedly submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to Daulat Singh (Sub Inspector) alleging inter alia that his daughter Smt. Sanowwar used to be harassed and humiliated by her mother-in-law Munni Bai, Jeths Mohd. Yunus, Bhura, Devar Chunna and husband Mohd. Imran @ Tatu on account of demand of dowry. His daughter made complaints in this regard to him on numerous occasions, upon which he counselled her. He further alleged that his daughter was often beaten by her Jeths, Devar and mother-inlaw. A couple of days earlier, Sanowwar was beaten by Mohd. Yunus, Bhura and Chunna by a baseball bat. He was informed of this incident, on which he conveyed to Sanowwar that he would try to talk sense into the accused party. His elder daughter Manowwar called and told him that Sanowwar had been set to fire by Bhura after pouring kerosine on her. Whereupon, Shri Aslam accompanied by his elder brother Mohd. Saleem and younger brother Abrar Hussain reached Chittorgarh. Manowwar gave them the details of the incident and apprised them that Sanowwar had been taken to Udaipur Hospital for treatment. The first informant and his companions reached Udaipur and met Sanowwar, who told them that her husband beat her up owing to a dispute of preparing tea and then her Jeths Yunus and Bhura and Devar Chunna caught hold of her, poured kerosine on her body and Bhura set her afire by a matchstick, due to which, she was burnt. The informant further alleged that since he failed to meet the demands of dowry being made by the husband of the girl, he used to harass and humiliate Sanowwar. The informant further alleged that since he failed to meet the demands of dowry being made by the husband of the girl, he used to harass and humiliate Sanowwar. Upon receiving this report (which bears no time of presentation), Daulat Singh forwarded the same to the Police Station Chittorgarh for registering an FIR, where a formal FIR No.17/2010 was registered against the accused persons for the offences under Section 498-A and 307 IPC. Smt. Manowwar passed away on 12.05.2010 while under treatment at the Government Hospital, Udaipur. All the accused were arrested in May 2010. 6. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. Since the offence under Section 304-B IPC was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, from where the same was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh for trial. 7. The trial court framed charges for the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC against the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents in support of its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Four witnesses were examined in defence. Out of these four witnesses, D.W.4 Dr. Sudhanshu was the resident doctor in the ward, where Smt. Sanowwar was admitted. The doctor gave positive evidence to the effect that the lady was not in position to give a statement right from the time of her admission till she passed away. After hearing the arguments of the defence as well as the prosecution and appreciating and sifting the evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to discard the dying declaration (Ex.P/2), but while placing reliance principally upon the evidence of Manowwar (P.W.1), convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Rathore, representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Rathore, representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The biological relationship inter se between the accused and the complainant parties is so close-knit that it is difficult to believe that the accused would be in position to demand dowry from the deceased. He urged that four daughters of the first informant Mohd. Aslam, including the deceased Sanowwar and Smt. Manowwar (P.W.1), were married to four sons of Smt. Munni, who happens to be the sister of Mohd. Aslam, the complainant. He urged that Smt. Manowwar (P.W.1) admitted in her cross-examination that for a period of two and half years from her marriage, she and her elder sister Alkama were never maltreated in the matrimonial home. She also admitted that Gauna of Sanowwar was performed after her father ensured from her as well as Alkama that they were being well-treated in the matrimonial home. Mr. Rathore urged that the appellant Smt. Munni, Bhua as well as the mother-in-law of the deceased and Manowwar, made a categoric admission in her testimony that because all the daughter-in-laws were not performing their duties uniformly, she separated her sons, who started living separately. Referring to the following part of the statement of Smt. Manowwar, Mr. Rathore contended that the incident took place over a trivial issue of demand of a sum of Rs.3 as cost of sugar between the husband Imran and Smt. Sanowwar and as per him, being enraged thereby, Sanowwar poured kerosine on her own body and set herself to fire :- 9. He, thus, urged that the entire case set up in the statements of Manowwar (P.W.1), Mohd. Aslam (P.W.2), Mohd. Saleem (P.W.3) and Salman Qureshi (P.W.12) that the deceased was harassed and humiliated on account of demand of dowry is falsified. He further urged that even if the evidence of these witnesses are accepted to be true at the highest, manifestly, there