JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 30.09.2005, whereby the appellants have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine further imprisonment of two months under Section 498-A IPC, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, appellants alongwith Lalit soni, Hem Raj Chopra and Yashomati Verma were charged for having allegedly committed offences under Sections 498-A, 302 & 306 of the IPC. The case set up by the prosecution was that on 06.07.2001 Smt. Sheetal Soni wife of Lalit Soni had sustained fire burns in her house as a result of which she died on 16.07.2001 and FIR No. 311 of 2001 under Sections 498-A, 302 & 306 of the IPC was registered. 3. The deceased was married to Lalit Soni about 14 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs. It was alleged that the Lalit Soni and the appellants had been nagging the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. After one year of marriage the deceased and her husband Lalit Soni separated from his family and started living in a rented accommodation at Bhoot Nath Bazar, Mandi. 4. The case set up by the prosecution was that the appellants alongwih the husband of the deceased had been troubling her to bring more dowry. In this background on 06.07.2001 at about 11 p.m. when the deceased was sleeping in her room, there was a knock on the main door and when she opened the door, someone threw some inflammable substance on her and lit a match. As a result of which, the deceased caught fire. Her son PW2 Gagan threw blanket on the deceased in a bid to save her. Thereafter, PW-2 informed the sister of the deceased, who alongwith her husband shifted the deceased to Zonal Hospital, Mandi and died on 16.07.2001. 5. After having been tried for the offences for which the accused were charge-sheeted, Sh. Hem Raj Chopra and Yashomati Verma have been acquitted whereas the appellants alongwith Sh. Lalit Soni have been convicted under Section 498- A to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. It has further been ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, the said persons shall further undergo imprisonment of two months. Lalit Soni have been convicted under Section 498- A to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. It has further been ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, the said persons shall further undergo imprisonment of two months. However, all these persons have been found to be not guilty under Section 302 IPC. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has committed grave error in convicting the appellants under Section 498-A. It is submitted that once the appellants have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC, there is no occasion for the court below to have convicted them under Section 498-A of the IPC. It is further submitted that there is material contradiction in the three dying declarations Ex. PK, Ex.PO and Ex. PS. Ex. PK was first in time, which was recorded at Regional Hospital, Mandi, wherein there is no allegation whatsoever levelled against the husband or other family members by the deceased. It is only after the deceased met her father that she improved her statement initially vide Ext. PO and thereafter vide Ex.PS. It is submitted that subsequent dying declarations could not have been relied upon as the possibility of deceased being tutored against the appellants could not be ruled out. If nothing else, then the appellants were at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. In short, the submissions of the appellants are that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the material placed on record. 9. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. 10. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. 10. It would be noticed that the deceased was married to Lalit Soni about 14 years ago and relationship between them was turbulent as the husband was found to have been beating his wife deceased Sheetal. However, then a written compromise Ex.PA took place between the husband and wife wherein the husband accepted and acknowledged that his aunt and brother Ravi were the biggest provocateur and stated that he was cruel to his wife only because of instigation and provocation from these two persons. It is apt to reproduce the compromise in its entirety, which reads as under:- “Ex. PA I, Lalit Kumar alias Guddu, S/o late Sh. Hem Chand do certify that we have been married for almost 4 years and the name of my wife is Sheetla Devi. We also have a 2 ½ year-old boy. That, on 19.2.90, some of my relatives came to our house and interfered in our matter, and I was provoked, due to which I slapped my wife and I beat her in anger. The following relatives were present: 1. Sh. Ravinder Kumar {Brother}, S/o Sh. {illegible} 2. Smt. Yasho Devi {Aunt}, W/o Sh. Devi Ram 3. Smt. Padma Devi {Mother}, W/o – 4. Sh. Hem Raj Chopra, S/o Daragu Ram {illegible} 5. Smt. Indra, W/o Sh. Hem Raj Chopra 6. Sh. K.R Soni {Uncle}, S/o Sh. K.C Soni Whenever they came to our house, my aunt and mother said that "Sheetla get away from the life of our Guddu and go away anywhere". Then Uncle said “Sheetla you have only a few bones, by killing the ashes will not be traced even in the morning. In the meantime, the aunt grabbed her from the lock and slammed her. Ravi and Guddu said “this is our house, go away from here” and during that time they kept getting angry with Sheetla. I slapped my wife in anger, due to which her eye got hurt and a mark was left on her eye, due to which my wife kept crying. When everyone went out, then I asked