JUDGMENT C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. - The State of Andhra Pradesh preferred this Appeal against the Order of acquittal, dtd. 27/1/2012, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein the sole Accused who was tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, 'I.P.C."], was acquitted of the said charge. As all the material witnesses have turned hostile, we deem it appropriate to refer to the allegations in the charge-sheet. 2. Boya Meenuga Adilaxmamma ("deceased") married one Raghu Ramudu of Sivapuram Village, Kothapalli Mandal, about 12 years prior to the incident. Nine years prior, the husband of the deceased died. Since then, she along with her children were staying at Indireswaram Village. It is said that, since three years, the accused, who was residing near their house, developed intimacy and started frequently visiting the house and staying with her, though he is having wife and children. It is said that suspecting her fidelity, the accused was harassing and beating the deceased. The deceased was working as "Aaya" in Anganwadi Centre, and also cultivating Ac.0.50 cents ( 1/2 acre) of her paddy field. 3. On 19/8/2010, the accused went to his filed and also informed the deceased to go to her field. Looking after the work at the field, the deceased returned to her house, by which time the accused was already present in the house. He is said to have questioned the deceased for the delay and also suspected her fidelity. A quarrel ensued with her in this regard. 4. At about 11.00 p.m., when the deceased was heating water on firewood oven, the accused is said to have picked up kerosene can from the oven, poured the same and set the deceased on fire with a match stick. The averments in the charge-sheet show that while pouring kerosene a part of the kerosene also fell on the hand of the accused and caught fire, leading to some burn injuries to both his hands and nose. The people who gathered there shifted the injured to Community Health Centre, Atmakur. 5. On 20/8/2010 at about 1.00 p.m., while PW15 [SubInspector of Police] was in Police Station, Atmakur, he received a Medical Intimation under Ex.P19, about the admission of the injured at Community Health Centre, Atmakur. The people who gathered there shifted the injured to Community Health Centre, Atmakur. 5. On 20/8/2010 at about 1.00 p.m., while PW15 [SubInspector of Police] was in Police Station, Atmakur, he received a Medical Intimation under Ex.P19, about the admission of the injured at Community Health Centre, Atmakur. As PW13 [Doctor] had sent the injured to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, PW1 reached the Hospital at 1.00 p.m. He identified the injured and after ascertaining the mental condition, recorded the statement of the injured which is placed on record as Ex.P20. 6. The duty doctor present there certified the declaration with an endorsement, which is placed on record as Ex.P.21. On the basis of Ex.P.20, PW15 registered a case in Cr.No.109/2010 for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 I.P.C. Ex.P.22 is F.I.R. Thereafter, PW15 again went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, were he secured the presence of PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Then, he visited the scene of offence, i.e., the house of the deceased and prepared a rough sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.23. At the scene, he seized burnt saree pieces, burnt petticoat and plastic kerosene lamp, which are marked as MOs.1 to 3. Ex.P24 is the seizure proceedings. On the next day morning, he went to the same Village and examined PWs 4 to 6. 7. On 25/8/2010, PW15 received Death Intimation of the injured, pursuant to which he issued an altered F.I.R., altering the Sec. of law to one under 302 I.P.C. Ex.25 is the altered F.I.R. Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by PW16. 8. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted here that, on 20/8/2010 at about 7.45 a.m., i.e., much prior to PW15 proceeding to the hospital and recording the statement, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Kurnool, [PW12] on receipt of intimation from Government General Hospital, Kurnool, proceeded to the said Hospital, identified the injured, being satisfied with regard to the mental status of the injured and after obtaining necessary certificate from the Doctor, recorded the statement of the injured. Ex.P16 is the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate. 9. PW16 [Inspector of Police], who continued with the investigation, proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body between 9.00 a.m., and 12.00 noon. Ex.P26 is the inquest report. During Inquest, he examined PW7, the son of the deceased and recorded his statement. Ex.P16 is the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate. 9. PW16 [Inspector of Police], who continued with the investigation, proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body between 9.00 a.m., and 12.00 noon. Ex.P26 is the inquest report. During Inquest, he examined PW7, the son of the deceased and recorded his statement. He again visited the scene of offence and verified the investigation done earlier. 10. On 26/8/2010 at about 12.45 hours, the accused is said to have surrendered before PW16 at his office. PW16 noticed burn injuries on his hand and, as such, PW16 sent him to Community Health Centre, Atmakur, for examination. After completing investigation a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on record as the PRC No.21 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. 11. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which, the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P26, beside marking M.O.1 to M.O.3. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, however, no evidence was adduced in support of his plea. 13. In view of the discrepancies and the over writings in the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and as all the witnesses have turned hostile, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Challenging the same the present appeal came to be filed by the State. 14. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the accused, would contend that no reliance can be placed on the two Dying Declarations namely Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.20. According to him, when Ex.P.16 was recorded on 20/8/2010, it is strange as to why no F.I.R was registered till the statement was recorded by PW15, the Sub-Inspector of Police. 14. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the accused, would contend that no reliance can be placed on the two Dying Declarations namely Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.20. According to him, when Ex.P.16 was recorded on 20/8/2010, it is strange as to why no F.I.R was registered till the statement was recorded by PW15, the Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him, this circumstance creates a doubt as to whether really a second dying declaration, which contains many factual aspects of the family of the deceased, was recorded in a elaborate manner. 15. Sri S.Dushyahth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that, even if the second dying declaration recorded by PW.15 is excluded from consideration, still there remains the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, which is marked as Ex.P.16. A reading of the contents of Ex.P.16, would clearly establish that it was the deceased who poured kerosene and set herself on fire on the fateful day. In other words, his argument appears to be that the dying declaration which inspires confidence, in the mind of Court, can be taken into consideration to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, though all the witness have turned hostile, still the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, which is earlier, in point of time, can be relied upon to connect the accused. 16. Insofar as first dying declaration is concerned, the counsel for the Respondent/Accused would contend that in view of the over writing, the same cannot be acted upon. The learned counsel further submits that the doctor who certified the two dying declarations is not examined and, as such, there is any amount of doubt with regard to mental fitness of the injured while giving the statement. 17. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt or whether the order under challenge warrants interference in this appeal? 18. Though, both the counsel dealt with the merits of two dying declarations recorded, but the legal issue that arises for consideration is, when the contents of the dying declarations are not put to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., whether a conviction can be imposed on the basis of two dying declarations? 19. 18. Though, both the counsel dealt with the merits of two dying declarations recorded, but the legal issue that arises for consideration is, when the contents of the dying declarations are not put to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., whether a conviction can be imposed on the basis of two dying declarations? 19. Dealing with the scope and ambit of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, [ 2013 5 SCC 722 SC 435]. held as under: "41. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that statement under Sec. 313 CrPC is recorded to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice as it requires that an accused maybe given an opportunity to furnish explanation of the incriminating material which had come against him in the trail. However, his statement cannot be made a basis for his conviction. His answers to the questions put to him under Sec. 313 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions. Thus, the statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. In case the prosecution evidence is not found sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The statement under Sec. 313 CrPC is not recorded after administering oath to the accused. Therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act, though the accused has a right if he chooses to be a witness, and once he makes that option, he can be administered oath and examined as a witness in defence as required under Sec. 315 CrPC. An adverse inference can be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stood fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself. 20. In Sanatan Naskar and Anr V. State Of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3507. However, the accused has a right to remain silent as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself. 20. In Sanatan Naskar and Anr V. State Of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3507. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "The answers by an accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC is wide and is not a mere formality. Let us examine the essential features of this sec. and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and, besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the other party to crossexamine him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Sec. 313 (4) of Cr.PC explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against the accused in any other enquiry into or trial for, any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this Sec. should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Another important caution that Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made under Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence." 21. In Kalicharan and Ors. versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1027. the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the contents of the post-mortem were not put to the accused. Dealing with the same, the Court held that, the requirement of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that he can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. After an accused is questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. The Court held