JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the State questioning the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.11.2013 passed in S.C.No.111/2011 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief factual matrix that emanates from the records are as under: The marriage of accused No.1 was solemnized with Mangalamma (victim), daughter of PW.15 namely, Mahadevegowda. In the wedlock, the respondent No.1/accused No.1 and deceased Mangalamma were blessed with a male child. It is the specific case of the prosecution that after marriage, the accused were giving physical and mental illtreatment to the said Mangalamma on one or the other pretext. About five to six months prior to the alleged offence, the respondents/accused were demanding and were insisting the victim Mangalamma to get her mother’s property transferred in the name of respondent No.1/accused No.1 by executing a registered sale deed. That on 26.09.2010, at about 8.00 p.m., the accused demanded to get the land transferred in the name of accused No.1 to which Mangalamma refused. On account of refusal by Mangalamma, the accused assaulted her and on the same day, at 1.00 a.m. in the night, the respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused with a common intention to murder Mangalamma, got hold of the victim Mangalamma, wherein accused Nos.2 and 4 hugged Mangalamma and accused No.3 gave kerosene can to accused No.1. Accused No.1 doused Mangalamma with kerosene and set her on fire and thereby murdered her. The further case of the prosecution is that due to the said burn injuries, the said Mangalamma was initially shifted to K.R.Hospital. PW.13 – K. Subbe Gowda, who is the Head Constable in Deveraja Police Station on having received intimation as per Ex.P13 visited the Hospital and after having secured the information from the Medical Officer in regard to fitness of the victim, recorded the statement of the injured Mangalamma, as per Ex.P14. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed charge sheet against respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed charge sheet against respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud. The learned Magistrate after receipt of charge sheet from the Investigating Officer took cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused and registered a criminal case in C.C.No.21/2011. The prosecution papers were made available to the respondents as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court after receipt of committal records, framed charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused. Respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused pleaded not guilty for the said offences and claimed to be tried by the Court. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused in all examined 30 witnesses as PWs.1 to 30 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38 and also material objects MOs.1 to 4. The Court also examined the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and recorded their answers to the incriminating materials available in the prosecution witness. As could be seen from the statement of the accused, there is total denial of prosecution case and they have not taken any specific defence as such. After analyzing the material on record, the Trial Court has disbelieved the dying declaration of the victim on the ground that the dying declaration as per Ex.P14 is not at all corroborated by independent witness. The Trial Court having assessed the evidence on record was of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the dying declaration beyond all reasonable doubt to connect the accused with the alleged offences. The Trial Court has proceeded to acquit the accused on the ground that all material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and thereby extending benefit of doubt has proceeded to acquit the accused by invoking the provision of Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. 3. Learned SPP while assailing the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, would vehemently argue that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the dying declaration recorded at Ex.P14. Learned HCGP would vehemently argue that the evidence of PW.13 Head Constable who recorded the statement of the deceased in presence of the Doctor PW19, clearly indicates that the victim was conscious and mentally fit to give her statement and this clinching evidence has been totally ignored by the learned Sessions Judge and thereby the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the dying declaration is not corroborated by material evidence suffers from serious infirmities and hence, warrants interference by this Court. He would also vehemently argue even if there are minor omissions and contradictions in the prosecution case, the same is not fatal and that would not go to the root of the case and the Doctrine of benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the present case on hand. On these set of submissions, he would submit to this Court that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is untenable and the same would warrant interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would support the reasonings assigned by the learned Sessions Judge in arriving at a conclusion and thereby would submit to the Court that there is absolutely no material on record which would connect the present respondents/accused to the alleged offences. To buttress his arguments, he would take us to the material on record and would vehemently contend that none of the prosecution witness have supported the case of the prosecution. He would also bring to our notice that the dying declaration as per Ex.P14 is recorded in suspicious circumstances and the one relied on by the prosecution would not pass the test of careful scrutiny. In this background, learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the dying declaration. Based on these set of submissions, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would request this Court to dismiss the appeal as the same being devoid of merits. 