JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan assisted by Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State. None has appeared for the informant. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in connection with Sessions Case No.06/2013 convicting both the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each with default stipulation. The facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to filing of this appeal are briefly narrated herein below. 3. On 06.05.2012, Sri Dibya Kuli i.e. the brother of the victim had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Natun Bazar Police Outpost informing him that his sister Pallavi Kuli got married to accused Sri Rajani Pegu about 1 ½ years ago as his second wife and since then, they have been living together in a conjugal life. Around 9.00 p.m. on 05.05.2012 his sister was killed by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire in the own residence. A prayer was, therefore, made to take necessary action in the matter. 4. On receipt of the ejahar dated 06.05.2012 a G.D. Entry was made and the same was forwarded to the Jengraimukh Police Station wherein Jengraimukh P.S. Case No.17/2012 was registered under Section 304(B) of the IPC. The matter was then taken up for investigation. Upon conclusion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet against the two accused persons viz., Ranjan Pegu alias Rajani Pegu and his first wife Smt. Jogomaya Pegu under Section 304(B) of the IPC. After committal of the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, charge was framed against both the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused persons. However, since both the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. 5. The prosecution side had examined 17 witnesses including the doctor (PW-14) who had conducted the post-mortem examination and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (PW-15) who had investigated the case. However, since both the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. 5. The prosecution side had examined 17 witnesses including the doctor (PW-14) who had conducted the post-mortem examination and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (PW-15) who had investigated the case. After completion of recording of evidence of the prosecution side the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein they had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. Upon conclusion of trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat had convicted both the accused persons under Section 302 of the IPC primarily on the basis of the multiple oral dying declarations of the victim brought on record by as many as six prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 & 11. 6. In the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2016, the learned trial court has held that the prosecution could not prove the contradiction in the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11, who had brought the multiple oral dying declarations of the victim on record. The learned court below has further held that the explanation furnished by accused Ranjan Pegu in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was not at all believable. Therefore, placing reliance on the six oral dying declarations brought on record by the prosecution side, the learned court below had convicted the accused persons and sentenced them, as aforesaid. 7. Referring to the findings and conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2016, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has argued that there are material inconsistencies and/or contradictions in the statements made by PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11 as a result of which, the alleged dying declarations ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial court. Mr. Mahajan further submits that the victim had evidently suffered 90% burn injuries and there is no evidence to show that she was in a fit state of mind either to speak or to make such oral dying declarations. Moreover, there are material differences in the particulars of dying declaration furnished by the six witnesses who claim to have heard the victim speak on six different occasions. Moreover, there are material differences in the particulars of dying declaration furnished by the six witnesses who claim to have heard the victim speak on six different occasions. It has further been argued that save and except the PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11, who are the family members of the victim and hence, interested witnesses in this case, there is no independent witness or any official witness corroborating the oral dying declarations. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Mahajan, it was not permissible for the learned court below to convict the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC solely on the basis of oral dying declarations without due corroboration. Referring to the evidence of PWs-12 and 13 Mr. Mahajan has argued that it is a clear case of self immolation by the victim. In support of his above argument, Mr. Mahajan has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008)11 SCC 232 and an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Md. Sah Alom vs. The State of Assam and another [Crl. A. 199/2018] to contend that in case of oral dying declaration the court must satisfy itself that the same is voluntary and truthful and free from any embellishment or infirmity, which has not been done in the present case. 8. Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand, has argued that although the conviction of the appellants in this case is based on the six oral dying declarations, yet, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity on account of the fact that the basic statement in all the six oral dying declarations to the effect that the accused persons had set the victim on fire by pouring kerosene on her, has remained firm. Therefore, submits Ms. Jahan, even if there are some variations in the version of the six witnesses as regards the particulars of the dying declarations, yet, the same were minor variations and hence, cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. Ms. Therefore, submits Ms. Jahan, even if there are some variations in the version of the six witnesses as regards the particulars of the dying declarations, yet, the same were minor variations and hence, cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. Ms. Jahan has, accordingly, argued that the testimony of the six witnesses viz., PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11, who have brought on record the oral dying declarations of the victim corroborates the version of each other in so far as the involvement of the accused persons in setting the victim on fire is concerned and therefore, the requirement of corroboration of the oral dying declarations has been duly met in this case. The learned Addl. P.P. has further submitted that there is no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned trial court and hence, the appeal be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. 10. In this case there is no doubt or dispute about the fact that the deceased had suffered 90% burn injuries which had resulted into her death. PW-14, Dr. Nitu Kumar Gogoi, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim, has deposed that there were burn injuries over the whole body except portion of scalp and the upper limbs. The doctor has deposed that the burn injuries were epidermal in depth and cover about 90% of the total body surface. PW-14 has also proved the post-mortem report Ext-5 by identifying his signature Ext-5(1) in the said report. During his cross-examination, PW-14 has reiterated that the deceased was having 90% burn injuries and has also stated that in such condition, a person may be conscious or unconscious and may be able to speak or not able to speak. 11. As has been noticed above, the conviction of the appellants in this case is entirely based on the oral dying declarations brought on record by the six prosecution witnesses viz., PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11. Therefore, let us briefly analyse the evidence of these witnesses first in point of time. 12. PW-1, Dibya Kuli is the informant in this case. He is also the brother of the victim. Therefore, let us briefly analyse the evidence of these witnesses first in point of time. 12. PW-1, Dibya Kuli is the informant in this case. He is also the brother of the victim. This witness has deposed that accused Ranjan Pegu had got married for the second time with his sister. At the time of her marriage, Pallavi was studying in college. Accused Ranjan Pegu, his deceased sister Pallavi and accused Jogomaya used to reside together. According to PW-1, the incident took place on 05.05.2012, on which day, he got information from one person that both the accused persons had put kerosene oil on the body of Pallavi and burnt her. On receipt of the said information he immediately rushed to the house of the accused persons but there, he found only accused Jogomaya Pegu. When he enquired about his sister, Jogomaya told him that Pallavi had been taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital. After receiving the said information from Jogomaya, he immediately started for Jorhat Hospital but on the way, he found his sister Pallavi at the “Kamalabari Ghat” in a totally burnt condition. She was accompanied by accused Ranjan Pegu and his brother. After seeing his sister in such a bad condition, he returned back and informed the police about the incident. PW-1 has further stated that he had lodged the F.I.R. Ext-1 and Ext-1(1) was his signature. When he saw his sister, she was in a position to speak. He enquired as to what had happened and his sister replied that the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu had poured three liters of kerosene oil on her and burned her. 13. PW-2, Sri Bholanath Kuli is the father of the victim. PW-2 has also deposed that his daughter Pallavi was the second wife of accused Ranjan Pegu. The incident took place on 05.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. He got the information from one person of the village that the accused persons had put kerosene oil on the body of Pallavi and burned her. After receiving the said information he hurriedly rushed to the house of the accused persons and there he found his daughter Pallavi in a totally burnt condition. According to PW-2, her body was almost entirely burnt except her face. PW-2 has further stated that he had found both the accused persons at their house. After receiving the said information he hurriedly rushed to the house of the accused persons and there he found his daughter Pallavi in a totally burnt condition. According to PW-2, her body was almost entirely burnt except her face. PW-2 has further stated that he had found both the accused persons at their house. This witness has further stated that his daughter was able to speak at that time and after asking the deceased Pallavi about her condition, she told him that as he could not fulfill the demand of accused Ranjan, the accused persons burnt her. 14. PW-3, Smt. Rohini Kuli is the mother of the victim. She has also stated that Ranjan Pegu married her daughter Pallavi for the second time and the deceased was the second wife of accused Ranjan Pegu. The incident took place on 05.05.2012. On that day, after getting the information, she, along with her husband, went to the place of her daughter and saw that her daughter Pallavi was in a totally burnt condition. Only her face was not burnt. On being asked, she (Pallavi) told her that accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu by pouring kerosene has burnt her. Seeing her daughter in such a condition she had fainted on the spot. Thereafter, her daughter was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital and on the subsequent day she expired in the hospital. This witness has also stated that after six months of her marriage her daughter (Pallavi) came home and told her that the accused was demanding Rupees one lakh. So as to meet the demand of the accused, she had sold her land and cows and managed to give Rs.50,000/-to her daughter. However, she could not pay the remaining Rs.50,000/-to the accused. PW-3 has also stated that the accused had threatened to kill her daughter if the balance amount was not paid. During her cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that there were lots of people who had gathered in the place of occurrence when they reached there and her daughter was lying on the courtyard of the house. When her daughter told her about the fact that accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu had burned her by pouring kerosene oil on her, other people were also there. 