Sheetla to plug in an electric water heating rod {hand made}. Uncle was outside, I also went out. I slapped my wife in anger, due to which her eye got hurt and a mark was left on her eye, due to which my wife kept crying. When everyone went out, then I asked Sheetla to plug in an electric water heating rod {hand made}. Uncle was outside, I also went out. Then I asked whether the water is hot or not? About which I had to ask twice or even thrice, it was about 12 o'clock in the night. Actually, he was beaten up because of some of my relatives, who keep on provoking me. Now I will take a separate quarter and reside there and my aunt Yashi and brother Ravinder will not interfere with that. Whenever there is a quarrel in our house, they both are the provocateurs. My aunt and brother Ravi are the most provocateurs. That, on the night of the incident, half an hour before the arrival of my relatives, at about 7 ½ my brother-in-law came to inquire about our well-being, on which my wife said that she is fine. Since we had this kind of quarrel with each other two to three times earlier and half an hour later this incident started. Whereas my brother-in-law had already gone and even I didn't stop him. So, I accept my mistake and I will not take such step in future. Neither I will come at the behest of any instigator, nor I will keep my relationship with anyone except my loved ones {That is, I will not invite those persons to my house who provoke me }. As our relatives ask to vacate the house from here and at their instigation I used to indulge in beatings. In future, if my wife dies due to any reason then it is my duty to inform my in-laws and only then her last rites be performed, until my wife's parents come. If we performed said rites of my wife in the absence of the parents of my wife, then we can be held guilty. Sd/-{Lalit} 27.2.90 At 10:00 {illegible} Lalit Soni, House No. 150/7, Bhoot Nath Bajar Mandi, H.P 175001 Few months back, my brother Ravi slapped Sheetla and he was explained by brother of Sheetla that he should not slapped his elder aunt. Sd/-{Lalit} 27.2.90 At 10:00 {illegible} Lalit Soni, House No. 150/7, Bhoot Nath Bajar Mandi, H.P 175001 Few months back, my brother Ravi slapped Sheetla and he was explained by brother of Sheetla that he should not slapped his elder aunt. assure that all the gold and silver jewellery of my wife is lying with my family members, whose description is as follows:- 1. Gold Jewellery:- Nose Pin – about 2 ½ tola Necklace – about 10 tola Jhoomar – about 1 ½ tola Maternal Nose Pin- about 1 tola Tikka – about ½ tola Chaak - about ½ tola Earrings{Kaante} with set – about 3 tola 2. Silver Jewellery:- 2 complete set – about 12 tola Anklet – about 5 tola I have written the above statement in all my senses Lalit Lalit Kumar Soni Lalit Soni, 27.2.90 House No. 150/7, at 10:00 a.m Bhootnath Bazar Mandi,H.P.” 11. It is not in dispute that this compromise was entered on 27.02.1990 and thereafter deceased and her husband were residing happily as is otherwise stated by the father of the deceased in his statement as PW1. 12. Now, as per the prosecution case, On 06.07.2001, at about 11:00 pm, the deceased was sleeping in her room alongwith her son Gagan and husband, when someone knocked at the door. As soon as deceased opened the door, someone threw inflammable material and lit a match, as a result of which her body caught fire. Her son threw blanket over her in order to save her. Even the persons from the neighbourhod also assembled there. 13. At this stage, it may be noticed that even though the prosecution has examined as many as 27 witnesses but none of the neighbour was examined. What would be the effect of this, will be considered later on. 14. It needs to be noticed that when Sheetal was admitted in Hospital Dr. Renu Behal (PW-12) recorded her statement as was narrated by her. At that time, there was no allegation of maltreatment, cruelty or beating. The deceased was admitted to the hospital with the history of burn injuries suffered by her at 10 pm on 06.07.2001. 15. As per the version of the deceased, on 06.07.2001 at about 10 p.m., after a day of fasting, she went to boil milk as she was feeling uneasy. The deceased was admitted to the hospital with the history of burn injuries suffered by her at 10 pm on 06.07.2001. 15. As per the version of the deceased, on 06.07.2001 at about 10 p.m., after a day of fasting, she went to boil milk as she was feeling uneasy. The newspaper which was under the gas stove caught fire, owing to which the synthetic cloth worn by her caught fire. It is then her son threw blanket on her, as her husband though was present there but was bed ridden because of some injuries in his leg. The deceased was found to be fit to give statement by Dr. Renu Behal. It is relevant to reproduce the first statement Ex.PK given by the deceased before the Police i.e. Balbir Singh and the same reads as under:- “Ex. PK Statement of Smt. Sheetal Soni, W/o Lalit Soni, caste Sunihar, R/o H.No. 112/9, Bhagwan Muhalla, Mandi, Tehsil and P.S Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, aged 35 years. Stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address and do domestic work by profession. I had observed “Vaibhav Lakshmi” fast on 6.7.2001. My husband had met with an accident in February 2001, in which he fractured his leg and he walks with the help of crutches. At around 10 o'clock in the night, I was boiling milk for myself on the cooking gas stove and the newspaper was kept under the gas stove. Suddenly the newspapers caught fire, owing to which the