5. In this background, learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the dying declaration. Based on these set of submissions, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would request this Court to dismiss the appeal as the same being devoid of merits. 5. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel and having meticulously examined the entire material on record and after reevaluating the evidence on record, the point that arise for consideration of this Court is, “Whether the Trial Court has committed any serious error in disbelieving Ex.P14 which is the dying declaration recorded by PW.13 and thereby the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act suffers from serious infirmities and perversity?” 6. In order to ascertain whether the Trial Court had committed any error, it is just and necessary for this Court to reassess the entire material on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the death of Mangalamma is not natural death. She died on account of burn injuries. The evidence of PW.19 Medical Officer, evidence of PW.23 B.S. Manjunatha Swamy, Taluk Executive Magistrate, who conducted the inquest mahazar on the dead body of Mangalamma as per Ex.P7, would clearly indicate that death of Mangalamma is homicidal death. It is the specific case of the prosecution that respondents/accused doused Mangalamma with kerosene at about 1.00 a.m. The prosecution has examined PW.1Beeramma, PW.2Javanamma, PW.3Devegowda, PW.4 M. Beeregowda and PW.9 Bola Nanjamma, who are neighbours. It is deposed in their evidence that Mangalamma two years after her marriage poured kerosene on her body and set herself on fire and committed suicide. These witnesses who happen to be the neighbours of respondents have stated that the victim Mangalamma was looked after by the respondents. PWs.1 to 4 have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. PW.2 Javanamma has deposed in the same tune and terms as deposed by PW.1. PW.3 has specifically stated that the police did not summon him to the house of the accused to draw mahazar. He has admitted in evidence that he has put his thumb mark on Ex.P14 but, he pleaded ignorance in regard to its contents. PW.3 has further specifically denied in regard to seizure of MOs.1 to 4 in his presence. PW.4 has also not supported the prosecution case. He has admitted in evidence that he has put his thumb mark on Ex.P14 but, he pleaded ignorance in regard to its contents. PW.3 has further specifically denied in regard to seizure of MOs.1 to 4 in his presence. PW.4 has also not supported the prosecution case. He has denied for having extinguished the fire when Mangalamma had sustained burn injuries. There is a denial by PW.4 in regard to Mangalamma informing him about the accused illtreating her in respect of a property. PW.6 D. Shivakumara, who is the president of Maraluru Grama Panchayath has also not supported the prosecution case. PW.7 Kalegowda though has signed Ex.P6 Mahazar, but has stated his ignorance in regard to the contents of Ex.P6. PW.8 Doddahuchegowda has also not supported the prosecution and has deposed in the same line as deposed by PW.7. PW.15 who is the father of the victim has strangely not supported the prosecution case. He has deposed to the effect that he was not at all aware of the respondents/accused demanding Mangalamma to get the property transferred in the name of respondent No.1. He has also deposed to the effect that he cannot say for what reason Mangalamma sustained burn injuries. PW.17 Mallesha, who is brother of the deceased Mangalamma has also not supported the prosecution case and though admitted his signature on Ex.P19 Mahazar, but he deposed that the contents are not known to him. 8. The prosecution has also examined the mother of the deceased as PW.21. It has come in her evidence that Mangalamma never complained to her and it was never brought to her knowledge that respondent No.1 was illtreating her and was insisting to get the property standing in the name of PW.21 to be transferred in his name. PW.21 has deposed that even when she rushed to the Hospital, her Doctor did not tell nothing to her. PW.5 who is the panch witness to Ex.P4 seizure mahazar of MOs.1 to 4 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. 9. On examination of the records and the judgment passed by the Courts below, the question that has to be examined by this Court is, whether the dying declaration of the injured by itself and on its own and without any corroboration from other sources would suffice for conviction? 10. 9. On examination of the records and the judgment passed by the Courts below, the question that has to be examined by this Court is, whether the dying declaration of the injured by itself and on its own and without any corroboration from other sources would suffice for conviction? 