15. PW-6, Smt. Momata pegu is the elder sister of the deceased. When her daughter told her about the fact that accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu had burned her by pouring kerosene oil on her, other people were also there. 15. PW-6, Smt. Momata pegu is the elder sister of the deceased. She has also confirmed that the incident took place on 05.05.2012 at around 9.00 p.m. when she was sleeping at her mother’s house. She suddenly heard a hue and cry from her parents and woke up. She came to know from her parents that her sister had got burnt and after coming to know about the incident, on the same day, she along with her parents and elder brother went to the house of Pallavi and saw that she was lying in her compound in a totally burnt condition. She asked her (Pallavi) how the said incident had happened and then she told that accused Ranjan along with wife Jogmaya Pegu tied her and by pouring kerosene oil set her on fire. 16. Smt. Debanti Kuli is the sister-in-law of the deceased and she was examined by the prosecution side as PW-10. This witness has also stated that the incident took place on 05.05.2012. On that day, she was in the house of her sister at Sivasagar. On the subsequent day, her husband Debojit Kuli (PW-5) informed her over phone that the accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu had killed Pallavi by pouring kerosene oil over her. After getting the information she came back from Sivasagar and then learnt that Pallavi was taken to hospital. So, she went to the hospital to see her. When she saw Pallavi she was not in a condition to speak. When she asked her (Pallavi) if she had committed suicide, she nodded her head in the negative. When she asked as to whether the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogmaya Pegu had burnt her then she nodded her head in positive. 17. PW-11, Sri Harta Singh Kuli is the grandfather of the deceased. This witness was declared as a hostile witness on the request of the prosecution side. When she asked as to whether the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogmaya Pegu had burnt her then she nodded her head in positive. 17. PW-11, Sri Harta Singh Kuli is the grandfather of the deceased. This witness was declared as a hostile witness on the request of the prosecution side. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, this witness has stated that when he had arrived at the place of occurrence he saw Pallavi and she opened her eyes and told him by saying “Kaka (Grandfather), both the accused persons, i.e. Ranjan Pegu and Jogmaya Pegu murdered me in a planned way by pouring kerosene oil on me”. The statement of this witness was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. During his cross-examination by the defence this witness has stated that he could not speak to Pallavi at the hospital. 18. From the above it can be seen that the six prosecution witnesses have brought oral dying declaration of the victim by making the following statements :- PW-1 : “the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu poured three liters of kerosene oil on her and burnt her”. PW-2 : “she told him that as he could not fulfill the demand of accused Ranjan, the accused persons burnt her”. PW-3 : “accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu by pouring kerosene on her burnt her”. PW-6 : “that accused Ranjan along with wife Jogmaya Pegu tied her and by pouring kerosene oil set her on fire”. PW-10 : “when asked whether the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogmaya Pegu have burnt her, then she nodded her head in positive”. PW-11 : “Kaka (Grandfather), both the accused persons, i.e. Ranjan Pegu and Jogmaya Pegu murdered me in a planned way by pouring kerosene oil on me”. 19. Apart from the aforesaid six prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of PWs-5, 7, 8 and 9 would also have a relevant bearing in the outcome of this appeal and hence, we propose to discuss the evidence adduced by these witnesses herein below. 20. PW-5, Debojit Kuli is the uncle of the victim. He has deposed that he came to know about the incident from his nephew Dibya Kuli (PW-1) who had informed him that the accused Ranjan Pegu, by pouring kerosene oil on Pallavi, had burnt her. 20. PW-5, Debojit Kuli is the uncle of the victim. He has deposed that he came to know about the incident from his nephew Dibya Kuli (PW-1) who had informed him that the accused Ranjan Pegu, by pouring kerosene oil on Pallavi, had burnt her. After getting the information he went to the place of occurrence at about 4.00 a.m. on the next morning and found that the accused persons were not there. The deceased had already been taken to Jorhat Medical College for treatment. Pallavi died at the Jorhat Medical College. PW-5 has stated that deceased Pallavi had told him after about six months of her marriage with accused Ranjan Pegu that he had started beating her and tortured her mentally and physically. He used to demand dowry from her. His brother i.e. the father of Pallavi tried to meet the demand of dowry of the accused by selling land and cows and paid Rs.50,000/-in cash but could not fulfill the total demand of dowry. PW-5 has stated that accused Ranjan Pegu had burnt his niece as his dowry demands could not be fulfilled. 21. PW-7, Hem Chandra Payeng is the son-in-law of PW-2. He is the husband of elder sister of deceased Pallavi. This witness has deposed that on 05.05.2012, at about 8.00 p.m. he got the information from Dibya Kuli over phone that accused Ranjan Pegu had burnt his wife Pallavi. After getting the information he, along with his wife, went the house of his father-in-law by crossing the house of the accused and on the way, he had seen lot many people had gathered in the house of the accused. PW-7 has deposed that deceased Pallavi, after her marriage, always used to inform his wife that accused Ranjan Pegu used to beat her and demand money. He has also stated that when the dead body was brought back from hospital, he had seen that the whole body was burnt and had also noticed signs of rope being tied on her both hands. He had also heard from the police that after the incident, Ranjan Pegu was found absconding. 