JUDGMENT : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18/7/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.112/2011 whereby appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that deceased Neha, who was married to appellant in the year 2009, was cohabitating at the appellant's house at village Kawatha Kadu. However, while residing with appellant, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by him on consuming liquor. Appellant is also stated to have demanded money from deceased Neha. In the background of above facts, it is the case of prosecution that on 8/5/2010 deceased Neha sustained hundred per cent burn injuries for which she was brought to Irwin Hospital at Amravati. P.W.5 Mahadeo Todsam, PSI on getting information of admission of Neha in Hospital, deputed P.W.3 Naresh Mohokar, Head Constable to arrange for recording her statement and to visit the spot. Accordingly, P.W.3 Naresh Mohokar got statement of Neha recorded through P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsildar and on the strength of the said statement, registered first information report vide Crime No.74/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code vide Exh. 22, which was investigated by P.W.5 Mahadeo Todsam, PSI, during the course of which he drew spot panchanama (Exh. 27) and seized incriminating articles from spot vide seizure panchanama (Exh. 30). Neha died while under medical treatment at Hospital on 9/5/2010 at about 2.55 a.m. On her death, offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code came to be added in the present crime, which was further investigated. On recording statement of witnesses, appellant was arrested and his clothes and other articles came to be seized. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandur Railway, District Amravati. On recording statement of witnesses, appellant was arrested and his clothes and other articles came to be seized. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandur Railway, District Amravati. In due course of time, case came to be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge was framed against appellant vide Exh. 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. To establish the charge, prosecution has examined five witnesses and commenced evidence by examining P.W.1 Manoj Bhende, uncle of deceased Neha, who is relied by prosecution on oral dying declaration by deceased Neha, P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsildar, who recorded dying declaration of Neha (Exh. 16), P.W.3 Naresh Mohokar, ASI, who registered first information report, P.W.4 Vishnu Gondale, who has proved seizure panchanamas (Exhs.25 and 26) and concluded evidence on examining P.W.5 Mahadeo Todsam, Investigating Officer. 4. The appellant has neither examined himself nor any defence witness to establish his innocence. Learned trial Court having considered evidence on record, convicted appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for appellant, at the outset has referred to post mortem note, which is an admitted document (Exh. 18) and contended that according to this document, probable cause of death of Neha is due to hundred per cent burns and by referring to column 16 of the said document, it is further contended that both upper limbs and lower limbs of deceased Neha were fully burnt and thus, it is impossible for P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsilar to obtain left hand thumb impression of deceased Neha on dying declaration (Exh. 16). By referring to this document, it is further contended that alleged thumb impression of deceased in fact is seen totally clear, as its ridges are clearly seen, which is not possible in the case of hundred per cent burns. The dying declaration is further doubted contending that no Medical Officer, who is alleged to have examined deceased Neha prior to and after recording of her statement, is examined by prosecution nor prosecution has put forth sufficient reasons for non examination of said witness and thus, it is submitted that there is nothing to establish about physical and mental state of health of deceased Neha prior to and during recording of her statement. The second limb of submissions advanced is with regard to case of prosecution of alleged oral dying declaration by deceased Neha. While referring to the relevant evidence of P.W.1 Manoj Bhende, it is contended that his evidence does not establish if oral dying declaration was made to him or to others present with deceased Neha and since nobody else apart from P.W.1 Manoj Bhende is examined, his evidence is not worthy to be relied upon. In the background of above submissions, it is contended by learned defence Counsel that as the case of prosecution is based on written dying declaration (Exh. 16) and oral dying declaration as aforesaid, which evidence since is full of doubt, needs to be discarded and appeal is liable to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Shri Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, has supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 7. In the light of submissions as aforesaid, post mortem report substantiates the submissions advanced by learned Counsel Shri Daga as both upper and lower limbs of deceased Neha are stated to be fully burnt. Deceased Neha is certified to have died of hundred per cent burn injuries. Bare persual of dying declaration (Exh. 16) would reveal thumb impression thereon with clear ridges, which thus creates doubt in the case of prosecution of P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsildar obtaining thumb impression of deceased Neha in spite of her sustaining hundred per cent burns to upper limbs. Moreover, no Medical Officer is examined by prosecution to bring on record fact of physical and mental state of deceased Neha before and after recording the statement nor there is anything on record to establish that in spite of any attempts made by prosecution, no presence of concerned Medical Officer could be obtained. 8. Moreover, no Medical Officer is examined by prosecution to bring on record fact of physical and mental state of deceased Neha before and after recording the statement nor there is anything on record to establish that in spite of any attempts made by prosecution, no presence of concerned Medical Officer could be obtained. 8. In the background of above, when evidence of P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade is perused, though it reveals that on receiving requisition, he visited Irwin Hospital and requested Doctor to examine Neha and give opinion, if she is in a fit condition to make her statement and though has also deposed that she was accordingly certified to be fit for making her statement, which he thereafter recorded involving appellant to have poured kerosene on her person in the evening of 8/5/2010, due to which she sustained burn injuries and further that appellant having been addicted to consuming liquor, repeatedly demanded money to Neha to be brought from her parental house, is not convincing to be relied, nor his evidence of his obtaining thumb impression of Neha on the statement can be relied for the reason already stated above. 