JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. The appellant who is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.135 of 2010 on the file of the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, FAC-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. 2. Vide judgment, dated 22.02.2013, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The substantive sentences were directed run concurrently. 3. The substance of the charge against the Accused is that on 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 P.M. in the house of the Accused at Thumbakuppam village of Bangarupalyam Mandal, caused the death of his wife by name Sujatha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene, due to which, she sustained extensive burns and died on 03.10.2009 while undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital, Aragonda. 4. The facts, in issue, are as under: (i) The marriage between the accused and the deceased Sujatha took place about 13 to 14 years prior to giving evidence in Court by PW.1. At the time of marriage, PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased gave some cash, jewellery and a cow to the accused as a dowry. Both of them lived together happily and they were blessed with one son and one daughter. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased Sujatha for additional dowry. He also got addicted to bad vices. It is said that the accused used to beat the deceased Sujatha to meet his demands. The same was informed by the deceased to PW.1. Mediations were conducted before the village elders where the accused promised to look after the deceased well, but in vain. It is stated that the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased Sujatha and began demanding additional dowry. On 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. Bharath Kumar (LW.3) called PW.1 stating that the deceased Sujatha, is struggling with burns. Immediately, PW.1 rushed to the spot and noticed the deceased Sujatha struggling for life. It is stated that the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased Sujatha and began demanding additional dowry. On 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. Bharath Kumar (LW.3) called PW.1 stating that the deceased Sujatha, is struggling with burns. Immediately, PW.1 rushed to the spot and noticed the deceased Sujatha struggling for life. PW.1 accompanied by Ramesh, his cousin (examined as PW.4) along with other two persons shifted the deceased Sujatha to the hospital for treatment. In the hospital, the deceased Sujatha informed to PW.1 that as she refused to meet the demands, the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire. On 01.10.2009 at 2.00 P.M. P.W.1 is said to have presented the report before the PW.11-Sub Inspector of Police, which lead to registration of a case in Crime No.145 of 2009 under Section 498-A of IPC. Ex.P7 is the FIR. He examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. Thereafter, PW.11 proceeded to Apollo hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and others. From the Apollo hospital, he went to scene of offence, (a thatched hut) where he found partly burnt thatched hut and one empty kerosene tin inside the thatched hut. MO.1 is the plastic empty kerosene tin. The same was seized under the cover of mahazarnama, marked as Ex.P8. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. (ii) PW.11 returned to police station and altered the section of law to one under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. Ex.P10 is the alteration Memo. On receipt of death intimation the section of law was altered from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. (iii) Ex.P12 is altered express FIR. Further investigation in this case was taken by PW.12-the Inspector of police, who verified the investigation done till then and found it to be on correct lines. P.W.12 proceeded to Apollo Hospital and conduct inquest over the dead body in the presence of the mediators. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined PWs.1, 2, 8, 4 and 5 and recorded their statements. After completing the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. PW.10-the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Petamitta, conducted autopsy over the dead body. Ex.P6 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him. According to him, the cause of the death of the deceased was due to 95%, third degree skin burn injuries over the body. After completing the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. PW.10-the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Petamitta, conducted autopsy over the dead body. Ex.P6 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him. According to him, the cause of the death of the deceased was due to 95%, third degree skin burn injuries over the body. (iv) PW.12 who continued with his investigation proceeded to Thumbakuppam village, examined the scene of offence and later searched for the accused, who was also undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Bangarupalyam, as he attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. The Inspector of Police-PW.12 instructed the Sub Inspector of Police to produce the accused after he is discharged from the hospital. On 06.10.2009, the accused was discharged from the hospital and accordingly he was arrested and produced before PW.12. He was informed the grounds of his arrest and then sent him to judicial remand. It is also to be noted that PW.13-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole also recorded the dying declaration of the injured Sujatha on 01.10.2009 at 2.40 p.m., after obtaining certificate from the Doctor, with regard to the mental condition of the deceased. Ex.P14 is the dying declaration of the deceased. 5. After collecting all the necessary documents, PW.12 filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.70 of 2009 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 6. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. As the offences are triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 7. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1. 7. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1. After the closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. He examined D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 in support of her plea. Relying upon the oral evidence and the dying declaration recorded by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge- P.W.13, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. M/s. Ammaji Nettam, learned counsel appearing for appellant, mainly submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to her, no reliance can be placed on the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate as the same is an outcome of tutoring and is at variance with the earlier version of the prosecution. 