silk clothes worn by me caught fire. On which, I screamed loudly, owing to which my son Gagan and my husband came running. They threw blankets on me, I fell down and fainted then my son and my sister brought me to Z.H, Mandi for treatment. This accident happened due to catching fire suddenly by the clothes worn by me, while boiling the milk on the gas stove. There is no fault of anyone in this. Attested Sd/­{illegible} 7.7.01 Dr. Renu Behal, M.O, Z.H. Mandi Attested Balbir Singh PS {illegible} P.P City, Mandi 7.7.2001” 16. After making aforesaid statement, the father of the deceased arrived at the Hospital and then deceased gave more elaborate statement vide Ex.PO which reads as under:- “Ex PO Statement U/s 154 Cr.PC of Smt. Sheetla Soni W/o Lalit Soni, Caste Sunar, R/o H.No. 112/9, Bhagwan Mohalla Mandi, District Mandi, 34 years. After making aforesaid statement, the father of the deceased arrived at the Hospital and then deceased gave more elaborate statement vide Ex.PO which reads as under:- “Ex PO Statement U/s 154 Cr.PC of Smt. Sheetla Soni W/o Lalit Soni, Caste Sunar, R/o H.No. 112/9, Bhagwan Mohalla Mandi, District Mandi, 34 years. Stated that I am a resident of the aforesaid address. My parents solemnized my marriage with Mr. Lalit Soni 14 years ago according to Hindu rituals. My husband is a goldsmith. After 6 months of marriage, my husband and aunt mother-in-law Indra, younger Brotherin-Law, Harish Soni had started harassing me for bringing few goods in dowry. At that time we lived in Moviseri. When my aunt mother-in-law occasionally visits there, she used to harass me. After one year of marriage, my husband had brought me to reside at residential house at Bhootnath Bazar, Mandi, where my aunt mother-in-law Indra and my mother-in-law Padma started instigating my husband against me and my husband used to beat me daily by locking me in the room. Because after 6 months of my marriage, son of my husband’s uncle got married. He had received a lot of goods in dowry. On this matter, my husband always used to ask me to bring dowry, like gold, money and scooter etc. from my maternal house. My grandfather-in-law had died, after that my uncle Hem Raj started saying that if you are killed, even ashes will not reach your maternal house. Aunt Indra used to say that you should leave Lalit, they do not want anything apart from this. Many times I was forced to die by electrocuting the electric rod. I had informed about this to my parents, and then my parents took me to their house. I had a son after one year of marriage and the second one born after 6 years. Thereafter, my husband came to my parents' house take me and I came to Mandi and started living in separate Quarter. My husband gave in writing that he will not beat and harass me. My husband also harassed me a lot after consuming alcohol in the quarter. In the month of February of this year, my husband met with an accident, due to which my husband's leg has got fractured and he lived at his aunt Indra's house for 3 months. My husband gave in writing that he will not beat and harass me. My husband also harassed me a lot after consuming alcohol in the quarter. In the month of February of this year, my husband met with an accident, due to which my husband's leg has got fractured and he lived at his aunt Indra's house for 3 months. Whenever I visited there to bring him, I was always asked by my aunt Indra and mother-in-law Padma, brother-in-law Harish and my husband to bring the expenses. Then I brought my husband to the quarter with great efforts. On 6.7.01 at around 11 PM, my husband, who was bed ridden, said that someone is knocking at the door, then I opened the door and suddenly someone threw a liquid like burning thing at me and also threw a match stick at me after igniting and I screamed. At that time my son Gagan and Vishal were sleeping and my elder son threw a blanket on me, but I could not recognize the person who set me on fire. On my screaming, the nearby neighbours gathered and my husband refused to take me to the hospital and started saying that police case will be registered. Then I sent my son Gagan to Samkhetar to call my sister Pushpa Devi. Thereafter, she and my brother-in-law brought me to the hospital. I could not disclose actual fact in the morning because my children were in the quarter and I was in fear that my relatives might kill them too. Even yesterday my husband asked to pay ration money after taking the same from your father. I have been tortured & assaulted by my husband and his relatives till date for not brining dowry. On 06.07.2001, I have been set on fire by throwing some substance on me. Please take action. Attested by Rattan, ASI, PP City …(illegible)… 07.07.2001 Police proceedings: For the verification of the facts of the case No. 294/01, I, the ASI, along with constable Jai Singh No. 272, reached ZH, Mandi, where Shital Soni, Wife of Sh. Lalit Sonu, R/o 112/09, Bhagwan Mohalla has recorded her statement under section 154 Cr.PC, which was reduced into writing verbatim and read over and explained to her. After accepting the same as correct, she has appended her signature in Hindi under her statement. Her father has also appended his signature on it. Lalit Sonu, R/o 112/09, Bhagwan Mohalla has recorded her statement under section 154 Cr.PC, which was reduced into writing verbatim and read over and explained to her. After accepting the same as correct, she has appended her signature in Hindi under her statement. Her father has also appended his signature on it. I have also put my signature as a attesting