JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.09.2014, passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2012, State Vs. Smt. Radha Arya, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short “IPC”). 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that informant Smt. Panuli Devi’s brother Ram Lal Arya (deceased) was posted as an inspector at the Police Headquarters. He resided in Indra Nagar, Dehradun with his wife Radha Arya (appellant-accused), son Dinesh Kumar (DW1) and daughter Hem Lata Arya. His second daughter Tanuja Arya was studying in Pant Nagar University. At the time of the incident, she was not residing with the deceased in Indra Nagar. There were frequent altercations between the deceased and his wife. His wife suspicious of him. There were altercations between them on 30.03.2012. On the morning of 31.03.2012, when he was coming out of the bathroom, his wife poured petrol on him from a can and set him on fire. He was badly burnt by the fire. He was taken by Meherban Singh Kunwar (PW4) in 108 Ambulance to Government Coronation Hospital, Dehradun, where he was examined by Dr. Sandeep Chaudhari (PW6) at 8:45 a.m. He was found 85% burnt. The smell of petrol was coming from his body. 3. Ram Lal’s dying declaration (Ext. Ka.10) was recorded by Kusum Chauhan (PW10), the then Tehsildar, at Government Coronation Hospital, Dehradun on 31.03.2012 at around 10:35 a.m. Before the dying declaration was recorded, Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary (PW6) endorsed (Ext. Ka.17) that the patient was fully conscious and in a position to give a statement. 4. Kusum Chauhan (PW10) introduced herself as a Magistrate and asked questions to Ram Lal and recorded his answer, which is as follows: “My name is Ram Lal. My father’s name is Late Shri Gusain Ram. I reside in Indra Nagar Vasant Vihar. Presently, I am Inspector at Police Headquarters. My wife is in stress since 2006. She thinks that I am marrying for the second time. Due to her stress, I tried to get her treated but she did not even take the medicine. My father’s name is Late Shri Gusain Ram. I reside in Indra Nagar Vasant Vihar. Presently, I am Inspector at Police Headquarters. My wife is in stress since 2006. She thinks that I am marrying for the second time. Due to her stress, I tried to get her treated but she did not even take the medicine. This morning, around 8-8:30, my wife poured petrol on me, took out a matchstick and set me on fire. Neighbors and my son saved me and took me to the hospital. My wife set me on fire. I just don’t have anything else to say.” (This is the translated version of the original which is in Hindi script). His left thumb impression was taken on the statement. An endorsement (Ext. Ka. 18) was made by Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary (PW6) on the statement to the effect that the said statement was taken in his presence. After first aid, the injured was referred to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Delhi. He succumbed to his injuries on 01.04.2012 at 9:45 a.m. in the hospital.” 5. ASI Khursheed Ali (PW7) rushed to the mortuary and drew inquest proceedings on the dead body and prepared an inquest report (Ext. Ka.6). He also recorded statement of Dinesh Kumar (Ext. Ka.8), the son of the deceased. 6. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 02.04.2012 by Dr. Rajendra Barua (PW8). As per the brief history, recorded by Dr. Rajendra Barua (PW8), the deceased allegedly sustained burn injuries at home on 31.03.2012 at around 8:00 a.m. He was taken to hospital in Dehradun from where he was referred to Lok Nayak hospital where he expired during the course of treatment on 01.04.2012 at 9:45 a.m. Dr. Rajendra Barua (PW8) received Hospital Case Records and as per the said records, the deceased had suffered 90% burns. According to the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka.9), “superficial to deep burn injuries were present all over body including face except front and back of lower part of abdomen, genitalia and soles........” 7. According to the inquest report, the deceased was strongly built and post-mortem report reveals that he was of average built and well nourished. 8. An FIR No. 36 of 2012 (Ext. Ka.3) was lodged with police station Vasant Vihar on 05.04.2012 at 12:30 p.m. pursuant to a written information (Ext. Ka.1) received from the informant Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1). According to the inquest report, the deceased was strongly built and post-mortem report reveals that he was of average built and well nourished. 8. An FIR No. 36 of 2012 (Ext. Ka.3) was lodged with police station Vasant Vihar on 05.04.2012 at 12:30 p.m. pursuant to a written information (Ext. Ka.1) received from the informant Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1). The FIR was registered against the appellant-accused. 9. Appellant-accused was arrested on 03.06.2012. Inspector Arvind Singh Rawat (PW12) took up investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka.12) was prepared and from the place of occurrence a half-burnt window curtain, a half-burnt towel, a half-burnt bucket, a half-burnt book, newspaper, and, a plastic box, from which a slight smell of petrol was coming, were taken into possession vide Memo (Ext. Ka.11). On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.16) was submitted by Arvind Singh Rawat (PW12). 