22. PW-8, Smt. Rompi Payeng is the wife of PW-7 and she has deposed that on the day of the incident at about 9.00 p.m. she got information from Dibya Kuli (PW-1) over phone that Pallavi caught fire and he called them immediately. He had also heard from the police that after the incident, Ranjan Pegu was found absconding. 22. PW-8, Smt. Rompi Payeng is the wife of PW-7 and she has deposed that on the day of the incident at about 9.00 p.m. she got information from Dibya Kuli (PW-1) over phone that Pallavi caught fire and he called them immediately. Then she went to her parental home and found Dibya Kuli, her parents and sister Momota Kuli over there. After a while her parents went to the house of the accused and after returning from there, her mother told her that Pallavi was totally burnt and she told her that she will not live any more as she was being killed by the accused. According to PW-8, after her marriage Pallavi used to frequently call her and inform that accused Ranjan used to torture her and demand money. 23. PW-9, Sri Moronjyoti Pegu had married another sister of the deceased. This witness has stated that on 05.05.2012, at about 9.00 p.m. he got the information from Dibya Kuli over phone that accused Ranjan Pegu had burnt his wife Pallavi by pouring kerosene oil. After getting the information he went to the house of Dibya Kuli. This witness has stated that one day in the month of January, he saw, while crossing the home of the accused, that Ranjan was beating Pallavi and Jogomaya was also pulling her hair and beating her. 24. S.I. Sarbeswar Chetia was the Investigating Officer (I.O.) who was examined as PW-15. During his deposition he has narrated the manner in which investigation was carried out by him and charge-sheet submitted. PW-15 has stated that he had arrested the accused Ranjan Pegu on 08.05.2012. During his cross-examination by the defence side, the I.O. (PW0-15) has stated as follows :- “Dibya Kuli did not state before me that after getting the information of the incident he went to the house of the accused persons. PW-1 also did not state before me that he went to Kamalabari Ghat. Bholanath Kuli (PW-2) did not state before me that after coming to know about the incident he went to the home of the accused persons. Bholanath did not state before me that as he could not meet the demand of the accused persons therefore they burnt his daughter Pallavi Pegu. Bholanath Kuli (PW-2) did not state before me that after coming to know about the incident he went to the home of the accused persons. Bholanath did not state before me that as he could not meet the demand of the accused persons therefore they burnt his daughter Pallavi Pegu. Rohini Kuli (PW-3) did not state before me that accused demanded Rupees one lakh from her daughter. Rohini Kuli also did not tell before me that she gave Rupees fifty thousand to the accused to meet his demand. Debojit Kuli (PW 5) did not state before me that after about 6 months of marriage with the accused Ranjan Pegu, the accused started beating her and torturing her mentally and physically. Debojit Kuli also did not state before me that his father to meet the demand of dowry of the accused sold land and cows and paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused. Momota Kuli Pegu (PW 6) did not state before me that after getting information of the incident, she went to the house of the accused persons. Momota Kuli Pegu also did not state before me that deceased Pallavi told her that accused Ranjan Pegu burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. Hem Chandra Payeng (PW 7) did not state before me that after getting the information he went to the house of his father-in-law (Father of Pallavi). Hem Chandra Payeng also did not state before me that his wife told him that accused Ranjan Pegu calls her and demands dowry from her. Rompi Kuli (PW 8) did not state before me that after getting information of the incident, she went to her home. She did not find her father and came to know that her father has gone to the home of Pallavi. Rompi Kuli also did not state before me that her father told her that after coming from the house of Pallavi, that Pallavi will not live longer. Rompi Kuli also did not state before me that deceased Pallavi told her that accused Ranjan Pegu demands dowry from her. Moromjyoti Pegu (PW 9) did not state before me that she saw the accused Ranjan Pegu to beat Pallavi. Debanti Kuli (PW 10) did not state before me that coming to know about the incident she went to the hospital to see Pallavi.” 25. Moromjyoti Pegu (PW 9) did not state before me that she saw the accused Ranjan Pegu to beat Pallavi. Debanti Kuli (PW 10) did not state before me that coming to know about the incident she went to the hospital to see Pallavi.” 25. From the facts alluded above, it is apparent that the prosecution case is based on the multiple dying declarations of the victim. While dealing with the principles to be followed by the court in case of multiple dying declarations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mukesh and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1 as follows :- “399. In cases where there are more than one dying declarations, the court should consider whether they are consistent with each other. If there are inconsistencies, the nature of the inconsistencies must be examined as to whether they are material or not. In cases where there are more than one dying declarations, it is the duty of the court to consider each one of them and satisfy itself as to the voluntariness and reliability of the declarations. Mere fact of recording multiple dying declarations does not take away the importance of individual declaration. Court has to examine the contents of dying declaration in the light of various surrounding facts and circumstances. This Court in a number of cases, where there were multiple dying declarations, consistent in material particulars not being contradictory to each other, has affirmed the conviction.” 26. While dealing with the question of probative value of oral dying declaration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008)11 SCC 232 has observed that oral dying declaration made by the deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross-examination. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Lichman & another reported in (2014) 12 SCC 670 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that oral dying declaration can form the basis of conviction if the deponent is found to be in a fit condition to make the declaration and if it is found to be truthful. The court must, as a matter of prudence, look for corroboration of oral dying declaration. The court must, as a matter of prudence, look for corroboration of oral dying declaration. In the case of Waikhom Yaima Singh vs. State of Manipur reported in (2012) 1 SCC(Cri) 788 it has been held by the Supreme Court that it would be the burden of the prosecution to prove that the dying declaration was wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful and that the maker thereof was in a fit medical condition to make it. 27. By following the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court, in the case of Md. Sah Alom (supra), has held that conviction can be based on oral dying declaration but the same must be free from all infirmities and must appear to be natural, voluntary and truthful. 28. In the context of the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, let us now examine as to whether the six oral dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution side would be sufficient to convict the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. 29. As noted above, it has come out from the evidence of PW-1 that he had met his sister Pallavi at the “Kamalabari Ghat”(Ferry Ghat) and found her in a totally burnt condition. At that time, she had told him that it is the accused persons who had poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her. Immediately thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. Ext-1. However, upon perusal of the F.I.R. (Ext-1) we find that there is no mention of the oral dying declaration allegedly made by the victim to the said witness in the F.I.R. 30. It has also come out from the testimony of PWs-3 and 6 that immediately on receipt of information about the incident PWs-2, 3 and 6 as well as the elder brother of the victim had rushed to the house of the accused persons and saw that the victim was lying with her body heavily burnt in the courtyard. According to PWs-2, 3 and 6, it was at that time Pallavi had made the oral dying declaration in presence of a number of villagers who had gathered there. According to PWs-2, 3 and 6, it was at that time Pallavi had made the oral dying declaration in presence of a number of villagers who had gathered there. If the statement of PWs-2, 3 and 6 is to be believed then we find that these three witnesses along with PW-1 had reached the house of the accused at the same time and immediately after the incident had heard the victim making the oral dying declaration. However, as noticed above, the version of the dying declaration given by these three witnesses do not match one another. 31. It is no doubt correct that as per the oral dying declarations brought on record by PWs-2, 3 and 6 it was the accused persons who had poured kerosene oil on the body of the victim and set her on fire. However, PWs-2 and 3 did not mention about the fact that the victim had stated that she was tied by accused Ranjan and Jogomaya. PWs-2 and 6 did not say that the victim told them that accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu had poured kerosene on her and burnt her. Likewise, PWs3 and 6 did not say that the victim had told her father that as he could not fulfill the demand of accused Ranjan the accused persons had burnt her. From the above, it is apparent that there are material inconsistencies and variances in the particulars of the dying declarations brought on record by these three witnesses who claim to have seen and heard the victim at the same time, immediately after the incident. 32. It is also to be noted herein that as per the evidence of these witnesses, although there were a large number of villagers who were present at that place, none other than these three witnesses, who are the close family members of the victim, had heard the deceased make such dying declaration. Moreover, PW-1 has deposed that when he went to the house of the accused, none other than Jogomaya was present there but according to PW-6 her elder brother had accompanied herself and PWs-2 and 3 to the place of occurrence. Save and except the PW-1, there is no mention of any other brother of the PW-6 and the victim. Therefore, here also we find material contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses. Save and except the PW-1, there is no mention of any other brother of the PW-6 and the victim. Therefore, here also we find material contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses. For the aforesaid reason, the oral dying declarations brought on record by the PWs-2, 3 and 6 does not appear to be trustworthy. 33. In so far as the PW-10 is concerned, she has claimed to have met the victim for the first time in the hospital but at that time she was not in a position to speak. This witness has stated that in response to her query, by gesture, the victim had indicated to her that it was the accused persons who had burnt her. However, none of the other witnesses have corroborated the said version. It will be significant to note herein that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-10 gave a completely different version by stating that when she went to the hospital at Jorhat accompanying her elder sister Lakhiprabha Payun, at that time, Pallavi told her that her husband Rajani Pegu and his first wife (Jogomaya) had set her on fire. Not only that, in her deposition before the court, PW-10 had also stated that Pallavi had informed her 6/7 times over phone that both the accused persons had tortured her and demanded money threatening that if the money was not given to them, they will kill her. Even on the day of the incident i.e. 05.05.2012 Pallavi had called her at Sivasagar and when she (Pallavi) was talking to her regarding some domestic matter, suddenly she heard her (Pallavi) screaming and after that her phone got switched off. She tried to contact Pallavi but found her phone switched off. PW-10, however, neither said so before the I.O. nor did she mention about the said fact in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, evident that there are significant improvements in the version of this witness in her deposition before the court making her evidence also untrustworthy. The prosecution also did not produce the mobile Call Detail Record (CDR) to prove that there was any telephonic conversation between the deceased and this witness on the date of the incident. 