person. From the contents, an offence under section 498A IPC found to has been committed and for registration of case, the aforesaid statement has been sent to police station through constable Jai Singh. After registration of case, the case file may be handed over to Detective Wing Mandi. I, the ASI, proceed to the spot. Spot: Bhagwan Mohalla in west direction, 2 km from the police station Sd/- ASI/I/O, PS City camp at ZH, Mandi. At 7.15 PM on 07.07.2001 17. After being shifted to IGMC, Shimla, the deceased gave yet another statement vide Ex.PS, which was recorded before the Magistrate and before making the statement Dr. Sanjeev Prashad, issued Certificate Ex.PR certifying therein that the deceased was fit to make statement and it was thereafter that Shri Pathania (PW-23) SDM Shimla (Urban) recorded the last dying declaration of Sheetla Devi, which reads as under:- 10.07.2001 - Statement of Smt. Sheetla Devi, Wife of Sh. Lalit Soni, resident of House No. 912/9, Bhagwan Mohalla, Mandi, HP age 34 years. Stated that on 25th December, 2000 my husband was caught by tuberculosis and I asked him why did not you take medicine. On this, my husband said me to provide money from maternal house. Then, my younger brother, Surender Soni had brought Rs. 2000/- from my maternal house. My husband purchased medicine from Dr. Jeewan at Band Lok. After that, I withdrew Rs. 6000/- from the Overseas Bank, Mandi. Thereafter, I gave this amount to my husband. Then, I asked him to also accompany me to doctor, but he did not take me there. After that, my husband returned home after check-up from doctor. Thereafter, relatives of my husband started coming to our quarter. My mother-in-law, Padma, brother-in-law, Harish Soni, aunty, Indira Chopra and uncle Hem Raj Chopra, were amongst the relatives who used to visit our house. They were telling that they will take my husband to their house. After that, my husband returned home after check-up from doctor. Thereafter, relatives of my husband started coming to our quarter. My mother-in-law, Padma, brother-in-law, Harish Soni, aunty, Indira Chopra and uncle Hem Raj Chopra, were amongst the relatives who used to visit our house. They were telling that they will take my husband to their house. I refused them as they can visit here in order to know their well beings and let my husband be stayed with me. I gave respect to them. He had gone somewhere by scooter and received injury in his leg, even then he does take care of himself. I brought medicine to him from Dr. Yugal. Then, I used to give massage with medicinal tube daily in the night. My husband used to drink liquor daily and used to urinate inside. He got hurt in the same leg on same day the committee election was held. He had got weakness and then his feet slipped and received injury in the same leg. Thereafter, he was got checked at Mandi from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla. He remain admitted in IGMC from 10th February, 2011 till 10th March, 2001 for a period of one month. When he was discharged from Shimla, then his aunty, Indira Chopra, brought him to her home at Moti Bazar, Mandi. My younger brother-in-law Harish also lives there. When I used to go there with meals to serve him, then they used to refuse me to serve meals. Even then, I used to keep on serving meals for a week, but they used to hurl abuse at me. Then, many times my husband threw the plate of food. Then, brother of my husband, aunty, uncle, Anita Puri, maternal ant along with his mother told me to bring sixty-seventy thousands rupees which they have spent on the ailment and only then take him back. On this, I replied that from where I will bring this money as my ornaments have already been taken by you. Thereafter, I visited to Rattan Singh, the Police Inspection, who is posted at Police Chowki, Mandi and said to him that when I went to bring my husband, my brother-in-law Harish, was threatening to kill me and my children and further told me that they will not send my husband to me. They threatened to take my life. Thereafter, I visited to Rattan Singh, the Police Inspection, who is posted at Police Chowki, Mandi and said to him that when I went to bring my husband, my brother-in-law Harish, was threatening to kill me and my children and further told me that they will not send my husband to me. They threatened to take my life. Brother-in-law said that I am not afraid of the police even if I get jailed or get hanged, I will definitely kill you. Police told me to return home and called me next date on 4th June, of the same year. In the morning at about 10:00 AM, I visited Chowki and thereafter, at about 11 AM, police officials accompanied me to my husband’s aunty house. After reaching in the house of aunty, they told to my husband Sh. Lalit Soni that you return to your own home along with your wife. Then my husband came back home. My husband used to quarrel daily with me and refused my relatives to visit here and his own relatives used to visit here and were forcing me to bring money from my maternal house as he has to pay the rent etc. One day i.e. on 6th July, 2001, in the night at about 11-11:30 PM someone has knocked at the door from outside. There is one door in our bed room. My husband has told me that have a look as someone may have come to inquire about my condition. When I got up from the bed and opened the door someone from outside threw liquid like substance upon me and other threw match-stick. I could not recognize the persons who threw things from outside whether he was a man or women. I suspect my brother-in-law Harish Soni