10. The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC. As the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 11. In order to establish the accusations, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. 12. The First Information Report of this case was registered on the written information of Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1). She is the sister of the deceased, who resided in Bageshwar district at the time of the incident. She stated that after two-three years of marriage, a dispute had started between her brother and his wife. Her sister-in-law (appellant) used to quarrel with her husband (deceased) saying that he had remarried. She did not go to her brother’s house. Her brother Ram Lal told her in Delhi hospital that when he was coming out after taking bath, his wife poured petrol on him and set him on fire. She stated in her cross-examination that her brother was not burnt in front of her. 13. PW2 Kush Ram Arya is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the appellant. He was working in Delhi at the time of the incident. He stated that on 31.03.2012 at 5 p.m, the police brought Ram Lal to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Delhi in an ambulance. He was present there at that time. Ram Lal was badly burnt. He was taken inside and laid on a stretcher. He (Ram Lal) told him that his wife had poured petrol on him and burnt him. After some time, his son poured water on him, after which he lost consciousness. He was present there at that time. Ram Lal was badly burnt. He was taken inside and laid on a stretcher. He (Ram Lal) told him that his wife had poured petrol on him and burnt him. After some time, his son poured water on him, after which he lost consciousness. He has stated in his cross-examination that Ram Lal’s son had also reached Delhi in the ambulance. He (Kush Ram Arya) had written an information of the incident (Ext. Ka.1) at the behest of the policemen, on which Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1) had put her thumb impression. 14. PW3 Dinesh Chaurasia was residing in the house next to Ram Lal at the time of the incident. He stated that on 31.03.2012, at around 8 in the morning, he saw that noise was coming from Ram Lal’s house and smoke was rising. He went to his house. He saw Ram Lal in a burnt state wearing shorts and a vest. He called the police and 108 ambulance. Due to delay in arrival of 108 ambulance, Ram Lal was being taken in a private car. He was also in the said car. A 108 ambulance was found at a short distance. Ram Lal was shifted to 108 ambulance. 15. At the time of the incident, Meherban Singh Kunwar (PW4) was the neighbor of Ram Lal. He stated that in the month of March, 2012, his door was knocked at 8 in the morning. He went to Ram Lal’s house. He saw that Ram Lal was shouting save-save. Ram Lal was being taken in the car of Ram Lal’s son. He also sat in that car. A 108 ambulance was found about 100 meters away. He and Ram Lal’s son Dinesh Arya took Ram Lal to Coronation Hospital in the said ambulance. 16. The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.3) was scribed by Constable Virendra Singh, PW5. 17. Injured Ram Lal was first taken to the Government Coronation Hospital, Dehradun. He was given first aid by Dr. Sandeep Chowdhary (PW6). Before the alleged dying declaration was recorded, he certified that the patient was fully conscious and in a position to give a statement. A certificate was also given by him on the said dying declaration to the effect that the statement was recorded in his presence. Dr. Sandeep Chowdhary stated that the injured was given injection to reduce his pain. Before the alleged dying declaration was recorded, he certified that the patient was fully conscious and in a position to give a statement. A certificate was also given by him on the said dying declaration to the effect that the statement was recorded in his presence. Dr. Sandeep Chowdhary stated that the injured was given injection to reduce his pain. He further stated that as the condition of the injured was serious, he was referred to Delhi. 18. The inquest report (Ext. Ka.6) was prepared by ASI Khursheed Ali (PW7). He had also recorded the statement of Dinesh Kumar, the son of the deceased, which is Exhibit Ka 8. 19. PW8 Dr. Rajendra Barua conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. 20. According to the statement of Head Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW9), he had taken Ram Lal to Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, Delhi in an ambulance. Constable Gulsher Singh and Dinesh Kumar, the son of the deceased, were also in that ambulance. He further stated that Ram Lal was alive on the way but he was not in a position to speak. He was with Ram Lal as long as he was alive. 21. PW10 SDM Kusum Chauhan had recorded the alleged dying declaration of Ram Lal. She stated that she was directed by the City Magistrate to go to the Coronation Hospital. She stated that the doctor had given the certificate, after which she had recorded the dying declaration. 22. PW11 Rohit Pal, Ram Lal’s neighbor, stated that the police had seized a half-burnt curtain, a half-burnt book, a half-burnt towel, a bucket and two plastic boxes, from which a smell of petrol was coming, in his presence. 