that if the accused is not made aware the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of Jai Dev V. State of Punjab, (1963) 3 SCR 489 . held as under: "21. In support of his contention that the failure to put the relevant point against the appellant Hari Singh would affect the final conclusion of the High Court, Mr Anthony has relied on a decision of this Court in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [1951 SCC 1060 : AIR 1953 SC 468 ] . In that case, this Court has no doubt referred to the fact that it was important to put to the accused each material fact which is intended to be used against him and to afford him a chance of explaining it if he can. But these observations must be read in the light of the other conclusions reached by this Court in that case. It would, we think, be incorrect to suggest that these observations are intended to lay down a general and inexorable rule that wherever it is found that one of the points used against the accused person has not been put to him, either the trial is vitiated or his conviction is rendered bad. The examination of the accused person under Sec. 342 is undoubtedly intended to give him an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In exercising its powers under Sec. 342, the court must take care to put all relevant circumstances appearing in the evidence to the accused person. It would not be enough to put a few general and broad questions to the accused, for by adopting such a course the accused may not get opportunity of explaining all the relevant circumstances. On the other hand, it would not be fair or right that the court should put to the accused person detailed questions which may amount to his cross-examination. On the other hand, it would not be fair or right that the court should put to the accused person detailed questions which may amount to his cross-examination. The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under Sec. 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity. It is obvious that no general rule can be laid down in regard to the manner in which the accused person should be examined under Sec. 342. Broadly stated, however, the true position appears to be that passion for brevity which may be content with asking a few omnibus general questions is as much inconsistent with the requirements of Sec. 342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an unduly detailed and large number of questions which may amount to the cross-examination of the accused person. Besides, in the present case, as we have already shown, failure to put the specific point of distance is really not very material." 23. The accused has to be examined in every enquiry or trial so as to enable him to explain personally the circumstances appearing against him in evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is a fundamental principle of justice that no one should be condemned unheard. To meet the said requirement, the accused shall be given an opportunity to furnish an explanation for the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. Sec. itself declares the object in a very clear language. It casts a duty upon the courts to question the accused in clear words the exact case, which the accused has to meet, and that an opportunity should be given to the accused to explain any such point. The questioning of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be an empty formality. 24. It casts a duty upon the courts to question the accused in clear words the exact case, which the accused has to meet, and that an opportunity should be given to the accused to explain any such point. The questioning of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be an empty formality. 24. Further, the entire text of the document referred to in evidence should reflect in the question put to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Unless the entire text of the document or contents of the document, as spoken to by the witnesses, is put to the accused, he will not be in a position to answer the same. No incriminating point should be left out which might result in prejudice. If the same is left out, it cannot be used against the accused. Any such omission on the part of the Court would be fatal to the prosecution case. 25. The Courts have been consistent in holding that, (i) no oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-sec. (1) of 313 Cr.P.C. Probably, for this reason, sub-sec. (3) states that accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he gives false answers; (ii) the accused cannot be compelled to speak; (iii) right to keep silence is a right of the accused; (iv) no punishment can flow on his refusal to answer or giving false answers. May be in a given set of circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn. 26. The issue involved in the present case is the effect of not putting the contents of two dying declarations to the accused in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. It would be appropriate for us to refer to the two questions relating to those two dying declarations, put to the accused during his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. They are as under: Q.No.5: PW12. The issue involved in the present case is the effect of not putting the contents of two dying declarations to the accused in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. It would be appropriate for us to refer to the two questions relating to those two dying declarations, put to the accused during his 313 Cr.P.C. examination. They are as under: Q.No.5: PW12. G.Bhupal Reddy, the then Special Judicial Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool, deposed that on 20/8/2010 at about 7.45 a.m., he received a requisition, Ex.P.13 from Government General Hospital, Kurnool to recorded the dying declaration of Adilakshmamma and on that, he rushed to Government General Hospital, Kurnool at about 8.00 a.m., identified the declarant with the help of Dr.Chinnamma, Casualty Medical Officer, disclosed