1. Heard the parties.

2. The appellants along with Anil Sahu were tried and by judgment rendered by the Trial Court, appellant 1 was convicted under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and two years respectively. Appellant 2 and his brother Anil Sahu were convicted under Sections 304B, 498A and 316, IPC and each one of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, three years and ten years respectively. The sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, convictions and sentences awarded against the appellants have been confirmed by the High Court whereas while upholding convictions of accused Anil Sahu sentences awarded against him under Sections 304B and 316 have been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. So far as accused Anil Sahu is concerned, he did not prefer any appeal whereas the appellants filed the present appeal by special leave.

3. In the present case, there is no direct evidence. There were three dying declarations before the Court. The first dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate (CW 1) on the date of occurrence itself i.e. on 2.12.1991 at 9.00 p.m. in which, case of accidental fire has been disclosed. The second dying declaration was recorded on the next day i.e. on 3.12.1991 at 10.20 a.m. by the treating doctor (CW 5) which also disclosed a case of accidental fire. The third dying declaration was also recorded on 3.12.1991 at 8.30 p.m., after more than 24 hours of the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 2.12.1991 between 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. This dying declaration (Ext. P4) has been recorded by the Tahsildar which runs into more than two pages and wherein the entire history from the date of marriage till the date of occurrence has been given in great detail and it was stated that the accused persons poured kerosene oil on the victim and set her on fire. It is not possible to believe such a dying declaration where there is so much narrations of facts with meticulous details of everything by a dying person. The said dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Tahsildar is highly doubtful and in our view is an after-thought especially in view of the fact that according to the earlier who dying declarations it was a case of accidental fire and no case for torture was at all made out. This being the position, we are of the view that it is not safe to place reliance upon the dying declaration recorded by the Tahsildar, as such the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court was not justified in upholding their convictions.

4. In the result, appeal is allowed, convictions and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Appellant 1 Mannulal Sahu, if in custody, is directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Appellant 2 who is on bail is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.