34. As mentioned above, PW-11, who is the grandfather of the deceased, was declared as a hostile witness. The prosecution also did not produce the mobile Call Detail Record (CDR) to prove that there was any telephonic conversation between the deceased and this witness on the date of the incident. 34. As mentioned above, PW-11, who is the grandfather of the deceased, was declared as a hostile witness. He claims to have heard the victim say that accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu had murdered her in a planned way by pouring kerosene oil. PW-11 claims to have heard so when he had seen Pallavi at the place of occurrence. As a matter of fact, he had said so even before the I.O. as well as in his statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, none of the other witnesses have mentioned about his presence in the place of occurrence after the incident. That apart, the version of dying declaration coming through PW-11 is completely different from the PWs-2, 3 and 6 who had also allegedly heard Pallavi speak at the place of occurrence after the incident. 35. From the testimonies of PWs-1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 11 it appears that the victim, who had suffered 90% burn injuries, had made statements on six different occasions, which were heard only by her close family members. None of the independent witnesses who were present there, had heard the deceased speak. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is doubtful as to whether the victim was at all in a position to speak. This is more so on account of the fact that the I.O. (PW-15) has himself deposed before the court that the victim was not in a position to speak and that is also the version of PW-10. 36. It is also pertinent to note herein that the incident took place on 05.05.2012 at 9.00 p.m. and the victim had died in the next morning in the hospital. During this time she had received medical treatment. PW-13 has deposed that doctor came to their home and stated that he could treat the victim and advised to take Pallavi to hospital. Then she was shifted to Garmurh PHC and thereafter, to the Jorhat Civil Hospital. However, the said doctor was not examined as a witness. During this time she had received medical treatment. PW-13 has deposed that doctor came to their home and stated that he could treat the victim and advised to take Pallavi to hospital. Then she was shifted to Garmurh PHC and thereafter, to the Jorhat Civil Hospital. However, the said doctor was not examined as a witness. As a matter of fact, no official witness, be it the doctor or a nurse or any police officer, was examined by the prosecution side to indicate that the victim was in fact in a fit condition to speak. It is also surprising that although a number of people were all along involved in the matter, none except these six witnesses, who are the close relatives of the victim, had heard or seen the deceased make the oral dying declaration. 37. In the above context, we deem it appropriate to mention herein that prosecution witness PW-12 viz., Smt. Archana Pegu who was the sister of the deceased, has deposed that on the day of the incident, at about 9.00 p.m. when she was at her home, she heard accused Ranjan Pegu shouting “fire, fire”. After hearing the hullah she came out and saw the fire in the guest room of accused Ranjan Pegu and then she saw her sister Pallavi come out from the guest room with fire over her body. This witness had stated that she also saw Ranjan Pegu put off the fire from the body of Pallavi due to which he (Ranjan) himself had sustained burn injuries in his hand. During her cross-examination, PW-12 has stated that there is a pucca room in the house and along with that, there are two rooms, which are attached. Out of the two rooms the guest room was situated near her room. Accused Ranjan Pegu was shouting from the cowshed situated below the “Çhang Ghar”. When she saw Pallavi in such condition, all of them i.e. Ranjan Pegu, Jogomaya and herself took Pallavi under the tube-well and poured water on her. PW-12 has also stated that Ranjan Pegu had pumped the tube-well to pour water on Palalavi. After putting off the fire she herself and Jogomaya took Pallavi inside the room and changed her clothes. Thereafter, on being asked, Pallavi told that she burnt herself. When she asked as to why she did so, Pallavi remained silent and did not reply. PW-12 has also stated that Ranjan Pegu had pumped the tube-well to pour water on Palalavi. After putting off the fire she herself and Jogomaya took Pallavi inside the room and changed her clothes. Thereafter, on being asked, Pallavi told that she burnt herself. When she asked as to why she did so, Pallavi remained silent and did not reply. Thereafter, accused Ranjan Pegu called a vehicle and took Pallavi to Garmurh Civil Hospital. Subsequently, Pallavi was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital by Ranjan Pegu and her husband Bijoy. After the death of Pallavi her husband brought her back and performed her last rites. 