is no such allegation therein that the deceased was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home owing to demand of dowry soon before her death by burning and thus, the charge under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. He further contended that the Sub-Inspector Daulat Singh (P.W.14), manipulated and created a false dying declaration of the deceased and the FIR too was stage-managed by him. He further contended that the Sub-Inspector Daulat Singh (P.W.14), manipulated and created a false dying declaration of the deceased and the FIR too was stage-managed by him. In this regard, he drew the court's attention to the lines marked 'E' to 'F' apparently added in the dying declaration (Ex.P/2) by way of interpolation, whereby the mother-in-law Smt. Munni was also implicated in the incident. He, thus, urged that the entire prosecution case regarding the accused appellants having harassed and humiliated the deceased on account of bringing less dowry soon before her death and having set her afire after pouring kerosine on her body is concocted and created at the instance of Daulat Singh and hence, the same deserves to be discarded and the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be accepted. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.S. Shaktawat, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel and contended that it is a clear case, wherein the prosecution has been able to prove and establish by cogent clinching evidence that the appellants herein harassed and humiliated the deceased Sanowwar on account of demand of dowry and that she met with an unnatural death by burning in matrimonial home within a short span of two and half years of her marriage with the accused-appellant Imran Qureshi. Thus, as per them, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act clearly operate against the accused. They further urged that the deceased was a young girl of about 22 years and there was no reason for her to end her life in this gruesome painful manner by setting herself to fire and that she was, as a matter of fact, murdered by the accused. They submitted that the categoric aspersion made in the FIR, which was lodged on the oral information given by the deceased to her father, that the accused harassed and humiliated her on account of demand of dowry cannot be brushed aside lightly and hence, as per them, the appeal merits dismissal and the impugned judgment should be affirmed. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record. We have threadbare sifted and reappreciated the evidence available on record. 12. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record. We have threadbare sifted and reappreciated the evidence available on record. 12. Even through the trial court discarded the dying declaration (Ex.P/2) of the deceased Sanowwar allegedly recorded by Daulat Singh, Sub-Inspector (P.W.14) at the Maharan Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur, we still propose to consider and appreciate the evidentiary worth thereof. The dying declaration, apart from bearing no certificate of the Medical Officer that the deceased was fit to give such statement, is also apparently a fabricated document. Daulat Singh (P.W.14), in his sworn statement admitted that he received the information regarding Smt. Sanowwar having received burn injuries at about 7.00 pm.m while he was at Chittorgarh. He admitted that he left Chittorgarh for Udaipur at about 7 o'clock, took a bus and reached the hospital at Udaipur at about 8.30 p.m. It is a geographical fact that the distance between Udaipur and Chittorgarh is around 120 km. and thus, by no stretch of imagination, could Daulat Singh have reached the Udaipur hospital by 8.30 p.m., which is the time of recording marked on the dying declaration (Ex.P/2). This, in our opinion, is the additional reason over and above the one assigned by the trial court at para No.65 of its judgment for discarding the dying declaration (Ex.P/2). Manifestly, in view of the above factual scenario, it is apparent that Daulat Singh's conduct is highly suspicious and doubtful because he has created and fabricated a document by which the accused would have to face charge of murder. Even the FIR (Ex.P/1), which was allegedly received by Daulat Singh at the Maharana Bhupal Hospital, Udaipur, is a doubtful document. The same does not bear any time of submission. Daulat Singh, being the Sub-Inspector at the Police Station Chittorgarh, was expected and required to mark time of receiving the report. His failure to do so brings the credibility of the document under a cloud of doubt. Apparently, the name and role assigned to Smt. Munni is by sheer interpolation because the portion marked 'E' to 'F' in the dying declaration (Ex.P/2) has been introduced later on, as is visible from naked eyes. 13. Be that as it may. As has been stated above, it is an admitted position that the complainant party and the accused are closely related to each other. 