23. PW12 Inspector Arvind Singh Rawat is the Investigating Officer. 24. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. Appellant-accused denied all the incriminating evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 25. Appellant-accused examined Dinesh Kumar (DW1) in her defence. Dinesh Kumar (DW1) is the son of the deceased and the appellant. 26. DW1 Dinesh Kumar stated that on 31.03.2012 at around 7:30 in the morning, when he was studying in the Verandah of his house and his mother (appellant) was watering the plants near the gate, his father’s voice save-save came from inside the house. He went inside. His mother also followed him. 26. DW1 Dinesh Kumar stated that on 31.03.2012 at around 7:30 in the morning, when he was studying in the Verandah of his house and his mother (appellant) was watering the plants near the gate, his father’s voice save-save came from inside the house. He went inside. His mother also followed him. He brought water in a pitcher from the kitchen and poured it on his father. He was taking his father to the hospital in his car. He found 108 ambulance on the way. He took his father to the Government Coronation Hospital in the said ambulance. The doctor gave him an injection. His father was continuously unconscious. He stated that he accompanied his father from his house to the Coronation Hospital and from there to Delhi Hospital. His father never regained consciousness during this period. 27. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, assessed the evidence on record and held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 28. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the alleged dying declaration given by Ram Lal should not be accepted. The reasons given for this are that he had 90% deep burn injuries all over his body including face except front and back of lower part of abdomen, genitalia and soles, therefore, he was not able to put his thumb on the alleged dying declaration. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the dying declaration was recorded when the injured was in a fit state of mind. 29. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that before recording the dying declaration of Ram Lal, the doctor had given a certificate to the effect that he was fully conscious and in a position to give a statement and after recording the dying declaration, he had given a certificate that the statement was taken in his presence. Therefore, the dying declaration of Ram Lal cannot be disbelieved. He further submitted that Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1) and Kush Ram Arya (PW2) have stated that in the Delhi hospital, Ram Lal had told them that his wife poured petrol on him and set him on fire. Drawing the Court’s attention to the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Mr. He further submitted that Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1) and Kush Ram Arya (PW2) have stated that in the Delhi hospital, Ram Lal had told them that his wife poured petrol on him and set him on fire. Drawing the Court’s attention to the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General argued that the incident had occurred inside the house. Appellant was inside the house at that time. Therefore, the appellant should have explained the fact under what circumstances the said incident had occurred. But, no explanation has been given by the appellant in this regard. 30. In Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat, (1992) 4 SCC 69 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person suffering 99% burn injuries could be deemed capable enough for the purpose of making a dying declaration. 31. In State of M.P. Vs. Dal Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 159 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased who had suffered 100% burn injuries on the ground that the dying declaration was found to be credible. 32. A dying declaration is an important piece of evidence, which, if found truthful and voluntary by the Court, can be the sole basis for conviction. Relying on the dying declaration alone the conviction can be maintained. No corroboration is necessary if the dying declaration is believed to be truthful one and not vitiated in any manner. 33. In Atbir Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines with respect to the admissibility of dying declaration: “22...... (i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. (ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. (iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. (iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. (iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. (ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail. (x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.” 34. It is well settled that for accepting dying declaration as to whether the injured was fit in mental condition to speak, is of the prime importance. The main question in the present matter is as to whether Ram Lal was conscious and was in a fit mental condition to make a voluntary disclosure of the incident. 