JUDGMENT : K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.589 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant/Accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Substance of the charge against the accused is that, on 13 th May, 2007, at about 02.00 pm, at his house situated at Nandikotkur village, he caused the death of his wife namely Shaik Sadik Bee (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire to her with match sticks, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 304-Part I IPC, instead of convicting him under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) The deceased was a native of Alampur and she was given in marriage to the accused of Nandikotkur Town about 10 years ago. The deceased was blessed with three daughters and a son. While so, on the invitation of her parents, on 11.05.2007, the deceased went to her parents' house at Alampur, along with the accused and their children, to celebrate Garmi festival. After celebrating the festival, on 13.05.2007, at about 09.00 a.m., the deceased, along with her husband and children, left Alampur to go to Nandikotkur and they reached their home at Nandikotkur at about 02.00 pm. The moment they reached their house, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased saying that she unnecessarily took him to her parents house for Garmi festival and forced him to spend all the money with him. So saying, he brought kerosene bottle from his house and attempted to pour kerosene on the deceased. On seeing it, one Shaik Hajira Bee (P.W.5) went and informed the same to Shaik Murthuja Bee (P.W.2), who is the mother of the accused. Then PWs.2 and 5 proceeded to the house of the accused. So saying, he brought kerosene bottle from his house and attempted to pour kerosene on the deceased. On seeing it, one Shaik Hajira Bee (P.W.5) went and informed the same to Shaik Murthuja Bee (P.W.2), who is the mother of the accused. Then PWs.2 and 5 proceeded to the house of the accused. By the time they reached near the house of the accused, the accused was found pouring kerosene on the deceased and lighted with a match stick. As a result of which, the deceased received burn injuries on her face, abdomen and breast. Then PW.2 went and put off the flames with blanket. The other neighbours also gathered there and shifted the deceased to Government General Hospital, Kurnool in an Ambulance. ii) On receipt of M.L.C. intimation, PW. 11 - the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Out-post Police Station, Kurnool, recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P13 and sent the same to the SHO, Nandikotkur Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On the basis of said MLC intimation and statement of the deceased Exs.P13 and P14, PW. 13 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur, registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2007 for the offence under section 307 I.P.C., issued FIR Ex.P16 and took up investigation. After receiving the death intimation, the section of law was altered to Section 302 IPC and fresh FIR Ex.P15 was issued. iii) PW.15 – the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, on receipt of requisition from the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, to record the dying declaration of the deceased, proceeded to the Hospital and after following the requisite procedure, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P21. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. iv) PW.10 - Dr. S.M. Basha, Tutor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued his report stating that the deceased died due to burn injuries and its sequel. Ex.P11 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. v) PW. 14 – the Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur, on receipt of death intimation and FIR, took up investigation and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P10 is the inquest report. He examined PWs.1 to 4 and another and recorded their statements at the time of inquest. Ex.P11 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. v) PW. 14 – the Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur, on receipt of death intimation and FIR, took up investigation and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P10 is the inquest report. He examined PWs.1 to 4 and another and recorded their statements at the time of inquest. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence, examined PWs.5 to 7 and others and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur took cognizance of the case as PRC No.32 of 2007 and committed the case to the Court of Session, Kurnool Division and later the same was numbered as SC No.589 of 2007 and made over the case to the Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, for disposal. 7. On appearance of accused, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, read over the contents of the charge and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15, marked Exs.P1 to P22 and exhibited MO.1. 9. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment dated 07.05.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 11. Ms. S. Sashikala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused as Legal Aid counsel, submits that PWs.1 to 9 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. She further submits that except the dying declarations, there is no other material to connect the appellant herein to the aforesaid crime, that too there are contradictions and inconsistencies in both the dying declarations made by the deceased to the learned Magistrate and to the police officials, hence the same cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant/accused. 