Smti M. Sharma, J.- This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.6.91 and 29.6.91 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions Case No.26 (KG) of 1989 convicting the appellant under section 304B IPC and sentencing her to. undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that one Md. Haroon Rashid (PW 3) lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-charge, Panbazar Police Station, Guwahati on 19.3.87 alleging that on 4.3.87 the complainant's daughter, who was married to one Dulal Ali (DW 1), was physically tortured by her husband and his family members as the victim i.e. Farida Begum the daughter of the complainant refuse to bring or ask for dowry from her parents. It is alleged that the husband of the victim and other family members set fire on Farida's wearing cloth with the help of kerosene with a view to kill Farida the victim. 3. The charge was framed under section 302 read with section 304B IPC against the accused Sajida Begum who pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, based its prosecution case under section 304B IPC as it is a dowry death case. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the doctor, Magistrate and the Investigating Officer. The defence examined one witness. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned above on the basis of evidence of PWs 4 and 5 and also considered the dying declaration recorded by PW 5. It transpire from the materials on records that occurrence took place on 4th March, 1987 at around 6 PM. 5. While the victim girl Farida was preparing tea in her matrimonial house at Gauhati, her mother-in-law Sajida Begum who was Unhappy on the daughter-in-law for not bringing any dowry set her clothes on fire with the help of kerosene oil. The victim girl ran out screaming whereupon her husband, DW 1 and other neighbours i.e. PW 1 and 2 appeared in the place of occurrence. The evidence of these two witnesses are that on hearing screaming they came to the place of occurrence and saw the victim girl and tried to extinguish the flames. She sustained burn injuries and she was removed to Mahendra Mohan Choudhury Hospital and thereafter she was removed to Gauhati Medical College Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. 6. The evidence of these two witnesses are that on hearing screaming they came to the place of occurrence and saw the victim girl and tried to extinguish the flames. She sustained burn injuries and she was removed to Mahendra Mohan Choudhury Hospital and thereafter she was removed to Gauhati Medical College Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. 6. The defence did not deny the incident and the burn injuries sustained by the victim; but their stand was that the incident took place due to accident. The husband of the victim Dulal Ali as DW 1 deposed that the incident was an accident. 7. PW 7 is the doctor an Associate Prof of Forensic Medicine of Gauhati Medical College Hospital who held the post mortem examined over the dead body of victim and found as many as 6 burn ulcer. It is also his evidence that about 50 percent of body surface area was involved in burn and his opinion was that death was due to exhaustion resulting from burn ulcers described anti mortem in nature. Ext 4 is the exhaustion report which also corroborated the medical evidence. 8. Now from these evidences on record, the fact remains is that the victim died due to bum injuries sustained by her as disclosed by her in the dying declaration (Ext 3). At the time of death the victim was about 19 years and the occurrence took place within 6 (six) months of their marriage. It is also on record that the victim had love affairs with DW 1 Dulal Ali in the month of October, 1986. She was married by DW 1 and this marriage was against the consent of the parents of both sides. In the evidence of PW 3 Md. Haroon Rashid, the father of the victim it is disclosed that after such marriage there is no visting terms between the daughter and parents, but after sometimes the victim visited her parent's house and disclosed the ill treatment faced by her in the house of her father-in-law for not bringing dowry. She also requested »PW 3, her father to arrange dowry for her. this fact is also corroborated in the dying declaration (Ext 3). The statement recorded in the dying declaration is as follows: "Question: Why have you been set fire to ? Answer: For dowry. Question : What dowry? Answer: Bedstead, almirah, dressing table, dining table etc." 9. She also requested »PW 3, her father to arrange dowry for her. this fact is also corroborated in the dying declaration (Ext 3). The statement recorded in the dying declaration is as follows: "Question: Why have you been set fire to ? Answer: For dowry. Question : What dowry? Answer: Bedstead, almirah, dressing table, dining table etc." 9. Now the question before us is whether the dying declaration (Ext 3) is the statement under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act and whether the declaration was made voluntarily. The requirement under section 32 of the Evidence Act is that, the statement made by a person who is dead, are relevant when it relates as to the cause of his/her death. Ext 3 was recorded by PW 5 Tapan Mandal, Assistant Commissioner and Executive Magistrate, Guwahati in the form of question and answer and it was recorded in verbatim in Assamese language. It is also on record that at the time of recording the dying declaration the victim was able to speak with full conscious. She was transferred to different hospital as tetanus occurred and after she cured of tetanus she was sent back to Medical College Hospital wherein the statement was taken. PW 4 is a doctor who has no enmity or any interest against the accused person, and PW 5 who recorded the statement is a reliable officer under the law. It is on evidence on record that PW 4 was informed by the victim prior tp the recording of her statement mat her mother-in-law set her on fire for not bringing money and property from her parent. This PW 4 was also present when Ext 3 was recorded by PW 5. From the materials on, records we are of the view that the statement was recorded by a competent authority under the provisions of law and the statement was given by the victim when she was able to speak with sense and consciousness. In that view of the matter we cannot take a different view from the conclusion arrived by the trial Court in this issue. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of occurrence the appellant was 60 years old and she has been on bail on medical ground as she had to undergo turner operation. During her staying at jail, on health ground the bail was granted. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of occurrence the appellant was 60 years old and she has been on bail on medical ground as she had to undergo turner operation. During her staying at jail, on health ground the bail was granted. However, as discussed above, participation of the appellant in the crime has established by the prosecution. But considering her old age i.e. by this time she is 64 years we are of the opinion that if minimum 7 years sentence is awarded, the ends of justice will be met. Accordingly we modify the sentence of life imprisonment of the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge at Kamrup in Sessions CaseNo.26 (KG) of 1989 to 7 years under section 304B IPC. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati to serve out her sentence as stated above. The bail bond is discharged. 11. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.