35. It is quite natural that when such an incident occurs, the neighbors would definitely try to ask the injured how the incident had happened. Dinesh Chaurasia (PW3) and Meherban Singh Kunwar (PW4), who were neighbors of Ram Lal, have not given any such evidence that the injured had told them how the incident had happened. The allegation of the FIR that there was altercation between the deceased and the appellant a day before the incident is not acceptable, because according to Panuli Devi (PW1) herself, she was not present at their house and Kush Ram Arya (PW2) has stated that he had written (Ext.Ka.1) at the behest of the police, on which Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1) had put her thumb impression. The FIR was registered pursuant to Ext.Ka.1. 36. The statements of Smt. Panuli Devi (PW1) and Kush Ram Arya (PW2) are not found reliable that the injured had told them in Delhi hospital that his wife had poured petrol on him and set him on fire because the prosecution witness Head Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW9) has made a clear statement that he had taken Ram Lal to Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, Delhi in an ambulance. Ram Lal was alive on the way but he was not in a position to speak. He was with Ram Lal as long as he was alive. 37. All these circumstances indicate that the injured was never in a conscious state after his injuries, which corroborates the statement of Dinesh Kumar (DW1) that his father never regain consciousness. 38. Dr. Sandeep Chowdhary stated that the injured was given injection to reduce his pain. Therefore, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out that he was in a state of delusion before the alleged dying declaration. 39. In Jayamma and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph nos. 16 and 17, as under: “16. We may also take note of the decision of this Court in Surinder Kumar. In the said case, the victim was admitted in hospital with burn injuries and her dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate. This Court, first doubted whether the victim could put a thumb impression on the purported dying declaration when she had suffered 95-97% burn injuries. Thereafter, it was noted that “at the time of recording the statement of the deceased…no endorsement of the doctor was made about her position to make such statement”, and only after the recording of the statement did the doctor state that the patient was conscious while answering the questions, and was “fit to give statement.” This Court lastly noticed that before the alleged dying declaration was recorded, the victim in the course of her treatment had been administered Fortwin and Pethidine injections, and therefore she could not have possessed normal alertness. It was hence held that although there is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that the dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration, the Court must nonetheless be satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, and only then could it be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. 17. Consistent with the cited principles, this Court refused to uphold the conviction in Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra. The dying declaration in that case was made by a victim who had suffered 98% burn injuries, and the statement was recorded after the victim was injected with painkillers. This Court adopted a cautious approach, and opined that there were serious doubts as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Given the extent of burn injuries, it was observed that the victim must have been in great agony, and once a sedative had been injected, the possibility of her being in a state of delusion could not be completely ruled out.” 40. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be very risky to accept the prosecution case that Ram Lal was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the said dying declaration. 41. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused, but would apply to cases where prosecution had succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused, by virtue of his/her special knowledge regarding such facts succeed to offer any explanation, to drive the Court to draw a different inference. 42. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 20.09.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1907 of 2011, Sheikh Wahid Sheikh Hamid Vs. State of Maharashtra, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “The prosecution can invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act when it succeeds in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. State of Maharashtra, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “The prosecution can invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act when it succeeds in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, the falsity of his defence is no ground to hold the accused guilty.” 43. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. No one had seen the assault by the appellant on the deceased. It is a well established law that in cases of the circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence should be complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Even grave suspicion cannot take place of proof. 44. Consequently, we are unable to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 45. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 23.09.2014, passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2012, State Vs. Smt. Radha Arya, is set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.