as he had given threatening to me that let you take your husband to home, but you will not survive for long. On hearing noise, my husband also awoke up, but he did not do anything. My son, Gagan Soni, who is 13 years old, had immediately thrown blanket on me, due to which fire got extinguished. I told my husband to take me to hospital, upon this he said he has no money, apply the paste and go to sleep. Then I sent my elder son Gagan to call for my sister Pushpa Devi and brother-in-law Govind Soni. I told my husband to take me to hospital, upon this he said he has no money, apply the paste and go to sleep. Then I sent my elder son Gagan to call for my sister Pushpa Devi and brother-in-law Govind Soni. Then, my husband told me that when police will inquire about this in the hospital, give them statement that I burnt myself. Then, I have given same statement due to fear earlier at Mandi that I have set myself on fire. Then my parents came to Mandi hospital at the call of my sister. Thereafter, my brother, sister and other maternal relatives also came to hospital. No one from my in-law’s house came to know my well beings. I am repeatedly thinking about my children that they will be hungry and they should be sent to their maternal grandparents. When I was in the hospital at Mandi, my eldest son Gagan Soni had come to meet me, so I asked, son have you eaten anything, but he told that he has not eaten anything. Then, his maternal grandmother gave him fifty rupees. My parents have been bearing the expenditure regarding studies of my children since December, 2000. Hospital expenses are also being met by them. My parents have purchased ..(illegible)… in my name at Gutkar near Mandi. My husband is telling me to sell it out and give me the said money as I have to pay people’s debt. I refuse about this. I have to retain it for my children. In the year 1990, aunty, uncle, mother-in-law and maternal ant, the relatives of my husband namely Indra Chopra, Hemraj Chopra, Padma and Yasomati and brother-in-law Harish had also tortured me for dowry. Indira aunty had also told that time that give divorce to Lalit Soni as we have to marry him again. Hem Raj Chopra, the uncle, had said that time that you only few bones, we will kill you and will also burn you and will not allow your ashes to reach the maternal house. Yashomati, the maternal ant of my husband, had dragged me by the hair in order to pull me out. The whole incident is about the year 1990. At that time also my husband’s aunty and uncle said to me that the electrical water heating rod be plugged in and they all went out. Yashomati, the maternal ant of my husband, had dragged me by the hair in order to pull me out. The whole incident is about the year 1990. At that time also my husband’s aunty and uncle said to me that the electrical water heating rod be plugged in and they all went out. My husband peeped through the door trice to see, if she had died or not. When my husband entered in, he assaulted me. I have spent 14 years of my life in this way. After the year 1990, my in-law’s entered into compromise with me, in which my parents were also present. They had accepted their mistake and agreed not to repeat it in future. But, after few years they have started such type of tricks (behavior). This is my statement which I have recorded in my sound mind, have heard and understood and verified as correct. I, myself, cannot append my signature on my statement as my fingers are burnt and are bandaged, but my aforesaid recorded statement is absolutely correct. Certified that Smt. Sheetla admitted in FSW II/10 vide Cr No. 197563/01 on 9.7.2001 with burns is unable to put her signatures or thumb impression as both her hands are burnt and dressing has been done. Sd/- 10/7 (Dr. Puneet Mahajan,) Jr. Unit-II Surgery I certify that the statement of my daughter Smt. Sheetla Devi has been recorded in private today i.e. on 10.7.2001 from 12:45 PM to 2:30 PM by SDM, Shimla(Urban). This statement has been recorded at IGMC, Shimla. Sd/- Prem Lal S/o Sh. Chandu Ram Resident of village Taal, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that as regards the first dying declaration Ex.PK, the deceased has clearly stated that after fast she went to boil milk as she was feeling uneasy. The newspaper kept under the gas stove caught fire as a result of which the synthetic suit, which she had worn caught fire. 19. As regards the statement Ex.PO, the deceased did not name anyone rather stated that she did not see the persons who threw liquid substance and lit a match-stick. It is then contended that the third dying declaration Ex.PS is detailed one, in which the deceased improved upon the second statement and contradicted the first one. 19. As regards the statement Ex.PO, the deceased did not name anyone rather stated that she did not see the persons who threw liquid substance and lit a match-stick. It is then contended that the third dying declaration Ex.PS is detailed one, in which the deceased improved upon the second statement and contradicted the first one. She talked about the accused in detail and told about the time and place when her husband and Harish Soni threatened to kill her. She later admitted that she wanted to live with her husband. She gave details when her husband alongwith co-accused asked her for dowry and also admitted that she wanted to stay alone after the incident. She also admitted the compromise Ex.PA. It is further urged that the deceased talks of certain incidents that are not corroborated and are brought forth for the first time. These incidents otherwise really are not at all significant as the parties had later compromised. Even the father of the deceased had admitted that the deceased and her husband after the compromise were living happily. This is also corroborated by PW2 Gagan, who happens to be the son of the deceased. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the second and third dying declarations cannot be relied upon as these have been recorded without any fitness certificate. Even otherwise PW23 states that no history of the case of the deceased was given, however, the same is contradicted by PW26, who states that the entire case history was explained to PW 23. PW2 Gagan also admits that his mother was staying happily with his father and she got burn injuries while she was boiling milk on the gas stove. 21. Lastly, it is argued that material witness like Pushpa, sister of the deceased has not been examined and otherwise no credence can be given to the subsequent dying declarations Ex.PO & Ex.PS as admittedly these were made after the father of the deceased met with her and tutored her. 22. The law is well settled that in case of multiple dying declarations, each declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit as its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. The Court has to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs. The Court has to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated on its own merits. 23. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagabhushan vs. State of Karnataka (2021) 5 SCC 222 , wherein it was observed as under:- 10. At this stage, the decisions of this Court in the cases of Nallam Veera Stayanandam v. Public Prosecutor (2004) 10 SCC 769 ; Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 11 SCC 343 ; and Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224 are required to be referred to. In the aforesaid decisions, this Court had an occasion to consider the cases where there are multiple dying declarations. In the aforesaid decisions, it is held that each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. It is also held that the Court has to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated on its own merits. 24. It is also required to be borne in mind that the dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate would stand on a higher footing than the declaration made to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. 25. In coming to such conclusion, I am duly supported by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 (6) SCC 710 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to and considering the earlier decisions on the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, it was observed that the Magistrate being a disinterested witness and a responsible officer and there being no circumstances or material to suspect that the Magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested or fabricating a dying declaration, question of doubt on the declaration, recorded by the Magistrate does not arise. 26. 26. Likewise in the case of Jagbir Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2019 (8) SCC 779 , had an occasion to consider the law relating to dying declaration and the problem of multiple dying declarations in details. It was observed and held that merely because there are two/multiple dying declarations, all the dying declarations are not to be rejected. It was observed and held that when there are multiple dying declaration, the case must be decided on the facts of each case and the Court will not be relived of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of the material on record as also the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations. Ultimately, in paragraph-32, it was concluded as under:- 32 We would think that on a conspectus of the law as laid down by this Court, when there are more than one dying declaration, and in the earlier dying declaration, the accused is not sought to be roped in but in the later dying declaration, a somersault is made by the deceased, the case must be decided on the facts of each case. The court will not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of materials as also the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations. If the court finds that the incriminatory dying declaration brings out the truthful position particularly in conjunction with the capacity of the deceased to make such declaration, the voluntariness with which it was made which involves, no doubt, ruling out tutoring and prompting and also the other evidence which support the contents of the incriminatory dying declaration, it can be acted upon. Equally, the circumstances which render the earlier dying declaration, worthy or unworthy of acceptance, can be considered.” Similar views have been expressed by this Court in the case of Ravi Chander & Ors. (supra), Harjit Kaur (supra), Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. (supra) and Vikas & Ors. (supra). 27. Similar view has been expressed earlier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Chander & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1998 (9) SCC 303 (Para-6), Harjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1999 (6) SCC 545 (Para-6), Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs. State of Gujarat 1999(9) SCC 562 (Para-8), Vikas & Ors. (supra) and Vikas & Ors. (supra). 