JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.3.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri, in Session Trial No. 296 of 2016 (State Vs. Rani and another), arising out of Case Crime No.46 of 2016, Police Station Elaau, District Mainpuri, whereby the accused appellants Rani and Maor Singh alias Mohar Singh have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.30,000/-, each, under Section 302/34 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year; three years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each, under Section 452 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo additional imprisonment for two months; and under Section 504 IPC to undergo one year imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/-, each, and on failure to deposit fine to undergo one month additional imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Incident giving rise to this appeal occurred on 12.2.2016 when the informant had gone to Saifai Hospital for the treatment of his daughter leaving behind his wife at home. Informant’s wife had lost her eye-sight and she could not see. At about 4.00-4.30 pm, Rani W/o Maor Singh alongwith Maor Singh S/o Genda Lal; Ranjit S/o Taley Singh and Satyadeo S/o Balvir Singh on account of a previous fight between children and other enmity entered the house and started abusing informant’s wife. Informant’s wife could identify all these persons by their voice. It was at this stage that Rani with an intent to kill informant’s wife poured kerosene on her and accused Maor Singh lit matchstick and threw it upon the informant’s wife saying that as she hurls abuses so she should die, whereafter all the accused persons fled. Information about the incident was received by the informant while returning from Saifai and he rushed straight to District Hospital, Mainpuri. The incident was disclosed to the informant by the informant’s wife and none else was present at the spot. A written report was accordingly made to the police by the informant. This written report (Exhibit Ka-1) is the basis of first information report lodged at Police Station Elaau, District Mainpuri as Case Crime No. 46/2016, under Section 307, 452, 504 IPC on the date of incident i.e. 12.2.2016 (Exhibit Ka.2). 3. A written report was accordingly made to the police by the informant. This written report (Exhibit Ka-1) is the basis of first information report lodged at Police Station Elaau, District Mainpuri as Case Crime No. 46/2016, under Section 307, 452, 504 IPC on the date of incident i.e. 12.2.2016 (Exhibit Ka.2). 3. The informant’s wife (injured) was rushed to the hospital where her dying declaration was recorded on the date of incident i.e. 12.2.2016 at 8.40 pm by Ramnath, Tehsildar Sadar, District Mainpuri. 4. Since the prosecution case heavily relies upon the dying declaration, as such, its contents are extracted hereinafter:- 5. A second dying declaration was then recorded on 14.2.2026 by Siyaram Maurya, SDM Saifai, Etawah, while the patient was admitted at Saifai which is reproduced hereinafter:- Dr. Ramkinker Pandey P.G. JR-1, Gen. Surgery UP RIMS & R Saifai-Etawah” 6. Investigating Officer inspected the spot and from the house of informant a glass bottle was recovered on the next day which had no kerosene, but its smell was present. Recovery memo in that regard was prepared on 13.2.2016 (Exhibit Ka-7). The deceased died during treatment at U.P. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Saifai, Etawah at 5.50 pm on 18.2.2016. Inquest was conducted at the mortuary at Saifai Hospital at 11 am on 19.2.2016. The body was then sealed and sent for postmortem. The cause of death was 80-85% superficial to deep thermal burns. In the postmortem report age of the victim was assessed at 40 years. The body of the deceased was brought by Constable Brijendra Sachan. The autopsy commenced at 2.40 pm on 19.2.2016 and was concluded at 3.05 pm on the same day. The autopsy surgeon found following injuries on the deceased:- "Superficial to Deep Burn. Present over chest & neck. Anus as well as posterior aspect of both legs, buttocks, abdomen, both upper extremites. Red line of demarcation present between burnt and unburnt area. Skin peel are at places blister present, pus present at various places." 7. Immediate cause of death was septicaemia due to burn injuries. 8. Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and collected statement of witnesses and ultimately submitted a chargesheet, against the accused persons, no. 91/2016, under Sections 452, 504, 302 IPC. Cognizance on the chargesheet was taken on 9.6.2016. The case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, where it got registered as Session Trial No.296 of 2016. 9. 8. Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and collected statement of witnesses and ultimately submitted a chargesheet, against the accused persons, no. 91/2016, under Sections 452, 504, 302 IPC. Cognizance on the chargesheet was taken on 9.6.2016. The case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, where it got registered as Session Trial No.296 of 2016. 9. Charges were framed by the Sessions Judge on 7.9.2016 against the accused persons under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC together with Sections 452 and 504 IPC. The contents of the chargesheet were explained to the accused who denied the charges and demanded trial. 10. Informant has appeared as PW-1 during trial and has supported the prosecution case. He has alleged that about 1-1½ month prior to the incident accused Mohar Singh, Rani and Sonu had caused injuries on the head of his daughter Moni and for her treatment alone he had gone to Saifai Medical College when the incident occurred. While returning from the hospital at Saifai he received information about the incident. He rushed straight to the District Hospital, Mainpuri. His wife disclosed him that the four accused entered the house of informant hurling abuses whereafter accused Rani poured kerosene on Rekha and Mohar Singh lit the matchstick. Accused Satyadeo and Ranjit did not allow Rekha (deceased) to escape. Rekha identified the accused by their voice. 11. Informant had solemnized marriage with Rekha about 20 years back at Maharashtra and brought her home and he was not aware of the family members of the deceased. His wife was blind. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that he had purchased his wife from Rajendra R/o Bhagwatipur, or that he had not married her. He has further claimed that his wife became blind few years after marriage and despite treatment her eye-sight could not be restored. At the time of incident, Rajendra used to visit his house. PW-1 has denied that there was any dispute of wall with accused Rani. Informant’s mother was available but he had not spoken to his mother, earlier. When he came to Mainpuri Hospital his mother was by the side of his injured wife. His mother had not disclosed anything to him. He admitted that enmity existed with Satyadeo and Ranjit. He had earlier lodged a report against Ranjit and Satyadeo for enticing his daughter on the basis of suspicion. When he came to Mainpuri Hospital his mother was by the side of his injured wife. His mother had not disclosed anything to him. He admitted that enmity existed with Satyadeo and Ranjit. He had earlier lodged a report against Ranjit and Satyadeo for enticing his daughter on the basis of suspicion. He was not aware about the submission of final report in the case of enticement. He did not remember the phone number on which he received information about the incident. He also did not remember the name of the person who informed him of the incident on his mobile. His mobile SIM on which he received information was no longer working. 12. PW-1 has stated that out of his four brothers only one, namely Jagpat Singh alias Nirpat lives in the village and others stay out. His mother Ram Kumari lives with his brother Jagpat Singh in a different house. His brother or mother did not lodge any police report of the incident. It is true that he is not an inquest witness. He has no knowledge as to how and when the police arrived in the village. He took his wife from Mainpuri to Saifai on the same day at about 11.50 pm. The earlier incident of assault by accused was of 10-12 January, 2016. His daughter was examined the same day while his wife was examined 3-4 days, later in respect of the earlier incident. 13. PW-1 has admitted that in his report he did not mention that accused Ranjit and Satyadeo had blocked the escape of his wife after she was torched by other two accused. 14. PW-1 moreover has denied the suggestion that his brother Jagpat Singh alias Nirpat had a fight with his wife whereafter his mother abused his wife who then committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her. 15. The site plan was prepared on his instructions. The bottle of kerosene was brought by accused from their house. His wife though was blind but she could hear well. At the time when informant’s wife disclosed the incident to him only his daughter and mother were present and none else was there. He has denied the suggestion that his wife did not inform anything to him and that he has implicated the accused only on account of enmity. He was not aware about the case going on between Satyadeo and Rani. He has denied the suggestion that his wife did not inform anything to him and that he has implicated the accused only on account of enmity. He was not aware about the case going on between Satyadeo and Rani. He admitted that before he could arrive at the District Hospital, Mainpuri, the police of Village Nagla Dhura had already arrived and that the police had brought his wife to the hospital. He has further denied any knowledge that his wife informed the police that incident occurred at 2.00-2.30 pm since she informed him that incident occurred at 4.00-430 pm. In the extensive cross-examination PW-1 further admitted the enmity between accused Mohar Singh and informant’s wife on account of previous incident in which his daughter and wife had sustained injuries. PW-1 admitted that he was implicated in the murder case of one Awadhesh Thakur and he was also sent to Jail. He was incarcerated for a month or two and he was not aware about the person who lodged report in that case. He has denied the suggestion that murder case of Awadhesh was being prosecuted by his mother. 16. PW-1 has admitted that by the time he came to District Hospital, Mainpuri, the police had already arrived at his village and it was the police personnels who brought his wife to the district hospital. PW-1 has admitted that he has not seen the incident himself and had seen his wife at the hospital lying in injured condition. He was informed about the exact incident by his wife and none else. He has stated that the accused persons had assaulted his wife and daughter earlier which resulted in head injury caused to his daughter in respect of which he had lodged an NCR. He made no inquiries about the incident from his brother, who was in the fields. He has denied the suggestion that any dispute or differences had occurred between the deceased and his brother, who was otherwise unmarried or that on account of such dispute only his wife had committed suicide. 17. PW-2 Km. Moni is the daughter of the deceased. She had gone with PW-1 to the hospital for her treatment and it was during their return that information was received that accused Rani, Mohar Singh, Satyadeo and Ranjit had burnt her mother. 17. PW-2 Km. Moni is the daughter of the deceased. She had gone with PW-1 to the hospital for her treatment and it was during their return that information was received that accused Rani, Mohar Singh, Satyadeo and Ranjit had burnt her mother. On hearing this information she alongwith PW-1 reached the hospital where she was told by her mother about the incident in which accused Rani poured kerosene and Mohar Singh set her on fire. During cross-examination, PW-2 in her statement to police informed that Satyadeo, Rani and Mohar Singh had burnt her mother. Her father received information about the incident at about 2.00, 2.30 pm. When she came to hospital at 7.00 pm, her mother was admitted and her grandmother was by the side. Later in the night her mother was taken to Saifai. This witness has denied having any knowledge about enmity between her family and accused Mohar Singh. She was also not aware that any report was lodged by her father against Mohar Singh and her sons. She has admitted that her statement was recorded by the Magistrate in the case where she was allegedly enticed. Satyadeo and Ranjit were implicated in that case. This witness, however, has clearly state that she was not present at the place of occurrence and has not seen the incident. PW-2 has been confronted with her previous statement wherein she had not mentioned that on phone it was reported that accused Rani, Mohar Singh, Satyadeo and Ranjit have burnt her mother. In her previous statement it is also not mentioned that Rani had poured kerosene on her mother. Nobody was present when her mother informed about the incident to her. 18. PW-3 is Kamlesh Singh, who has proved the chik FIR as well as the GD entry. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that there is no entry in the GD as to how the police came to know about the incident or at what time. 19. PW-4 is Dr. Manish Kumar, who conducted the autopsy on the deceased and has proved the postmortem. He has verified that deceased died due to septicaemia on account of infection caused in the chest. There was no injury otherwise on the body of the deceased. It was difficult to ascertain that there was any contusion or abrasion on the deceased. 20. Manish Kumar, who conducted the autopsy on the deceased and has proved the postmortem. He has verified that deceased died due to septicaemia on account of infection caused in the chest. There was no injury otherwise on the body of the deceased. It was difficult to ascertain that there was any contusion or abrasion on the deceased. 20. PW-5 is Dipendra Kumar, who was the second investigating officer in the case. He has stated that on the basis of his investigation no complicity was found of accused Satyadeo and Ranjit. He recorded statement of eye-witnesses, who told that deceased had a fight with her brother-in-law Nirpat, whereafter she had committed suicide. Reference in this regard can be had to the statement of PW-5, wherein he refers to the statement of various persons including Jitendra S/o Balwant Singh, Satyadeo S/o Chhote Lal, Lakshmi Chand and Ratnesh S/o Hakim Singh, who all stated that this was a case of suicide. He has however stated that during investigation he found no evidence of the complicity of the accused, except the statement of PW-2. This witness has also proved the chargesheet. 21. PW-6 is the first investigating officer who has prepared the site plan and had also recovered empty bottle having smell of kerosene. In the cross-examination, this witness has also stated that the case was not registered in his presence. He came to the place of occurrence on the next day i.e. 13.2.2016. He had not collected finger print from the bottle nor had called the forensic unit to collect finger print on it. House of deceased and accused Mohar Singh are adjoining. He was informed by Amar Singh (informant) that incident occurred at about 4.30 on 12.2.2016. He made no effort to record the statement of the deceased and no reasons have been assigned for not doing so. He had also not collected the burnt clothes, etc., of the deceased. He had not visited Saifai as he was busy elsewhere and only after the death of the deceased the information of death of the deceased was received by him. Since FIR was lodged in his absence, he cannot explain, who had actually lodged the FIR. 22. PW-7 Siyaram Maurya was posted as SDM Saifai on 14.2.2016 and had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. He has proved the second dying declaration. Since FIR was lodged in his absence, he cannot explain, who had actually lodged the FIR. 22. PW-7 Siyaram Maurya was posted as SDM Saifai on 14.2.2016 and had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. He has proved the second dying declaration. Paper No. 19A/1 (second dying declaration) has thus been proved by this witness. 23. In the cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that deceased in her statement told that she is totally blind and informed about abuses hurled by Mohar Singh. Deceased clearly stated that during the incident Satyadeo and Ranjit kept standing and did not help the other accused in burning her. The statement of the deceased is in two pages and on the first page neither any signature exists of him, nor thumb impression are present of the deceased. At the end of the statement left thumb impression of deceased exist. 24. Certificate of doctor is missing on second page. Though he posed questions to assess the ability of the injured to make statement but those questions had not been recorded in the dying declaration. The deceased informed him that incident occurred at about 2.00, 2.30 pm on 12.2.2016. The certificate was of Dr. Ram Kinker Pandey, who was Junior Resident in the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that deceased was not in a position to speak or that dying declaration has been prepared on political intervention. 25. PW-8 is Dr. Ram Kinker Pandey, who was posted at Saifai Hospital as Junior Resident. He has stated that deceased was admitted on 12.2.2016 at 11.54 pm by her husband Amar Singh. The deceased was burnt to the extent of 88%, 85%. He has proved the fact that on 14.2.2016 he had certified that the deceased was fit to make a statement. He has also proved the endorsement on dying declaration that deceased was conscious and in a position to speak. 26. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was not on any regular job in the hospital and was merely a Junior Resident in General Surgery Department. The patient was in extremely serious condition and the Medical Officer was not present when the statement of the deceased was recorded. There is no certificate at the end of the first page of dying declaration fitness of the injured. There are no thumb impression of the deceased. The patient was in extremely serious condition and the Medical Officer was not present when the statement of the deceased was recorded. There is no certificate at the end of the first page of dying declaration fitness of the injured. There are no thumb impression of the deceased. He has admitted that pain killers and antibiotics, etc., may have been given at the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital. The treatment given is mentioned on the bed head ticket. 27. PW-9 is Inspector Arun Kumar. He has proved the inquest and is a formal witness. PW-10 is Retired Tehsildar Ramnath, who had recorded the first dying declaration on 12.2.2016 while he was posted as Tehsildar in Tehsil Sadar, Mainpuri. He had gone to record the statement of the deceased on the direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The doctor had certified that the deceased was in a fit condition to make statement and, therefore, he started recording statement at 8.05 pm and concluded it by 8.40 pm. The doctor again gave a certificate that during this period the patient was in a fit condition. 28. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that the order of SDM directing him to record the statement of the injured is not on record. He was not aware that previous statement of victim was also recorded. He had recorded the statement in the district hospital. On the dying declaration it is not mentioned as to what is the pulse rate or blood pressure of the patient. No one was present near the patient when her statement was recorded. The deceased had also told him that she is blind from birth. The dying declaration is recorded in three pages and on page 1 and 2 there are no thumb impressions of the deceased, nor there are any signatures of PW-10 and it is only at the end of the statement at page 3 that thumb impression and signature exists. Prior to the recording of the statement this witness had inquired from the patient as to whether she is fit to make a statement on which the patient answered in the affirmative but this fact is not recorded in the dying declaration. 