12. She further submits that except the dying declarations, there is no other material to connect the appellant herein to the aforesaid crime, that too there are contradictions and inconsistencies in both the dying declarations made by the deceased to the learned Magistrate and to the police officials, hence the same cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant/accused. 12. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits that in both the dying declarations it has been categorically stated that the accused is alleged to have poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire to her. This aspect has been stated by the deceased in both the dying declarations, hence the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is on correct lines and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. Heard. Perused the record. 14. PW.1 is the minor daughter of the deceased, PW.2 is the mother-in-law, PW.3 is the mother and PW.4 is the father, of the deceased. PWs.5 to 8 are the neighbours of the deceased. PW.9 is the inquest panchayatdar. 15. This Court perused the evidence of PWs.1 to 9. They did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that all the witnesses reached the scene of offence at a belated stage. The entire case rests on the dying declarations that have been made by the deceased to the police and to the learned Magistrate. 16. The statement of the deceased under Ex.P13 was recorded by PW.11-A.S.I. and basing on the strength of the said statement the present case was registered against the accused. Ex.P21 is the second dying declaration which was recorded by the learned Magistrate-P.W.15. Admittedly, except the said three dying declarations, there is no other evidence to connect the accused to the alleged crime. Statement of the deceased under Section 161 CrPC is marked as Ex.P17. 17. In Ex.P13 statement, recorded on 13.05.2007 at about 18.30 hours, the deceased stated as follows. About two days prior to giving the statement, she, along with her husband and her children, went to her parents' house at Alampur to celebrate Garmy festival and they returned back to Nandikotkur the previous day. 17. In Ex.P13 statement, recorded on 13.05.2007 at about 18.30 hours, the deceased stated as follows. About two days prior to giving the statement, she, along with her husband and her children, went to her parents' house at Alampur to celebrate Garmy festival and they returned back to Nandikotkur the previous day. On 13.05.2007 afternoon, at about 02.00 PM, the accused in an angry mood abused her stating that she brought him to her native place to perform Garmy festival and made him to spend his money. Upon that, he took kerosene oil tin from the house, poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her with a match stick. When she raised cries loudly, her mother-in-law came and put off the flames. She received burn injuries from face to stomach below. Immediately, both her mother-in-law (PW.2) and her husband (accused) shifted her to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. The Doctors gave treatment to her. The deceased further stated that as she took the accused to her native place Alampur to perform Garmy festival, where the accused spent his entire amount, with an unhappy mood, the accused poured kerosene on her and lit fire. 18. Ex.P21 is the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate P.W.15, which reads thus. “Dying declaration of Smt. Sadiq Bee, W/o Madar Miah, aged 35 years, resident of Nandikotkur, Kurnool, recorded in pursuance of the intimation received from Government General Hospital, Kurnool on 13.05.2007, at 07.25 pm. Patient is conscious and in fit state of mind to give answers. Sd/- xx xx xx (Dr. GVR Gopal Rao) 13.05.2007. 1. What is your name? Ans: Sadiq Bee. 2. Where is your village? Ans: Nandikotkur. 3. How many children are you? Ans: Four children. Three female children and one male child. 4. Are you doing any work? Ans: I am going to beedi work. 5. Are you know, I am a Magistrate? Ans: Not known, now known as you say. From the answers given above, I am satisfied that the patient is conscious and in a fit state of mind to give answers. Sd/- xx xx xx 13.05.2007 6. How you received injuries? Ans: Today afternoon, I came from Alampur. My husband quarreled with me, beat me, poured kerosene on me and lit fire. I went to Alampur for the purpose of garmy festival and stayed there for four days. Sd/- xx xx xx 13.05.2007 6. How you received injuries? Ans: Today afternoon, I came from Alampur. My husband quarreled with me, beat me, poured kerosene on me and lit fire. I went to Alampur for the purpose of garmy festival and stayed there for four days. He quarreled with me as to why I stayed there for those days and then he beat me and that he abused the surrounding persons to prevent them to come and later poured kerosene on me and lit fire and my children are also present. 