9. Moreover, evidence of P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade further doubts the case of prosecution of deceased Neha making any statement when he has admitted to have not verified whether she was provided any medical treatment before recording her statement. Considering the fact that deceased Neha had sustained hundred per cent burn injuries at about 6 p.m. on the day of incident and since it has come on record that she was admitted in the Hospital at Amravati at around 9 p.m. after transporting her in an autorickshaw, it cannot be said that on her admitting in the Hospital, she was not administered any medicine. In fact, having considered percentage of burns sustained by deceased Neha, possibility of administering medicines to her is more. In the circumstances, it was necessary for the P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsildar to ascertain from the Medical Officer, if Neha was administered any pain-killers or seditives, etc. for reducing her pain. This aspect assumes importance in view of specific submission on behalf of appellant of prosecution's failure to examine Medical Officer, who is said to have given his endorsement on Exh. 16 about physical condition of deceased Neha before and after recording her dying declaration. 10. for reducing her pain. This aspect assumes importance in view of specific submission on behalf of appellant of prosecution's failure to examine Medical Officer, who is said to have given his endorsement on Exh. 16 about physical condition of deceased Neha before and after recording her dying declaration. 10. Similarly, P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade in clear terms has admitted that the thumb impression obtained on dying declaration (Exh. 16) is not attested by anyone nor he has mentioned name of person whose thumb impression is obtained on Exh. 16 and that on Exh. 16, there is no endorsement establishing if the patient was conscious and able to make statement. In view of above evidence and admissions of P.W. 2 Prakash Ghormade, we find much substance when it is suggested to him that no statement muchless Exh. 16 was made by deceased Neha or that deceased Neha was not conscious at the time of making her statement and finds much substance when it is suggested to this witness that contents of Exh. 16 are on the say of relatives of deceased Neha though such suggestions are denied by him. 11. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge would reveal that the learned trial Judge has based the conviction only on the dying declaration, which for the reason already stated above, is not convincing at all. Though there is some writing on Exh. 16 of patient being able to make statement and was conscious while making the same, there is no such declaration that deceased Neha was mentally and physically fit to make the statement. Law on this point is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jay Lal and others, (1999) AllMR(Cri) 1790 (SC) wherein it is held that the report of expert witness cannot be accepted as it is unless the expert witness has been examined and in the absence of examination of Medical expert, the certificate given by him cannot be read into evidence. It is also held that medical witness is an expert witness and his evidence stands on a different pedestal than an ordinary witness. In the appeal in hand, since Medical Officer, who is alleged to have given such endorsement, is not examined by prosecution, there is nothing to establish about mental state of deceased Neha, who admittedly sustained hundred per cent burn injuries. In the appeal in hand, since Medical Officer, who is alleged to have given such endorsement, is not examined by prosecution, there is nothing to establish about mental state of deceased Neha, who admittedly sustained hundred per cent burn injuries. In the background of above facts, in our considered view, the dying declaration (Exh. 16) is not trustworthy. 12. No doubt, conviction can be based only on the dying declaration, but that has to be credible and when the dying declaration is suspicious, it cannot be the basis of convinction unless there is a corroborative evidence. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2012) AllMR(Cri) 696 (SC). In the appeal in hand, we find that dying declaration (Exh. 16) is a highly suspicious document and as such, could not have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. 13. Insofar as case of prosecution based on oral dying declaration is concerned, perusal of evidence of P.W.1 Manoj Bhende, uncle of deceased Neha, would reveal that on receiving information about Neha sustaining burns and her hospitalization in Irwin Hospital, Amravati, he along with his brother Devanand, Manda, wife of Devanand and other relatives visited the Hospital where Neha was yet to be brought. He has further deposed that after Neha was admitted in the Hospital, she informed that since morning appellant was under the influence of liquor and was demanding money and at about 4.30 p.m. on beating her, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Considering above evidence, it does not establish if such oral dying declaration was made to P.W.1 Manoj Bhende or in his presence, to his brother Devanand or his wife Manda or other relatives. Prosecution has not examined any other witness apart from P.W.1 Manoj Bhende on this aspect though claims to be present before deceased Neha when she is alleged to have made such oral statement. 14. Moreover, the contents of oral dying declaration are contrary to Exh.16 when P.W.1 Manoj Bhende claims to have got Neha admitted in the Hospital while according to Exh. 16, appellant is stated to have got deceased Neha admitted in the Hospital. 14. Moreover, the contents of oral dying declaration are contrary to Exh.16 when P.W.1 Manoj Bhende claims to have got Neha admitted in the Hospital while according to Exh. 16, appellant is stated to have got deceased Neha admitted in the Hospital. Similarly, though P.W.1 Manoj Bhende claims that he met Police while in Hospital and was enquired by Police, he has not lodged any report against appellant, which aspect needs to be considered in favour of appellant as to what prevented P.W.1 Manoj Bhende, who being a close relative of deceased Neha, did not find it necessary to lodge report to Police in spite of his being enquired by Police in the Hospital itself and has even admitted that even prior to Neha's admission in the Hospital, she had disclosed incident to him and he had informed Police that Neha had talked to him before her admission in the Hospital as according to the case of prosecution, it is only on the basis of statement recorded by P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade after 9.30 p.m., crime was initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Above evidence of P.W.1 Manoj Bhende thus doubts the case of prosecution based on oral dying declaration and thus, we find much substance when it is suggested that Neha had not informed anything to this witness nor she was in a conscious condition, though these suggestions are denied. Even otherwise, oral dying declaration is a week type of evidence. It is significant to note that P.W.1 Manoj Bhende even admits to have not lodged any report and after death of Neha, her funeral took place at the village of appellant. In view of above evidence and for the reasons aforesaid together with the settled principle of law that it is the duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we find that prosecution has utterly failed to establish the charge levelled against the appellant. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER The criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18/7/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.112/2011 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER The criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18/7/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.112/2011 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The appellant be set at liberty, if not required in any other case and fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him.