29. Dr. Dharmendra Singh has been examined by the prosecution as PW-11. He was posted on 12.2.2016 at District Hospital as Emergency Medical Officer. 29. Dr. Dharmendra Singh has been examined by the prosecution as PW-11. He was posted on 12.2.2016 at District Hospital as Emergency Medical Officer. He has disclosed that Amar Singh (PW-1) had brought his wife (deceased) at 5.10 pm in the Emergency Department. The patient was examined and treatment was administered to her and later she was referred to Surgery Department. Main treatment of the patient was done by the Surgeon. Patient was referred to Saifai at 11.50 pm. In the cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that the patient was not brought by police but was brought by her husband. Injury report was not prepared on a separate register and the injuries are also not mentioned in the medico legal register. The patient was extremely critical and her general condition was low. Her pulse was weak and BP was below normal. Considering her serious condition the patient was referred to U.P. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Saifai, Etawah. As per her Bed Head Ticket the injured’s neck was also burnt. She was in a critical condition. PW-11 has stated that the statement of deceased was not recorded in his presence. Antibiotic, Titback and other medicines were also given to the deceased. There is no endorsement on the bed head ticket for calling the Magistrate and only police was informed. 30. PW-12 is one Rakshpal Singh, who states that it was around 4.30 in the evening on 12.2.2016 while he was at home that he heard the screams of Rekha Devi (deceased). He came to the house of Rekha Devi and found her unconscious. Soon thereafter police arrived and his statement was also recorded by the police on 8.4.2016. In his cross-examination, he has stated that clothes worn by deceased were on fire and deceased was badly burnt and was unconscious. The accused Rani and Mohar Singh are of the same village and they were not present at the place of occurrence. The other two accused were also not present. Deceased was blind and could not see. This witness has however stated that few days prior to the incident on account of dispute between the children of two family a fight had taken place in which daughter of deceased sustained injuries. PW-1 lodged a report against Mohar Singh and Rani in that regard. Deceased was blind and could not see. This witness has however stated that few days prior to the incident on account of dispute between the children of two family a fight had taken place in which daughter of deceased sustained injuries. PW-1 lodged a report against Mohar Singh and Rani in that regard. It was thereafter that the daughter of PW-1 had run away from her house in respect of which a false report was lodged by PW-1 against Satyadeo. Few days later Amar Singh’s daughter returned and told the police/magistrate that she had gone on her own whereafter criminal case against Satyadeo was closed. At the time of incident, Rani has a six months’ old daughter. This witness has stated that none of the accused had any role to play in the burning of the deceased. 31. Above evidence of prosecution was confronted to the accused, who have stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that a false report has been lodged in the matter and that deceased was not in a position to give any statement. Accused have stated that they have not burnt the deceased and are innocent. 32. Five witnesses have also been produced by the defence namely Jiledar Singh, Netrapal, Satyadeo, Angrez Singh and Brajesh Kumar all of whom stated that they came to the house of Amar Singh and found his wife Rekha Devi on fire. On inquiry they were informed that deceased had committed suicide. Amar Singh was not present in the village. In the cross-examination all these witnesses have admitted that affidavits to this effect have been given by them and they belong to the same community as that of the accused and have close relations with Mohar Singh and Rani. Suggestion has been put to all these witnesses that on account of close relations with accused they have made a false statement before the court, which they have denied. 33. It is on the basis of above evidence that the trial court has come to the conclusion that the two dying declarations are reliable and since there existed specific motive for the accused Rani and Mohar Singh to cause harm to the deceased, as such the guilt of accused Rani and Mohar Singh are clearly established beyond reasonable doubt and they have been convicted and sentenced as per above. 34. 34. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants they have preferred the present appeals. On behalf of the appellants, it is argued that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution evidence is not reliable. It is urged that there is no eye-witness account of the incident and the two dying declarations are wholly unreliable. It is also argued that the two dying declarations contradict each other, inasmuch as, in the first dying declaration it is averred that all four accused had burnt the deceased, whereas in the second dying declaration role of accused Ranjit and Satyadeo was confined to their presence alone and it was clarified that they have not played any role in the incident. Learned counsel further argues that the deceased was blind and her source of knowledge was merely the identification of persons by their voice which would not be reliable. It is further argued that the police has not disclosed as to how they came to know of the incident or how the injured was taken to the hospital and no effort was made to record the statement of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further urged that there was no requirement of recording second dying declaration once the first declaration was recorded by the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-5, according to which, the eye-witnesses had informed the police that the deceased had committed suicide after a fight with her brother-in-law Nirpat and on account of previous enmity the accused persons have been falsely implicated. It is also urged that the motive for the offence is rather weak and would not justify an act of the kind which has allegedly occurred in this case. 35. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the two dying declarations are wholly reliable, inasmuch as, the Magistrate and the doctors have been produced in support of such dying declaration. It is further argued that the motive furnished by the prosecution provides sufficient basis for the accused to have committed the offence and since dying declaration is otherwise reliable, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present appeal. 36. It is further argued that the motive furnished by the prosecution provides sufficient basis for the accused to have committed the offence and since dying declaration is otherwise reliable, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present appeal. 36. We have heard Sri Abhishek Mayank, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and have perused the materials placed on record including the trial court record. 37. The evidence on record clearly proves that the deceased was blind and her death was homicidal. The postmortem report as well as inquest are duly proved during the course of trial by adducing the autopsy surgeon and the police official. The deceased was found to have suffered 90% burn injuries and she later died as a result of septicaemia. Prior to her death the injured remained hospitalized at the U.P. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Saifai, Etawah for almost six days. Evidence in this regard, taken cumulatively leaves no room of doubt that this was a case of homicide and the deceased died on account of burn injuries suffered by her. 38. The prosecution alleges that the deceased died on account of accused Rani pouring kerosene on her and her husband Mohar Singh lighting the match. The prosecution version in this regard is not supported by any eyewitness account. The only eyewitnesses produced are by the defence who have not been found credible by the trial court. We, too, are in agreement with such findings for the reasons to be enumerated a little later. 39. The prosecution case is primarily based upon two dying declarations of the deceased as also the disclosure made by her to her husband and daughter i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. We shall take up such evidence one by one. 40. The first dying declaration is dated 12.2.2016 which is of the very date on which the incident occurred. This dying declaration has been proved by its author, namely Ramnath (PW-10). At the time when this dying declaration was recorded the injured was at District Hospital, Mainpuri. Dr. Dharmendra Singh (PW-11) is the only doctor produced from District Hospital, Mainpuri to prove the fitness of the deceased to make the dying declaration. This dying declaration has been proved by its author, namely Ramnath (PW-10). At the time when this dying declaration was recorded the injured was at District Hospital, Mainpuri. Dr. Dharmendra Singh (PW-11) is the only doctor produced from District Hospital, Mainpuri to prove the fitness of the deceased to make the dying declaration. The dying declaration has already been extracted above, according to which, an incident occurred about a month back when the makers daughter was assaulted by the accused and she sustained injuries on her head. A report was lodged in respect of such incident. The accused persons being annoyed with lodging of the report hurled abuses upon the deceased and also threatened to teach her a lesson. It is for this reason that on 12.2.2016 at about 2.00, 2.30 in the afternoon four accused namely Mohar Singh, his wife Rani, his friend Satyadeo and uncle’s son Ranjit came in the courtyard while the deceased was placing the woods. They (the accused) and held her when the maker screamed. Accused Rani asked other accused to hold her tight so that she may pour kerosene whereafter kerosene oil was poured on the deceased and Mohar Singh threw matchstick due to which the maker got burnt. On her scream the accused left. She later stated that she managed to reach bucket full of water and poured it on herself which extinguished the fire but by then she had already been burnt. It is thereafter that her mother-in-law came and called everyone and the husband took her to the hospital. The police also took her in an ambulance. In her statement the deceased categorically stated that she is blind from birth and there is no role of her husband or anyone from her family in causing her injuries. At the start of the statement as well as on the foot of the dying declaration there is an endorsement that Rekha W/o Amar Singh is conscious at 8.00 pm, when the recording of her statement commenced and remained conscious during the recording of her statement which concluded at 8.40 pm. This certificate is by the Emergency Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Mainpuri. 41. The Emergency Medical Officer Dr. Dharmendra Singh is PW-11. This certificate is by the Emergency Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Mainpuri. 41. The Emergency Medical Officer Dr. Dharmendra Singh is PW-11. He has stated that on 12.2.2016, he was the Emergency Medical Officer at District Hospital and it was in his presence that Rekha wife of Amar Singh was brought to the hospital by her husband in the emergency wing. She was admitted and was treated and was later referred to surgery for further treatment. She was later referred to Saifai at 11.50 pm on the same day. In the cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that injuries on Smt. Rekha was not written on separate injury report register, nor was it mentioned on the medico legal register. The patient was extremely critical and her general condition was low. Her pulse was below normal and the BP was also low. Victim’s chest, abdomen, both hands and right thigh was burnt. She was kept under observation and as her condition became critical she was referred to Saifai. As per bed head ticket neck of the injured was also burnt and she was in serious condition. PW-11 has moreover stated that statement of deceased was not recorded in his presence. She was given antibiotics, titback and other treatment. There is no endorsement that any Magistrate was invited to record her statement. Only police was informed. 42. The testimony of the treating doctor has been relied upon by counsel for the appellants to submit that in fact statement of injured was not recorded on 12.2.2016 and that the alleged declaration is not reliable. It is also submitted that in the absence of certification by the treating doctor with regard to the medical condition of the deceased it would not be proper to rely upon the first dying declaration. 