27. Similar view has been expressed earlier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Chander & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1998 (9) SCC 303 (Para-6), Harjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1999 (6) SCC 545 (Para-6), Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs. State of Gujarat 1999(9) SCC 562 (Para-8), Vikas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (2) SCC 516 (Para48) and one of the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is case No. 34 of 2022, titled as State of U.P. vs. Veerpal & Anr., decided on 01.02.2022. 28. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, it is required to be consider where the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on 10.07.2001 from 12:45 to 2:30 pm by the SDM, Shimla (Urban) is to be believed or not. 29. While doing so, it needs to be observed that there is no allegation against the Magistrate/SDM to the effect that he was biased or interested in recoding the dying declaration against the accused. 30. The dying declaration recorded by SDM Ex.PS is a detailed one as is evident from the statement extracted above, wherein the deceased has specifically named the accused persons and levelled allegations against each one of them and has specifically stated that Indira Chopra, Hem Raj Chopra, Padma, Yashomati, brother-in-law Harish Soni and her husband used to torture her for dowry. 31. No doubt, the deceased had not identified the persons who threw liquid substance on her and who ignited the match-stick which caused burn injuries, but she has clearly stated that she suspected her brother-in-law Harish to be the culprit as he had given threatening to her. It has specifically come on record that despite the deceased being on fire, her husband did not even try to extinguish the fire, rather it was her son who immediately threw blanket on her. It has specifically come on record that the deceased has asked her husband to take her to hospital but he said he has no money and then asked her to apply paste and go to sleep. It was here that she sent her son to call her sister Pushpa Devi and her brother-in-law Govind. It has specifically come on record that the deceased has asked her husband to take her to hospital but he said he has no money and then asked her to apply paste and go to sleep. It was here that she sent her son to call her sister Pushpa Devi and her brother-in-law Govind. Then her husband told her that when police would inquire about this in the hospital, she should give them statement that she got burnt herself. It is here that the deceased musters up courage to state that the earlier statement Ex. PK given at Zonal Hospital Mandi, was given due to fear. The deceased also mustered the courage when her parents came to Zonal Hospital Mandi at the call of her sister. No one from her in-laws house came to know about her well being. 32. As rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, there is nothing on record to suggest that Ex.PO as well as the last dying declaration Ex.PS were under undue influence being exercised from any quarter. 33. The bare perusal of last dying declarations Ex. PO as well as Ex.PS clearly go to show that direct allegations of maltreatment, beating and demand of dowry levelled by the deceased are only against accused Lalit Soni, Harish Soni, mother-in-law Padma Soni and Indira Chopra. Even though there is allegation against Hem Raj and Yashomati but they are far too general in nature. 34. As regards maltreatment, PW-1 Prem Lal, father of the deceased deposed that all the accused had been maltreating the deceased Sheetal but those allegations were of the year, 1990. Thereafter PW-1 has specifically stated that when he visited the accused Lalit Soni at IGMC Shimla, he was admitted after fracture of his leg and after discharge the accused was staying in the house of his Bua i.e. accused Indira, he had received telephonic call to settle the dispute between the accused and Sheetal. It is then he visited the house of Indira and enquired about Lalit Soni regarding differences between his daughter and son-in-law. The accused Lalit Soni had been insisting to divorce Sheetal Soni which was not acceptable to Sheetal. Even at that time the accused Harish Soni had threatened the father of Sheetal that in case divorce was not effected, he would kill Sheetal and her two sons. The accused Lalit Soni had been insisting to divorce Sheetal Soni which was not acceptable to Sheetal. Even at that time the accused Harish Soni had threatened the father of Sheetal that in case divorce was not effected, he would kill Sheetal and her two sons. These allegations of beating as well as maltreatment against Lalit Soni and Harish Soni are very clear in the statement of this witness. 35. Medical evidence also goes to support the case of the prosecution and even otherwise it is more than settled that there is neither a rule of law nor a prudence to the effect that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. The Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntarily it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration. (See:- Ramawat Devi vs. State of Bihar, 1983 (1) SCC 211 , State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Sagar Yadav & Ors. 1985 (1) SCC 552 , Paniben (Smt.) vs. State of Gujarat, 1992 (2) SCC 474 .) 36. In addition to the aforesaid, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Rameshwari mother of the deceased who deposed that whenever Sheetal Soni visited their house, she was complaining of maltreatment at the hands of her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. The accused Lalit Soni used to beat and maltreat her. She has specifically stated about the telephonic call made by Manoj who was insisting that Sheetal Soni should give divorce to Lalit Soni. It is not acceptable to Sheetal Soni. PW-6 Desh Raj, Advocate, and PW-7 Pradeep Kumar have also supported the version of the prosecution regarding maltreatment to deceased Sheetal Soni. From the testimonies, it is clear that the deceased had approached them for filing case against the accused. 