Judgment

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- This appeal on special leave being granted by this Court is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting the accused, the respondents herein.

2. The accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302/34,120-B and 506, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Karnal convicted all the three and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under the first two charges and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under the third charge. The High Court reversed the same.

3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Smt. Kanchan was the wife of one Arun Kumar, second respondent. The first respondent is his father and the third respondent is his mother. Arun Kumars sister Prem Lata was also tried along with them but she was acquitted by the trial Court. It is alleged that  the deceased did not bring with her the necessary dowry and on that account the accused were ill-treating her and bore grudge against her. On 28-6-1983 at about 6.30 a.m. all the accused conspired to do away with the life of Smt. Kanchan. Consequently they sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her to fire and shut her up in the bathroom. The deceased cried for help whereupon the neighbours reached and the accused said to them that there has been a short circuit and a towel has been burning and he insisted that it was their household affair. About half an hour later the deceased was brought on a cot in a burnt condition and was taken to the hospital, where her dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Officer at about 9 a.m. P.W. 1, Dr. A. N. Bajaj who admitted her in the hospital, treated her. Later she succumbed to the burn injuries. The police, who was already in the picture., continued the investigation and held the inquest. One Dr. O. P. Chugh, P.W.8 Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana also inspected the spot and prepared a rough site plan and took photographs. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The accused denied the offence. Their plea was that it was an accident.

4. The case rests mainly on the circumstantial evidence. In the dying declaration which was recorded by the Judicial Officer, the deceased, however, stated that she caught fire while preparing tea and her husband, mother-in-law and sister of her husband came to her rescue and the mother-in-law brought her to the hospital. The learned Sessions Judge was not prepared to accept this dying declaration. He held that the deceased made her statement due to fear of death to her children at the hands of the accused and accordingly he has excluded the same from consideration. Relying on the other circumstantial evidence he excluded the theory of accident and suicide and held that it was a case of homicide. He further held that the three respondents conspired and they were responsible for the death of the deceased. He acquitted the sister of Arun Kumar second respondent.

5. The High Court elaborately dealt with the dying declaration and reached the conclusion that in view of the said statement the accused cannot be held guilty and accordingly acquitted them. In this appeal, Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel strenuously contended that the circumstances are conclusive and the reasoning of the trial Court in convicting the accused is very sound and the appellate court grossly erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court.

6. A perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court shows that the learned Judge mainly relied on the particulars of the scene recorded by Dr. Chugh. P.W. 14, the Inspector recovered a piece of skin sticking to the door of the bathroom and rubber hand wax and burnt hairs. The learned Sessions Judge also referred to the particulars of the bathroom and it was opined that the doors of the bathroom were bolted from outside and not from inside. Dr. Chugh in his observation report has also noted that the deceased has caugh