43. Before forming an opinion on the above contention, it would be necessary to refer to the second dying declaration also. The second dying declaration has been recorded on 14.2.2016 by Siyaram Maurya (PW-7), who was then posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saifai. The certificate of fitness in the second dying declaration is given by Dr. Ram Kinker Pandey (PW-8). The endorsement at the top of the second dying declaration records that Smt. Rekha is totally blind but is conscious and is in a position to make a statement. At the end of the declaration there is a signature by Dr. Pandey. 44. The certificate of fitness in the second dying declaration is given by Dr. Ram Kinker Pandey (PW-8). The endorsement at the top of the second dying declaration records that Smt. Rekha is totally blind but is conscious and is in a position to make a statement. At the end of the declaration there is a signature by Dr. Pandey. 44. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasised upon the contents of two dying declarations which vary in so far as role of the accused persons are concerned. In the second dying declaration the maker has stated that accused Satyadeo and Ranjit kept standing and had not helped the other accused in burning her. In the second statement the injured has alleged that her mother-in-law, who lives in the other house came and on receipt of information the police arrived and that police took the victim to the Mainpuri Hospital. Her mother-in-law was also with her and that her husband and daughter also came to the hospital. 45. Interestingly, husband and daughter of the victim in their testimony have categorically stated that they had gone to Saifai for the treatment of PW-2 and while they were returning PW-1 received information on phone about the incident and they came straight to Mainpuri Hospital where the victim was got admitted by the police. This statement of PW-1 and PW-2 finds reflection in the second dying declaration where the victim has alleged clearly that it was police which took her to the hospital and her husband and daughter came later to the hospital. This version is at variance from her first statement wherein she has alleged that after she got burnt her mother-in-law came, who called others and her husband got her admitted in the hospital. There is thus a departure in the second dying declaration from what is stated in the first declaration. The second dying declaration makes further departure, inasmuch as, accused Satyadeo and Ranjit are alleged to have remained standing at the place of occurrence and had not taken any part in the burning of the victim. Apparently, Satyadeo and Ranjit were exonerated on such subsequent version of the victim. The second dying declaration makes further departure, inasmuch as, accused Satyadeo and Ranjit are alleged to have remained standing at the place of occurrence and had not taken any part in the burning of the victim. Apparently, Satyadeo and Ranjit were exonerated on such subsequent version of the victim. In light of the second dying declaration where Satyadeo and Ranjit have been specifically exonerated of any active role in commissioning of the offence, the first dying declaration implicated all four accused and the specific allegation was that while accused Rani poured kerosene oil on the victim the other accused had held her. 46. It is admitted that the victim was blind. She, therefore, could not have seen the incident and her statement at best would be based upon what she had heard while accused were talking to each other. The ability to exactly know what had happened was substantially compromised on account of lack of eye-sight of the deceased. While evaluating the evidentiary value of the dying declaration the Court has to remain mindful of this important fact. 47. As already noticed, the first dying declaration was recorded at District Hospital, Mainpuri by the Tehsildar after obtaining medical opinion with regard to consciousness of the patient before and during making of the statement. The only Emergency Medical Officer, who signatures are appended on the dying declaration, has been produced in evidence, who has categorically stated that no such statement of patient was recorded in his presence. The prosecution has not been able to explain as to who was the other doctor, who had certified the fitness of the patient at the time of alleged making of statement by the victim. We further find from the testimony of PW-11 i.e. the treating doctor, that the patient was in critical condition and her neck was also burnt. She had otherwise sustained serious burn injuries on her chest and abdomen. To what extent she was in a position to make the statement when burn percentage was 85% would be a crucial aspect to be analysed. 48. Considering the fact that victim was blind and the treating doctor found her in critical condition with her neck and other body parts severally burnt, we do not find it safe to rely upon such statement of the victim, particularly when the treating doctor categorically states that no statement was recorded within his knowledge. 48. Considering the fact that victim was blind and the treating doctor found her in critical condition with her neck and other body parts severally burnt, we do not find it safe to rely upon such statement of the victim, particularly when the treating doctor categorically states that no statement was recorded within his knowledge. No other doctor has been produced. It is also not the prosecution case that any other doctor had attended to the victim as Emergency Medical Officer. The first dying declaration, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 49. Coming to the second dying declaration, we do not find any plausible explanation furnished by the prosecution or the rationale or necessity to record the second statement of the victim. The second statement has been recorded in the presence of PW-8 Dr. Ram Kinker Pandey. PW-8 in his testimony has admitted that he is Junior Resident and is otherwise not a regularly employed doctor in the hospital. A Junior Resident is usually a doctor who is undergoing post-graduation in the same hospital and, as such, a Junior Resident is otherwise a qualified doctor. He can always assist the treating doctor or independently handle the patient but it is not clear as to what extent is he entitled or authorized to give certificate of fitness to a patient who is otherwise in a critical condition. PW-8 has also admitted that the patient was being administered antibiotics and other pain killers. There is no conscious decision by the treating doctor that notwithstanding administering of such antibiotics and pain killers the patient was fit to make a statement as possibility of dillusion etc. cannot entirely be ignored in such exigency. We also find departure in the statement of the patient during second dying declaration and the possibility of tutoring, by the husband, and family members cannot be ruled out particularly as the departure from the previous statement is intended to bring the version of patient in line with the statement of other two family members i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. 