38. It appears from the evidence on record that PW-12 is the sister of the victim and she was married to PW-13 i.e. the brother of accused Ranjan. It further appears from the evidence on record that accused Ranjan and his family used to live in the same house along with his brother PW-13 and his wife PW-12 and PW-12 was present at home when the incident took place. The evidence adduced by PW-12 to the effect that the victim was taken to the hospital by accused Ranjan and his brother Bijoy (PW-13) finds due corroboration from the testimony of PW-1, who had also seen the accused and his brother taking the victim to the hospital. PW-12 has further stated that the relation between Ranjan and Pallavi was good and she had not seen any quarrel between them. Even Jogomaya used to treat Pallavi as her sister and the relation between them was also good. However, her parents were not pleased with the relation between her sister Pallavi and Ranjan Pegu particularly since Pallavi married Ranjan Pegu against their will. As such, her parents never visited the house of Pallavi and also did not allow her to go to their house. Pallavi used to feel sad sometime as she was not allowed to visit her parental home. 39. PW-13, Sri Bijoy Pegu is the husband of PW-12 and the brother of the accused Ranjan Pegu. It appears that the statement of this witness was not recorded by the I.O. However, he was examined as a witness by the prosecution side. The PW-13 had stated before the court that he lived along with his brother Ranjan Pegu in the same house but in a separate room, under the same roof and he has got a separate kitchen. The PW-13 had stated before the court that he lived along with his brother Ranjan Pegu in the same house but in a separate room, under the same roof and he has got a separate kitchen. PW-13 has stated that on the day of the incident, at about 8.00 p.m. his brother Ranjan Pegu informed him over phone that some incident took place in their house. Having come to know about the same, he immediately rushed back home and found Pallavi in a burnt condition. On being asked, Pallavi told him that she does not know what she had done and why she had done. According to PW-13 Pallavi had told him that she had committed a mistake and she went on saying “what have I done?” During his cross-examination this witness has also stated that while Pallavi was taken to the hospital he along with his brother Ranjan Pegu and two Asha Karmi members had accompanied them. This witness has also stated that Pallavi was sad since she was not allowed to visit her parental home and also on account of the fact that she could not give birth to a child. 40. What would be significant to note herein is that PW-12 and 13 have apparently deposed in favour of the accused persons but the prosecution side did not declare them as hostile witnesses. Therefore, the evidence adduced by these two witnesses will bind the prosecution if relied upon by the defence side. If that be so, it is apparent that the PWs-12 and 13 have corroborated each other’s version and, for all practical purposes, they have exonerated both the accused persons. 41. From a careful examination of the materials available on record, we also find that PW-1 has stated that the dying declarations of the deceased was made before him at the “Kamalabari Ghat”. Soon thereafter, he had informed the police by lodging the F.I.R. dated 06.05.2012. As such, it is established from the evidence of PW1 that he had met the victim on 06.05.2012 when she was at Kamalabari Ferry Ghat but he did not mention about the same to the police. Even the person who had allegedly informed the PW-1 about the incident has neither been called as a witness nor identified. As such, it is established from the evidence of PW1 that he had met the victim on 06.05.2012 when she was at Kamalabari Ferry Ghat but he did not mention about the same to the police. Even the person who had allegedly informed the PW-1 about the incident has neither been called as a witness nor identified. Not only that, the person who had informed the PW-2 about the incident has also not been identified by the witness in his deposition. 42. PW-1 has stated that on receipt of information about the incident he immediately rushed to the house of accused and found that only Jogomaya was present and she informed him that the victim has been taken to Jorhat Hospital. However, the above version of the PW-1 not only contradicts his own statement but also the evidence of PWs-2, 3 and 6 who have deposed differently by stating that they went to the house of the accused together soon after the incident. 43. From the evidence of PWs-5 and 7 it is apparent that PW-1 has been circulating amongst the family members that the two accused persons had burnt the victim by pouring kerosene oil upon her. It appears that such information was being circulated by the PW-1 even before his parents and sister i.e. PWs-2, 3 and 6 had gone to the place of occurrence or he had allegedly met the victim at Kamalabari Ghat. It is, however, not clear as to wherefrom the PW-1 had got the information just minutes after the incident that the deceased had been set ablaze by the accused persons. 44. It is, however, not clear as to wherefrom the PW-1 had got the information just minutes after the incident that the deceased had been set ablaze by the accused persons. 44. It would be further pertinent to note herein that during examination of the accused Ranjan Pegu under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. while denying the incriminating circumstances put to him, the accused has stated that Dibya Kuli (PW-1) never visited his house nor did he see Pallavi; after the incident Pallavi was not in a position to speak; he never demanded money from Pallavi; Bholanath Kuli (PW-2) did not come to his house after the incident and did not see Pallavi or even her dead body when it was brought home; Pallavi never went to her parental home as she was not allowed to visit them; Rohini Kuli (PW-3) never met Pallavi in a burnt condition; he never demanded money from Pallavi; as her parents were not in talking terms with Pallavi, the question of managing Rs.50000/-to pay him did not arise at all; Jogomaya never threatened Pallavi; his children were at home on the date of the incident and that none of the relatives of Pallavi came to their house after the incident. The accused has further stated that the evidence adduced by all the relatives of Pallavi to the effect that he and his wife had burnt her is absolutely false. He did not know how Pallavi got burnt. During the incident, he was not at the place of occurrence but soon after the incident, he saw Pallavi in a burnt condition. He tried to save her by putting off the fire due to which he sustained severe burn injuries in both his hands. Immediately he arranged for a vehicle and took Pallavi to Garmurh hospital and on the following day, she was taken to Jorhat Medical College for treatment. 45. He tried to save her by putting off the fire due to which he sustained severe burn injuries in both his hands. Immediately he arranged for a vehicle and took Pallavi to Garmurh hospital and on the following day, she was taken to Jorhat Medical College for treatment. 