10. On careful perusal of Ex.P14 dying declaration, it is evident that there are 3 LTM marks of the deceased on page 2. Further on careful perusal of the dying declaration, the LTM marks are found in the middle of the page. It is elicited in the evidence of PW.13Head Constable who has recorded the dying declaration that he has taken LTM of the deceased at two places. But, however, the defence counsel has been able to elicit in cross-examination that there are three LTM marks at all the places. It is also seen that the dying declaration has several over writings and insertions. It is evident that earlier names found in the dying declaration are struck off and the same are replaced by some other names. To be more specific, at the first instance, while recording the alleged dying declaration, the name of one Pushpa who happens to be the sister-in-law of the deceased is mentioned in the dying declaration at five different places. Later the same has been struck off and in her name cosisters namely, Manji is inserted in the place of Pushpa. It is quite shocking to note that the police officer who has recorded the dying declaration has not even took pain to put initials for these corrections. If the dying declaration is meticulously examined, there is every possibility of PW.13 securing the LTMs’ on a blank paper and thereafter, the dying declaration of the deceased is written on it. 11. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution as to how the LTMs’ are appearing on the middle of the page of the dying declaration. To be more specific, the LTMs’ are affixed on the contents of the dying declaration. That itself creates a doubt as to whether it was the voluntary dying declaration given by the deceased. The manner in which the dying declaration is recorded by the police officer needs to be condemned. To be more specific, the LTMs’ are affixed on the contents of the dying declaration. That itself creates a doubt as to whether it was the voluntary dying declaration given by the deceased. The manner in which the dying declaration is recorded by the police officer needs to be condemned. When the recording of dying declaration is by a police officer, the natural impulse is to look at it with some degree of suspicion and incredibility and hence, insists on a specifically high degree of corroboration for acceptance of declaration recorded by police officer. None of the material witness of the prosecution have supported the narrative case of the prosecution. Though the dying declaration recorded by the police is not hit by Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., but in the present case on hand, the recording of dying declaration by a police officer does not inspire any confidence and the same is not at all trust worthy and the dying declaration cannot be held to be credible. The scene of crime in the present case on hand does not support statements in the dying declaration. Besides there being no independent corroboration, the dying declaration recorded by PW.13 cannot be relied on. We would not hesitate to hold that there is every possibility of concoction, more particularly, when the victim “survived for three days”, there was no impediment for the Investigating Officer during this period to get the statement recorded by a Magistrate. This ground also creates doubt in regard to dying declaration of the deceased. The concocted dying declaration is the greatest danger to a true and just verdict warranted in criminal case arising out of unnatural deaths. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistencies and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with account of the eye witnesses has to be credit worthy. The Trial Court is required to overall assess the credibility of the witnesses, their performance in the witness box, their power of observation, etc., then, the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. The overall appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court, in our view, is not at all unreasonable, perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. The overall appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court, in our view, is not at all unreasonable, perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. In the absence of any infirmities in the appraisement of evidence by the Trial Court, this Court would refrain from reversing an acquittal order for want of “very substantial” and “compelling” reasons. 12. The Trial Court has meticulously examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the documentary evidence more particularly, the dying declaration and has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution creates doubt over the story of the prosecution. The Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding in regard to the conduct of respondent No.2/accused No.2 in this case. The Trial Court on having perused the cross-examination of PW.19 Medical Officer, has taken note of material fact that it is respondent No.2/accused No.2 who is the father-in-law of the victim who had brought the injured to the Hospital and this conduct would genuinely create doubt in regard to the prosecution case and the allegation by the prosecution that the deceased was doused by pouring kerosene and was set on fire by the present respondents with a view to murder her becomes quite doubtful. The learned Judge having meticulously examined the entire evidence on record has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents and has proceeded to acquit the respondents/accused for the alleged offences. 13. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal filed by the State is devoid of merits and the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.