10. According to her even the evidence of P.W.1 creates any amount of doubt on the case of the Prosecution, as he did not disclose about the incident to anyone, more particularly the harassment for dowry till 04.10.2009. She further submits that a reading of Ex.P1 would disclose as if the deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire, which version is now given a go-bye while recording the Dying Declaration. It is further pleaded that, if really there was a oral Dying Declaration as pleaded by P.W.1 on 29.09.2009, the same would have reflected in the First Information Report, which was lodged on 01.10.2009. In the absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether really there was any oral Dying Declaration made by the deceased to P.W.1. Relying upon the evidence of D.W.1 which shows that the deceased was admitted in Apollo Hospital by her husband and as evidence of D.W.1 who is an independent witness, clearly demonstrates that it was an accidental death, the learned counsel submits that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 11. Relying upon the evidence of D.W.1 which shows that the deceased was admitted in Apollo Hospital by her husband and as evidence of D.W.1 who is an independent witness, clearly demonstrates that it was an accidental death, the learned counsel submits that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same, contending that there is no reason for the Magistrate to speak false and record an incorrect Dying Declaration. He submits that when the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence corroborate the contents of the Dying Declaration, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. He further submits that the variation pointed out by learned counsel for appellant in Ex.P1 vis-àvis the evidence of P.W.1 are minor in nature which do not go to the root of the matter and as such, pleads that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court warrants no interference. 12. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 13. As stated earlier, the main plank of the argument of learned counsel for appellant is that the Dying Declaration which was made the basis to connect the accused is an outcome of tutoring. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 PM, he received a telephonic call from one Bharath Kumar (not examined) stating that his sister is on fire. He rushed to the spot accompanied by P.W.4, and noticed his sister struggling for life. He immediately called 108 Ambulance and shifted the injured to Aragonda Apollo Hospital. On that night, the deceased is said to have told him about the illegal demand made by the accused and when she refused to bring money, she was set on fire by the accused after pouring kerosene. The incident is said to have taken place on 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 PM. On the next day at 2.00 PM, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report with P.W.11 which led to registration of Crime No.145 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Ex.P1 is the said report. 14. The incident is said to have taken place on 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 PM. On the next day at 2.00 PM, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report with P.W.11 which led to registration of Crime No.145 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Ex.P1 is the said report. 14. A perusal of the report given by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1, would show that the marriage between the accused and his sister took place about 10 years ago and they were blessed with two children. The accused was in habit of consuming alcohol and used to beat and abuse his sister. About two or three times the accused beat her. Some of the village elders also pacified the accused. On 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 PM, the accused came home in a drunken state, abused and beat the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire. The younger brother of the accused by name Chitti informed P.W.1 over phone about the said fact. The contents of the F.I.R., show that the informant shifted the injured to Aragonda Apollo Hospital from the village of the deceased. 15. A reading of the F.I.R. vis-a-vis the evidence of P.W.1 would indicate a major contradiction with regard to the manner in which incident that took place. If really the deceased has informed P.W.1, as to how she was set on fire on the night of 29.09.2009, the same would have reflected in the F.I.R. given on 01.10.2009 by P.W.1. If really the deceased has informed him the role of accused in setting her on fire. P.W.1 would not have missed mentioning about it in the F.I.R. as the same would be uppermost in his mind. 16. Infact, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that till the deceased revealed about the incident on the date of admission in the hospital, he does not know about the particulars of the incident. He further deposed that when he enquired with the people who gathered there, they never stated anything about the incident. 16. Infact, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that till the deceased revealed about the incident on the date of admission in the hospital, he does not know about the particulars of the incident. He further deposed that when he enquired with the people who gathered there, they never stated anything about the incident. Therefore, when the source of information was the statement of the deceased made to him, the same would be uppermost in his mind and the said version would have definitely reflected in the F.I.R. Infact, his admissions in the cross-examination goes to show that he never stated anything against the accused before the Police till he was examined on 01.10.2009. On the other hand, he admits to have stated before the Police that his sister poured kerosene and set herself on fire. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion in the cross-examination of P.W.1 which reads as under : “Till my sister Sujatha revealed about the incident during the night time on the date of admission. I did not know about the particulars of the incident. When I enquired other people who gathered there, they never stated anything about the incident. I narrated all the details of incident in my written report. By the time I was examined by Police for the first time i.e., on 01.10.2009 I narrated all the details of the incident. Ex.P1 was made in my hand writing. There is no mention in Ex.P1 that the accused said my sister Sujatha to fire after pouring kerosene over her body. There is mention in Ex.P1 that my sister Sujatha set to fire to her by herself, after she became angry. There is no mention about the illegal demand made by accused and the illicit intimacy of Sujatha with other male person as suspected by accused. To my remember I stated about the illegal demand of the accused’s suspecting fidelity of Sujatha to the C.I. of Police on 04.10.2009 but I never stated the same to the Police at the time of my examination on 01.10.2009. I never stated the against accused before the police on my examination on 01.10.2009 as if he set fire to her and I stated that my sister herself poured kerosene over her body and set to fire by herself”. 