45. In her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Jogomaya has stated that at the time of the incident she was on the other side of the house along with her children and upon hearing the scream, she came out and saw her husband Ranjan Pegu was trying to bring water from the tube-well and pour it on Pallavi; Dibya Kuli (PW-1) never came to their house after the incident; they never demanded dowry from Pallavi; PW-3 and her husband never came to their house after the incident; on the date of the incident her children were with her and they always stayed with her; Moronjyoti Pegu (PW-9) never came to their house and they never took Pallavi to their parental home; the entire allegation brought against them by the family members of Pallavi was absolutely false; she always used to take care of Pallavi and considered her as her sister. 46. The aforesaid explanation furnished by the accused persons finds due support from the testimonies of PWs-12 and 13. However, surprisingly enough, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the above statements of both the accused persons in proper perspective. If the statement of the accused persons, furnishing reasonable explanation, is found to be plausible on the basis of evidence available on record, then it would be incumbent upon the trial court to consider the same and suitably deal with such statements before deciding the question of culpability of the accused. The failure on the part of the trial court to consider the statements of the accused offering reasonable and plausible explanation, in our view, would have a vitiating affect on the judgment of conviction. 47. While considering the effect of non-consideration of the statements made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has observed in the case of Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam reported in (2019) 13 SCC 289 as follows :- “19. Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem. 47. While considering the effect of non-consideration of the statements made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has observed in the case of Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam reported in (2019) 13 SCC 289 as follows :- “19. Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2) Cr.P.C. The importance of this right has been considered time and again by this Court, but it yet remains to be applied in practice as we shall see presently in the discussion to follow. If the accused takes a defence after the prosecution evidence is closed, under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. to consider the same. The mere use of the word “may” cannot be held to confer a discretionary power on the court to consider or not to consider such defence, since it constitutes a valuable right of an accused for access to justice, and the likelihood of the prejudice that may be caused or incompatible with the evidence available, is an entirely different matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.” 48. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves mention herein. In the instant case, the accused persons have been convicted for committing an offence under Section 302 of the IPC with the assistance of Section 34 of IPC. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves mention herein. In the instant case, the accused persons have been convicted for committing an offence under Section 302 of the IPC with the assistance of Section 34 of IPC. However, from a careful reading of the impugned judgment we do not find any finding recorded by the learned trial court indicating that there was common intention on the part of both the accused persons to commit the murder of the victim by setting her ablaze and to that extent, there was meeting of mind. The learned trial court has also failed to individually convict the accused persons under Section 302 of the IPC by ascribing specific role to them in commission of the alleged offence. The failure to do so, in our opinion, would also have a fatal bearing in the impugned judgment rendering the same unsustainable in the eye of law. 49. From a cumulative assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record, we are of the view that there was strained relationship between the family members of the victim Pallavi and accused Ranjan and his first wife as well as Pallavi herself, as a result of which, they were not in visiting terms. The family members of Pallavi were certainly unhappy with her since she got married to Ranjan Pegu against their wishes and chose to become his second wife. From an analysis of the materials on record we are of the view that in all probability, it is a case of self-immolation by the victim but taking advantages of the circumstances, the accused persons had been falsely implicated by the members of the victim’s family, by way of an afterthought and with a sense of vengeance. As such, the possibility of the victim’s family members concocting the story of the dying declarations also cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 50. For the reasons stated herein before, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 50. For the reasons stated herein before, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. We are also of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not correct in convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC solely on the basis of the six oral dying declarations without looking for corroboration from independent witnesses or other evidence available on record. Rather, we are of the view that there is a serious doubt as to the circumstances under which the victim had caught fire resulting into her death and such benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused persons. 51. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. 52. The judgment dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No.06/2013 stands set aside. 53. Both the appellants viz., Ranjan Pegu and Jogomaya Pegu stand acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. We are told that the appellant No.1 Ranjan Pegu is in Jail. As such, he be forthwith released from Jail if his custodial detention is not required in connection with any other case. The bail bond of both the accused persons shall stand discharged after the expiry of 30 days from today. Send back the LCR.