7. Who brought you to the hospital? Ans: My relatives. The contents are read over to patient and she admitted to be true and correct. LTI of Saidq Bee. Patient is conscious and coherent while recording DD. Sd/- xx xx xx (GV Rama Gopal Rao) 13.05.2007 Proceedings closed at 08.10 PM. Sd/- xx xx xx 13.05.2007” 19. A perusal of both the dying declarations goes to show that in the dying declaration made to the police, the deceased categorically stated that the motive behind the attack on her is because she took her husband to her native place and made him to spend entire amount. She further stated that on receiving burn injuries, her mother-in-law and her husband took her to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. But, in the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, the deceased categorically stated that since she went to Alampur for the purpose of Garmy festival and stayed there for four days, her husband got angry and poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her. She further stated that her children were also present. It is relevant to mention here that the children of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. Apart from the same, when she was questioned as to who brought her to the hospital, she categorically stated that her relatives brought her to the hospital. 20. In Uttam v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2022) 8 SCC 576 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows. “38. Apart from the same, when she was questioned as to who brought her to the hospital, she categorically stated that her relatives brought her to the hospital. 20. In Uttam v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2022) 8 SCC 576 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows. “38. We are of the opinion that once the High Court had disagreed with the Session Court and discarded the two written dying declarations of the deceased due to several glaring lacunae in the procedure adopted by the SEM (PW-9) and the I.O. (PW-14) in recording the said statement, then the appellant could not have been indicted on the oral testimony of PW-2, father of the deceased and PW-12, family friend, both of who were interested witnesses and whose evidence runs contrary to the versions of the deceased recorded by PW-9 and PW-14. It must be remembered that all the four dying declarations, two in writing and the other two oral, were based on the statements given by the deceased at different times on the very same day, i.e., 27.03.1995, when she had suffered 93% burn injuries and there are serious doubts about her being mentally and physically fit to give her statement. The IO (PW-14) had recorded the first dying declaration at 3.20 p.m. this was followed by the SEM (PW-9) having recorded the second dying declaration between 4.30p.m. and 5.00 p.m. It was on the very same day that PW-2 and PW-12 had also met the deceased at the hospital and claimed that she had informed them as to how she had received the burn injuries and named the appellant as the culprit. 39. Both, PW-2 and PW-12 have deposed that in her oral dying declaration, the deceased had referred to the dowry demands made on her by the appellant and the fact that he had suspected her character, which led to the alleged incident. As noted above, nowhere in their testimonies is there any reference made to the prosecution version that the appellant was having an illicit relation with a widow residing in the neighbourhood, which was the main cause of acrimony between the couple and had resulted in the incident. As noted above, nowhere in their testimonies is there any reference made to the prosecution version that the appellant was having an illicit relation with a widow residing in the neighbourhood, which was the main cause of acrimony between the couple and had resulted in the incident. The diametrically different version of the reasons that led to the alleged incident casts a shadow on the entire testimony of PW-2 and PW-12, making it unsafe to rely on them and indict the appellant for the charge framed against him. We are therefore of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the obligation cast on it of leading trustworthy corroborative evidence to back-up the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-12. 40. In the light of the evidence discussed above and being mindful of the principles governing appreciation of the evidence related to multiple dying declarations, we find it difficult to endorse the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-12 cannot be treated as stellar enough to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of murdering his wife. Hence, he is entitled to being granted benefit of doubt.” 21. Coming to the case on hand, as stated supra, there are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the dying declarations, one recorded by the learned Magistrate and the other recorded by the police officer. Admittedly, except the said two dying declarations, there is no other evidence to point the guilt towards the appellant/accused. The contradictions and inconsistencies are material and the same would go to the root of the case. In the absence of any corroboration or independent evidence, and when there are so many contradictions and inconsistencies between both the dying declarations, basing on the same, the finger cannot be pointed towards the accused for the reason that the deceased could not be subjected to cross- examination. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the said dying declarations cannot be the sole basis to find the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant herein/Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant herein/Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against him in the impugned judgment passed are liable to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/Accused by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in the judgment in SC No.589 of 2007, dated 07.05.2008, are set aside. The appellant herein/Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 304-Part I IPC and he is acquitted of the same, and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.