50. Evidence on record contains the statement of PW-5, who had conducted investigation in the case. This witness has stated that during investigation he had come to know that the deceased had a quarrel with her brother-in-law Nirpat who was unmarried whereafter the victim had herself committed suicide. 50. Evidence on record contains the statement of PW-5, who had conducted investigation in the case. This witness has stated that during investigation he had come to know that the deceased had a quarrel with her brother-in-law Nirpat who was unmarried whereafter the victim had herself committed suicide. Though there is not substantive evidence brought on record, in this regard, from the side of the prosecution but the statement of investigating officer does support an alternative hypothesis of the manner in which burn injuries were caused to the victim. 51. On the basis of detailed evaluation of the evidence on the aspect of two dying declarations, which are not exactly on similar lines and contains purposive departure in the second statement, we are doubtful of its reliability, particularly when the medical opinion with regard to fit mental state of the victim lacks credibility. 52. In coming to the above opinion, we are conscious of the fact that the victim was in critical condition and various drugs had been administered to the patient during her treatment. What would be the impact of these drugs on the patient will require a careful analysis by the competent doctor who has treated the patient. The testimony of two treating doctors i.e. PW-8 and PW-10 is not very inspiring and is absolutely vague with regard to the impact the administering of such drugs may have on the patient. To what extent the mental alertness of the victim was compromised on account of administering of drugs on her has not been evaluated by the two doctors. In our assessment, this is an important aspect, which apparently has escaped consideration by the trial court. 53. The Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 173 , has emphasised the influence of drugs on the deceased’s mental alertness. It was observed that non consideration of such aspect may adversely impinge upon the reliability of the statement of the author. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 20, the Supreme Court emphasised aspects such as the capacity of the man to remember facts, consistency in statement, whether statement was made at the earliest opportunity or whether there was any possibility of tutoring, etc., to be taken into consideration for examining the admissibility of such evidence. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 20, the Supreme Court emphasised aspects such as the capacity of the man to remember facts, consistency in statement, whether statement was made at the earliest opportunity or whether there was any possibility of tutoring, etc., to be taken into consideration for examining the admissibility of such evidence. In recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 941, the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the principles applicable to dying declaration. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter: "25. The law relating to dying declaration is now well settled. Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration and as said earlier, it can form the sole basis for conviction. 26. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with dying declaration. Since the said provision is relevant, it is extracted hereunder: [32.] Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. - Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:— (1) When it relates to cause of death. - When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. 26.1. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. 26.1. Section 32 says that statements made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found etc., be it in written form or oral, are themselves relevant facts. As per situation(1), when the relevant facts relate to the cause of death, such a statement would be relevant whether the person who made it was or was not at the time of making the statement under expectation of death. Such a statement would be relevant whatever may be the nature of the proceedings in which the cause of his death comes into question. The relevancy is not confined to the cause of his death but also to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. 27. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, this Court examined the principles governing acceptance of dying declaration. After examining the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and various judicial pronouncements, this Court laid down the following conclusions: (i) 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; (ii) each case must be determined on its own facts, keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (iii) it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (iv) a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence. It has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing weighing of evidence; (v) a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner 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; (vi) in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view various circumstances including the condition of the person concerned to make such a statement; that it has been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. 28. The above conclusions were reiterated by this Court in Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat. This Court declared that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. However, the court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination; the deceased should be in a fit and proper state to make the declaration. But once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base conviction on it without corroboration. 29. This Court highlighted the significance of a dying declaration in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible. Unless the evidence tendered is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy. However, Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to this general rule. This Court observed as under: 18. * * * * * A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. * * * * * 30. Elaborating further, this Court in Sher Singh v. State of Punjab held that acceptability of a dying declaration is greater because the declaration is made in extremity. When a party is on the verge of death, one rarely finds any motive to tell falsehood. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with in the case of a dying declaration. 31. In Sudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court observed thus: 20. The “dying declaration” is the last statement made by a person at a stage when he is in serious apprehension of his death and expects no chances of his survival. At such time, it is expected that a person will speak the truth and only the truth. Normally in such situations the courts attach the intrinsic value of truthfulness to such statement. Once such statement has been made voluntarily, it is reliable and is not an attempt by the deceased to cover up the truth or falsely implicate a person, then the courts can safely rely on such dying declaration and it can form the basis of conviction. More so, where the version given by the deceased as dying declaration is supported and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, there is no reason for the courts to doubt the truthfulness of such dying declaration. 32. When there are more than one dying declaration, this Court in Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, clarified that it is not the plurality of the dying declarations that matter. On the contrary, it is the reliability of a dying declaration which is significant. 32. When there are more than one dying declaration, this Court in Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, clarified that it is not the plurality of the dying declarations that matter. On the contrary, it is the reliability of a dying declaration which is significant. If there are inconsistencies between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, i.e., whether those are material or not. 33. In Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court held that where there are multiple dying declarations with inconsistencies between them, the court would have to scrutinize the facts very carefully and, thereafter, take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance. 34. Again, in Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra, this Court observed that when there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated independently on their own merit as to the evidentiary value of each. One cannot be rejected merely because of certain variations in the other." 54. Once we analyse the evidence in light of the guiding principles settled for evaluating the credibility of dying declaration, we are not persuaded to accept the two dying declarations made by a blind lady in extremely critical condition where her neck, chest and other body parts were substantially burnt and there is no conscious opinion of the medical expert to certify her mental alertness or capability to truly remember the facts and narrate it in her statement. The fact that there were material departures made in the second statement and PW-11 having emphatically stated that no such statement was recorded, we are not inclined to endorse the view taken by the trial court that the two dying declarations were duly proved. In our opinion, it would not be safe to rely upon such dying declaration, particularly when there is an admitted enmity between the parties. It is well settled that enmity is a double edged sword and while committing the offence is possible due to it but the possibility of it being used to falsely implicate a person cannot be discarded. Such evidence, therefore, requires a very careful examination. 55. When we see facts of the case, we find that first person who reached the victim after the incident was her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law was residing with other son Nirpat. Mother-in-law has not been produced. Such evidence, therefore, requires a very careful examination. 55. When we see facts of the case, we find that first person who reached the victim after the incident was her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law was residing with other son Nirpat. Mother-in-law has not been produced. Her statement has also not been recorded. There is also an issue as to how the police came to know of the incident and whether the victim was taken to hospital by the husband or by the police. In the first dying declaration victim alleges that it was her husband who took her to hospital whereas in the second statement she categorically states that it was the police who took her hospital first. The evidence lacks clarity on this aspect. No GD entry has been produced to show as to when and how the police came to know about the incident so as to reach the place of occurrence. These are also aspects which persuade us not to rely upon the prosecution version. 56. Though we are not impressed by the defence evidence, but as we find that the prosecution has itself not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused appellants, the finding of conviction and consequential sentence of the accused appellants cannot be approved of. We have perused the judgment of the trial court in which there is no consideration on the material departures made in the second dying declaration from the first one, nor there is any consideration with regard to the statement of PW-11 who has clearly stated that no such declaration was recorded in his presence. The fact that prosecution has not proved as to who was the other doctor, who had given the certificate of fitness as also the critical condition of the patient which apparently made it difficult for her even to speak have escaped the attention of the trial court. The analysis of evidence by us noticing peculiar omissions in the prosecution case have also not been adverted to. In such view of the matter, we cannot endorse the finding recorded by the trial court with regard to guilt of the accused. 57. For the reasons and discussions held above, we find that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appellants, therefore, are entitled to benefit of doubt. In such view of the matter, we cannot endorse the finding recorded by the trial court with regard to guilt of the accused. 57. For the reasons and discussions held above, we find that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appellants, therefore, are entitled to benefit of doubt. In that view of the matter, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.3.2022, is set aside. The accused appellants Rani and Maor Singh alias Mohar Singh shall be released from Jail, forthwith, unless they are wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 481 of BNSS.