13. Be that as it may. As has been stated above, it is an admitted position that the complainant party and the accused are closely related to each other. Appellant Smt. Munni is the sister of the first informant Mohd. Aslam. Four daughters of the first informant Mohd. Aslam had been married to four sons of Smt. Munni. Smt. Manowwar (P.W.1) was married to Firoz, another son of Smt. Munni. In her examination-in-chief Smt. Manowwar admitted that for two and half years after the marriage, the sisters were kept amicably, but thereafter the accused started torturing them on account of demand of dowry. However, there is no allegation in the statement of this witness that the accused ever harassed or humiliated the deceased Smt. Sanowwar on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. In her cross-examination, the witness admitted that all the four sisters including herself and Alkama had been married to four sons of Smt. Munni about five years ago. While she and Alkama were sent to the matrimonial home immediately after their Nikah, the Gauna ceremony of the younger sisters Sanowwar and Farhana was deferred because of their tender age. She further admitted that before performing the Gauna of Sanowwar, which was after about two and half years of Nikah, her father took stock from her as well as her elder sister as to how they were kept in the matrimonial home and on being satisfied that they were happy, Sanowwar's Gauna was carried out and she was sent to the matrimonial home. Neither Smt. Manowwar (P.W.1) nor Mohd. Aslam (P.W.2), who are the closest relatives, being the sister and father of the deceased, specify as to what exactly was being demanded by the accused from the deceased. They made a general statement without specifying the amount or time that the accused used to demand money. However, this allegation is falsified in view of the categoric admission of Manowwar that she and her elder sister Alkama were living happily in the matrimonial home. From the statement of Manowwar, it also emerges that there was an immediate cause of strife between Imran and Sanowwar, which is elaborated at para No.7 of the statement of this witness. She stated that her sister told her in the burnt condition that she and her husband had a quarrel with her over sugar worth Rs.3. From the statement of Manowwar, it also emerges that there was an immediate cause of strife between Imran and Sanowwar, which is elaborated at para No.7 of the statement of this witness. She stated that her sister told her in the burnt condition that she and her husband had a quarrel with her over sugar worth Rs.3. In view of this categoric admission of Smt. Manowwar that the husband and wife quarreled over a petty quantity of sugar, manifestly, it does not stand to reason that the accused would be in a position to harass and humiliate the deceased on account of demand of dowry. Had there been any truth in this allegation, then there was no reason for Manowwar and Alkama to continue to reside in their matrimonial home and without making any protest. Moreover, Alkama was not examined as a witness, which also creates a doubt on the truthfulness of the story put forth by Smt. Manowwar and Shri Mohd. Aslam. Thus, we are of the firm view that the prosecution did not lead clinching and cogent evidence so as to prove and establish that the accused persons harassed and humiliated the deceased on account of bringing less dowry soon before her death. Smt. Manowwar (P.W.1) in her cross-examination also admitted that her motherin-law separated her sons because the ladies of the house were grumbling about household chores. She used to live with her mother-in-law Smt. Munni and Jethani Siraj. The other daughterin-laws including Sanowwar used to live separately. In this background, manifestly, the mother-in-law Smt. Munni would not have any active role to play in the family affairs of Sanowwar. We are satisfied that the immediate cause of the fateful incident appears to be a trivial quarrel between Sanowwar and her husband owing to preparation of tea and the cost of sugar. 14. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution failed to lead convincing and clinching evidence sufficient to prove charges against the accused appellants beyond all manner of doubt. The allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses Manowwar (P.W.1), Mohd. Aslam (P.W.2), Mohd. Saleem (P.W.3), Abrar Hussain (P.W.4) and Salman Qureshi (P.W.12) that the accused used to harass and humiliate the deceased on account of demand of dowry are false and concocted. The allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses Manowwar (P.W.1), Mohd. Aslam (P.W.2), Mohd. Saleem (P.W.3), Abrar Hussain (P.W.4) and Salman Qureshi (P.W.12) that the accused used to harass and humiliate the deceased on account of demand of dowry are false and concocted. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment are not based on apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record. 15. Hence, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.89/2011 (88/2010) is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges. The accused Imran @ Tatu Qureshi, Yunus Qureshi, Sarfaraz @ Bhura and Saddam @ Chunna are in custody. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appellant Smt. Munni is on bail. Her bail bonds shall stand discharged. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the each of the accused appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.