IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) A dying declaration enjoys almost a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence as it comes from mouth of a person who is about to die and at that stage of life he is not likely to make a false statement.
(ii) Ordinarily, a document as valuable as a dying declaration is supposed to be fool-proof and is to incorporate the particulars which it is supposed to contain.
(iii) A statement recorded by the police officer during investigation is inadmissible in evidence.
(iv) Different persons admittedly seeing an event give varying accounts of the same. That is because the perceptiveness varies and a recount of the same incident is usually at variance to a considerable extent.
(v) There is no difference between an appeal against conviction and on appeal against acquittal except that when dealing with an appeal against acquittal the court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by acquittal,
(vi) There is indeed no limitation in law on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution for the matter of making a just decision.
(vii) It is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and act according to law once the truth is discovered.

JUDGMENT

Ranga Nath Misra, J. - These two appeals are by special leave. The Delhi Administration has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 93/84 and the Indian Federation of Women Lawyers and others have preferred the other Criminal Appeal. Both are directed against the same judgment of the Delhi High Court acquitting the respondents of a charge of murder of one Sudha by setting fire to her. The trial Court had accepted the prosecution case and considering it to be one of the atrocious dowry deaths, had sentenced each of the respondents to death. The reference made by the trial Judge was discharged by the High Court and the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed.

2. The three respondents are Shakuntala, the mother and two of her sons, Subhash Chandra and Laxman Kumar. Shakuntala is the wife of one Sriniwas. They have four sons Subhash, Laxman, Vinod and Ram Avtar, and two daughters. The parents ordinarily live at Barot about 50 miles away from Delhi along with the two daughters. Subhash and his wife Madhu, D.W. 5, are school teachers at Delhi. They have two minor children. Laxman Kumar was married to Sudha over whose death the present case has arisen. Vinod and Ram Avtar were living with the two elder brothers at Delhi. Some time in Mayor June 1979 these brothers came to live in Flat No. 9-B of the Janata Flats in Ashok Vihar area. This flat is in the ground floor. Flat No. 9-D which is the corresponding first floor flat was previously in occupation of a tenant. Deva Dass-whose wife Ishwari Devi has been examined as P. W. 4. Some time m 1980, this flat was purchased by the family of the accused persons and on their request the tenant shifted to Flat No. 28-D in the same area about two months before the incident.

3. On February 16, 1980, Laxman Kumar was married to Sudha. After the marriage Subhash and members of his family (D.W. 5

and the two children) started living in one of the rooms in the ground floor while Laxman and Sudha lived in the other in the same flat. The upper rooms were occupied by the two other brothers, Vinod and Ram Avtar. As it appears, Shakuntala, the mother, was ordinarily staying with her husband at Barot but now and then came to Delhi and lived with the sons.

4. Sudhas two sisters, Gayatri, P.W. 3 Snehlata, P.W. 6, were married to Pawan Kumar Goel and Damodar Dass Gupta, respectively. Pawan Kumar was living in Premnagar area while Damodar Dass lived in Hari Nagar, both parts of Delhi. Sudha was in the family way and was expecting to deliver a child towards the end of the first week of December 1980.

5. In Flat No.9. B there was a small kitchen where a gas operated stove along with a cylinder was kept. A small portion of the open space in the court-yard by the side of the kitchen had been covered with asbestos sheets. There also cooking used to be done with the help of a kerosene stove as the kitchen was small. Certain other household materials, including stock of kerosene in tins were kept there.

6. A little after 9 p.m. on December 1, 1980, a shout was heard from Flat No.9-B. It was a ladys voice crying Bachao-Bachao (save-a-save). On hearing the cry neighbours like Jaspal Singh, P.W. 1, Satish Chopra, P.W. 2, Ishwari Devi, P.W. 4 ran to the flat and P.W. 5 Tarsem Jain who was near about also carne there. P.W. 1 saw Laxman standing at the entrance door and was attempting to close it while Subhash was standing with his hand on the latch of the door which opened to the court-yard. He and others who had collected forced their way inside and saw Sudha in a standing position but aflame. The neighbours attempted to extinguish the fire first by pulling out the saree from the body of the lady, put a gunny bag lying nearby on the burning body and when Satish Chopra brought a blanket, the same was wrapped around her body. After extinguishing the fire they brought Sudha to the room where Shakuntala was standing. According to the prosecution case, Sudha, on seeing the mother-in-law, made a statement to the effect that i