37. Shri Suneet Goel, learned Advocate, would still urge that the second and last dying declarations made by Sheetal Soni were under influence of her father Prem Singh. His contention has already been negated by this Court in the earlier part. 38. Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, 1958 AIR SC 552, is the leading judgment on the law relating to evidentiary value of dying declaration wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles as to the circumstances under which a dying declaration may be accepted, without corroboration:- “16. 38. Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, 1958 AIR SC 552, is the leading judgment on the law relating to evidentiary value of dying declaration wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles as to the circumstances under which a dying declaration may be accepted, without corroboration:- “16. On a review of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and of the decided cases in the different High Courts in India and in this Court, we have come to the conclusion, in agreement with the opinion of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, aforesaid, (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.” The relevant facts of the said case are that the deceased therein had given three successive dying declarations within a span of two hours, which were, to a certain degree contradictory to each other. However, one of the aspects that remained common and was narrated by the deceased in all three dying declarations was that he was attacked by two persons, namely Kushal Rao and Tukaram with swords and spears. This Court, relying on the common thread running through all dying declarations, which was consistent with medical evidence revealing punctured and incised wounds on various parts of the body, held that the said declarations could be relied upon in convicting the accused who had been named in all three dying declarations. Corelating the said facts to the facts of the instant case, we have noted that although the accused was not specifically named by the deceased in her statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.PC, as the person who set the deceased on fire, he has been so named in her dying declaration. Even in the statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.PC, the deceased has stated that her father in-law had attacked her with a stick with an intention to kill her and as a result, she locked herself in the room and set herself ablaze. Therefore, we find that there runs a common thread in the statements of the deceased, being that she was attacked by the accused-respondent herein. Further, we also find that the statements made by the deceased in her dying declaration are consistent with medical evidence which reveals that there were burns on all parts of the body except chest and sides of the abdomen and back. The burns are at such parts as could have resulted when a person, other than the deceased poured kerosene and set fire. As already noted, if the deceased had set herself on fire, her chest ought to have been burnt. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the decision in Kushal Rao (supra), we find that the medical evidence is consistent with the dying declaration, thereby allowing this Court to place reliance on the declarations. The Trial Court has rightly observed as to the weight and reliance that must be placed on the dying declaration of the deceased. There was no reason for the High Court to disregard the dying declaration of the deceased. It is noted that the dying declaration was made by the deceased to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Bal Kishan Agarwal, who was also examined as a prosecution witness (PW6) before the Trial Court. There was no reason for the High Court to disregard the dying declaration of the deceased. It is noted that the dying declaration was made by the deceased to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Bal Kishan Agarwal, who was also examined as a prosecution witness (PW6) before the Trial Court. His statement reveals that the deceased at the time of making the statements, was fully conscious and capable of comprehending the questions put forth by the officer to whom the declaration was made. The evidentiary value of the dying declaration is further enhanced by the fact that it was accompanied by a certificate from the physician who was treating the deceased prior to her death, stating that the deceased remained fully conscious while making the statement. The Trial Court rightly placed reliance on the dying declaration having due regard to the statements made by the physician as to the medical condition of the deceased while making such declaration. The Trial Court has also rightly noted that the statements of the SDM and the physician, being independent witnesses in the trial, has added weight to the prosecution case as the same could not be motivated by malice. 39. The learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the later two dying declarations Ex.PO and Ex.PS to convict the accused under office punishable under Section 498 of the IPC. 40. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.