his official capacity to the declarant, put some preliminary questions to the declarant to know her physical and mental capacity to give the declaration and having satisfied that the declarant was conscious and coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement, he obtained the doctor's certificate to that effect under Ex.P14 and then recorded the statement of the declarant, as spoken by her under Ex.P.16, completed the proceedings at about 8.20 a.m., and once again obtained the certificate of the doctor under Ex.P.15. What do you say? Q.No.10: PW15 deposed further that he then reached Government General Hospital Kurnool at 13.00 hours, identified the injured through her blood relatives, duty doctor and medical staff and after ascertaining the mental condition of the patient Adilakshmamma, he recorded her statement under Ex.P.20 in the presence of the duty doctor, who certified under Ex.P.21 and that on the basis of Ex.P.20 statement, he registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2010 under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted first information report under Ex.P.22. What do you say? 27. A perusal of these two questions put to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C would show that the accused was not confronted with the contents of Ex.P16 and Ex.P.20. Only identification numbers of the exhibits were referred to in these two questions, without narrating the contents of those two documents. Unless the contents of the dying declarations are put to the accused, he will not be in a position to answer the same or explain the circumstances under which the incident took place. 28. Only identification numbers of the exhibits were referred to in these two questions, without narrating the contents of those two documents. Unless the contents of the dying declarations are put to the accused, he will not be in a position to answer the same or explain the circumstances under which the incident took place. 28. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, tried to contend that, no prejudice is caused since there is a reference to the exhibit number in the questionnaire. But, as observed by us earlier, unless the substance of those two documents are put to the accused, he will not be in a position to explain the same, as such, it can be said that substantial prejudice has been caused to the accused. 29. Dealing with the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 30 of Raj Kumar Singh [1st cited supra], observed as under: "In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alterum partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration." 30. Referring to Raj Kumar Singh [1st cited supra], a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Dadarao and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online Bom 346. held as under: "24. From the perusal of the above referred question Nos. 46, 47, 48, 62 and 79 and answers given by the accused to the said questions it is clear that the accused have stated that the dying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 are false. So also, accused have denied that dying declarations were recorded by PWS-3 and 4. Thus, it is clear from question Nos. 46, 47, 48, 62 and 79 and answers given by the accused to the said questions it is clear that the accused have stated that the dying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 are false. So also, accused have denied that dying declarations were recorded by PWS-3 and 4. Thus, it is clear from question Nos. 48 and 62 referred to above that contents of dying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 were not specifically put to the accused in the statement under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as such no opportunity was given to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against them in both these dying declarations. However, the learned Sessions Judge has used the contents of both the dying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 against the accused for holding the accused guilty for the offences alleged against them as observed in paragraph Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment. But when the contents of dying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 and the circumstances appearing in the said dying declarations against the accused were not put to them to give explanation both these dying declarations cannot be taken into consideration in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias Batya (Supra). Therefore, we hold that both the dying declarations cannot be used against the accused and they have to be excluded from consideration. As a result, we hold that the prosecution has not proved that both the dying declarations are voluntary, reliable and trustworthy statements of the deceased. Therefore, the dying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 are of no help to the prosecution to connect the accused with the offences alleged against them". 31. From the two judgments referred to above, it is very much clear that when the contents of dying declaration are not put to the accused, they have to be excluded from consideration. In the absence of any other evidence, except the two dying declarations we have no other option except to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. 32. In the circumstances of the case and having regard to the length of time, we do not deem it fit and appropriate to remand the case back to the trial Court for holding 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused again. 32. In the circumstances of the case and having regard to the length of time, we do not deem it fit and appropriate to remand the case back to the trial Court for holding 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused again. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dtd. 27/1/2012, in Sessions Case No.634 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 33. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.