JUDGMENT : (K. Suresh Reddy, J.) Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. He was tried by the trial Court under the following two charges: I charge was under Section 498-A IPC; and II charge was under Section 302 IPC 2. Substance of the charges is that prior to 09-10-2015, the accused subjected his wife, namely Alladi Meremma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), to cruelty by harassing her both physically and mentally demanding her to bring money earned by her and on 09-10-2015 at about 1.30 a.m., he poured kerosene over her while she was sleeping and set fire to her who succumbed to injuries on 14-10-2015, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The trial Court also convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: P.W.1 is son of the accused and the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neighbours. P.W.4 is sister of the deceased. P.W.5 is younger brother of the deceased. P.W.6 is cousin of the accused. The accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Mallapalli, Santhamagulur Village. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed about 17 years prior to the date of incident as per their caste customs and rites. After marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial home and they were blessed with two sons and one daughter. The accused, who was working as lorry driver, addicted to drinking and used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally for the sake of money to consume liquor. After marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial home and they were blessed with two sons and one daughter. The accused, who was working as lorry driver, addicted to drinking and used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally for the sake of money to consume liquor. About five years prior to the date of incident, the accused suffered paralysis stroke and both his right hand and right leg were paralyzed. As the accused was suffering from paralysis, he used to consume liquor regularly. The deceased used to attend coolie work and maintain the family. The accused used to harass the deceased demanding her to pay money earned by her for consuming liquor and also for preparing meat curry daily. Four days prior to the date of incident, the accused sold away rice bag and spent the amount for consuming liquor. In that regard, an altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. While so, on 09-10-2015 at about 1.30 a.m. while the deceased was sleeping along with his son, the accused came, poured kerosene over the deceased, went to gas stove and lit the same, took out a paper, lit it and threw it on the deceased. The deceased received flames and raised hue and cry. On hearing hue and cry, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of the house and the deceased also came out of the house being unable to bear the burns. Immediately, P.Ws.3 and 4 and other neighbours came to the scene, put off the flames with the help of bed sheets and shifted the deceased to Government General Hospital, Narasaraopet, in 108 ambulance. From there, the deceased was shifted to Mother Teresa Multispecialty Hospital, Narasaraopet. Having received medical intimation-Ex.P4, P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police, Santhamagulur Police Station, went to Mother Teresa Multispecialty Hospital at about 11 a.m. and recorded a statement from the injured which was marked as Ex.P22. P.W.12 went to police station and registered a case in crime No. 82 of 2015 under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P23 is FIR. Having received a requisition-Ex.P20, P.W.11-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet, went to Mother Teresa Multispecialty Hospital, Narasaraopet, on the same day at about 10.50 a.m. and recorded a statement from the injured which was marked as Ex.P21. Ex.P23 is FIR. Having received a requisition-Ex.P20, P.W.11-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet, went to Mother Teresa Multispecialty Hospital, Narasaraopet, on the same day at about 10.50 a.m. and recorded a statement from the injured which was marked as Ex.P21. After registering the crime, P.W.12 proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P1 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. P.W.12 got the scene photographed through P.W.10. Photographs were marked as Exs.P9 to P19. P.W.12 prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P24 at the scene of offence. P.W.12 seized M.Os.1 to 5 at the scene of offence under a cover of panchanama. P.W.12 also recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and others. At about 7 p.m. on 10-10-2015, P.W.12 arrested the accused. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 14-10-2015. Having received intimation under Ex.P25, P.W.12 altered the section of law from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.13-Inspector of Police, Addanki Circle. P.W.13 verified the investigation done by P.W.12 and found it on correct lines. P.W.13 sent material objects to F.S.L., Hyderabad, under Ex.P28-Letter of advice. F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P29. After completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P29 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 5. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the accused as afore-stated. 8. Heard Sri Thulluru Nagabhushanam, learned legal-aid counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. 9. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 10. P.W.1, who is none other than son of the accused and the deceased, in his evidence stated that on the date of incident, he was sleeping along with his mother and at about 1.40 a.m., on hearing hue and cry of his mother, he woke up and saw his mother in flames. His evidence also shows that the accused was present near gas stove. P.W.1 in his evidence categorically stated that the accused suffered paralysis stroke and his right leg and right hand were paralyzed. His evidence also shows that the accused was present near gas stove. P.W.1 in his evidence categorically stated that the accused suffered paralysis stroke and his right leg and right hand were paralyzed. His evidence further disclosed that the accused used to harass the deceased for the sake of money to consume liquor. 11. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neighbours of the accused and the deceased. They are not eyewitnesses to the incident and they came to the scene of offence on hearing hue and cry of the deceased and P.W.1. 12. P.W.4 is none other than sister of the deceased. Her evidence disclosed that the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally for the sake of money to consume liquor. P.W.5, younger brother of the deceased, also spoke in the same lines as that of P.W.4. P.W.6, who is another neighbour, in his evidence stated that the accused used to harass the deceased. 13. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, the prosecution relied on two dying declarations-Exs.P21 and P22. Ex.P21 was recorded by P.W.11-II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet. In Ex.P21, it was stated by the deceased that on 09-10-2015 while she was sleeping, at about 1.30 a.m., the accused poured kerosene over her, went to gas stove and lit the same, took out a paper and lit that paper with the help of gas stove and threw it on her and that having received flames, she went out of the house by raising hue and cry. The second dying declaration was marked as Ex.P22 recorded by P.W.12- Sub Inspector of Police. In Ex.P22, the deceased gave so many details. The deceased stated that on 08-10-2015, the accused took Rs.1,000/- from her earnings of Rs.2,000/- and there was some altercation between her and the accused for preparing non-vegetarian curry; that after having dinner, she along with her son slept and that on the intervening night of 08-09/10/2015 at about 1.30 a.m., the accused poured kerosene over her and set fire to her. There are number of inconsistencies in both the dying declarations marked as Ex.P21 and Ex.P22. According to ocular version, quarrel took place as the accused sold rice bag and consumed liquor with that amount four days prior to the date of incident. There are number of inconsistencies in both the dying declarations marked as Ex.P21 and Ex.P22. According to ocular version, quarrel took place as the accused sold rice bag and consumed liquor with that amount four days prior to the date of incident. When we come to the second dying declaration- Ex.P22, quarrel took place for the sake of money of Rs.1,000/- earned by the deceased. In both the dying declarations, the deceased did not state anything with regard to selling of rice bag by the accused for the purpose of consuming liquor. The deceased completely gave a goodbye to the said dispute and altogether a new story has been woven by the deceased to implicate the accused. 14. Further, according to the case of prosecution, the incident took place while the deceased was sleeping along with her son-P.W.1 but curiously P.W.1 did not receive any burn injuries. Admittedly, the accused has been suffering from paralysis and both his right leg and right hand are paralyzed and in such a situation, it may not be possible for the accused to go to gas stove, lit it, took out a paper and lit the same and threw it on the deceased. Further, it may also not be possible for the accused to lift tin and pour kerosene over the deceased. Though the accused poured kerosene over the deceased, she did not wake up immediately and it is only after flames engulfed the deceased, she woke up which is highly improbable to accept. 15. As there are number of inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1 and dying declarations-Exs.P21 and P22, it is not safe to convict the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Exs.P21 and P22 do not inspire any confidence of this Court to place reliance on them. 16. So far as harassment is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is consistent to the effect that the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her money for the sake of consuming liquor. 17. Exs.P21 and P22 do not inspire any confidence of this Court to place reliance on them. 16. So far as harassment is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is consistent to the effect that the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her money for the sake of consuming liquor. 17. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC, of course the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is consistent with regard to the harassment of the deceased by the accused both physically and mentally demanding her money for the sake of consuming liquor. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC by judgment dated 26-08-2016 in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant-accused already served the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section 498-A IPC as he has been in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 26-08-2016. The appellant-accused shall therefore be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Fine amount paid by the appellant-accused, if any, shall be refunded to him. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.