17. P.W.2 did not support the Prosecution case and he was declared as hostile by the prosecution. 18. I never stated the against accused before the police on my examination on 01.10.2009 as if he set fire to her and I stated that my sister herself poured kerosene over her body and set to fire by herself”. 17. P.W.2 did not support the Prosecution case and he was declared as hostile by the prosecution. 18. P.W.3 is not an eye witness to the incident. According to him, P.W.1 informed him about the manner in which the incident took place, but however, gave a different version before the Police, which is placed on record as Ex.D1. 19. Similarly, P.W.4, who is brother of the deceased, in his evidence deposed that on 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 PM, while he was at Palamaner, P.W.1 informed him about the accused setting fire his sister and he claims to have rushed to his village and got admitted her in hospital by taking her in 108 Ambulance. According to him, the deceased died due to accused pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire. But, his evidence is hearsay. His earlier statement made before the Police which was placed on record as Ex.D2 is something different. It shows as if they went to the house of the deceased on the night of 29.09.2009 and noticed the deceased pouring kerosene setting herself on fire. At that point of time, the deceased came out of the house raising cries. On seeing the incident, they left the place. This appears to be a totally different version which one cannot accept. When he being the brother of the deceased, he would not leave the deceased in such a condition. Every effort would have been made to take the deceased to the hospital. Now, in the Court, for the first time, he speaks about taking the deceased to the hospital. He also speaks about the accused trying to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. 20. The evidence of P.W.5 is also hearsay and he retracted from the statement given to Police. P.W.7 also did not support the case of the Prosecution and he was treated hostile witness by the prosecution. 21. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clear that there are two versions of the case. Firstly P.W.1 is said to have received information about the incident from the deceased. P.W.7 also did not support the case of the Prosecution and he was treated hostile witness by the prosecution. 21. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clear that there are two versions of the case. Firstly P.W.1 is said to have received information about the incident from the deceased. If that is so, the contents of the F.I.R, demolish the foundation of the prosecution case. P.W.1 could not have missed mentioning the version as set out by the prosecution, if really that was the version given by the deceased. Therefore, a doubt arises as to the manner in which the incident took place, from the version of P.W.1 vis-a-vis Ex.P1. 22. Since the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the Dying Declaration, we intend to refer the same, but before doing so, it is to be noted that suggestions given to all the witnesses that the Dying Declaration was an outcome of tutoring, was denied. Infact, it was even suggested to the witnesses that the deceased was unconscious and not in a position to give a statement, but the same was also denied. 23. It is to be noted that the Dying Declaration was recorded on 01.10.2009 at 3.15 PM i.e., nearly 1½ day after the incident. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the statement of the injured was not recorded on the very next day. In the said Dying Declaration, the deceased stated about that the accused pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. 24. But, the evidence of D.W.1, who was working as Medical Superintendent at Apollo Hospital, Aragonda at that time assumes significance. Her evidence would show that, as per the admission slip, the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 29.09.2009 at 05:03:02 PM. Her evidence also reveals that the deceased was brought to the emergency ward at 4.30 PM. According to her, the Case Sheet discloses that the deceased sustained accidental kerosene burns at her residence. Though, D.W.1 was cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit her version. She is an independent witness, who has no motive to speak falsehood against the prosecution. Infact, no suggestion was given to the witness with regard to she having any motive to speak false. Hence, the evidence of D.W.1 cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that she is examined as a defence witness. 25. She is an independent witness, who has no motive to speak falsehood against the prosecution. Infact, no suggestion was given to the witness with regard to she having any motive to speak false. Hence, the evidence of D.W.1 cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that she is examined as a defence witness. 25. Further, the evidence of D.W.1 (doctor) would reveal that the left thumb impression of the accused and his signature was taken on the relevant papers, which clearly indicate that the accused has brought the deceased to the hospital. This version of D.W.1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, throwing suspicion on the prosecution case. Things would have been different, had the prosecution established motive or ill-will for D.W.1 to speak against the prosecution. In the absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether really P.W.1 is speaking the truth in the Court. It is not a case where P.W.1 was declared hostile having regard to his version in the F.I.R. Though a Dying Declaration is recorded by the Magistrate, nearly two days after the incident, but the earlier documents, more particularly, Ex.P1 and the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the admissions of P.W.1 in his cross-examination, throws suspicion on the version recorded in the dying declaration. The argument that the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate could be an outcome of tutoring cannot be brushed aside. 26. Further, P.W.1 never stated anything about the harassment for money by the accused, till 04.10.2009. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that though he was examined on 01.10.2009, he did not state about the acts of alleged harassment and the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. Thus, in the given set of circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. 27. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment dated 22.02.2013 in Sessions Case No.135 of 2010 on the file VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC, are set aside and the accused is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.