JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by Bhanwar Lal against a judgment dated 9.4.1992 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, whereby the accused-appellant Bhanwarlal was found guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded a sentence of two years' RI and a fine of Rs.2,500/- and for nonpayment of fine, additional RI for 8 months. 2. Smt. Ugam Devi alias Ugiya, daughter of Heeraji Lohar of village Morkha, police station Sadri was married to the appellant, who is resident of village Kot Baliyan, police station Bali. She was residing at her inlaws place in village Kot Baliyan and on 21.10.1988, poured kerosine and ignited herself with the help of a match-box in order to commit suicide. Her mother in-law Smt. Nanda poured water over her and doused the fire. PW1 Panna Lal Lohar an uncle of Smt. Ugiya and others took her to the hospital at Bali where she was admitted for treatment. According to the prosecution story the Station House Officer PW 17 Nathu Ram recorded her statement Ex.P/13 in the hospital. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Niranjan Sharma (PW 8) also recorded her statement ex.P/10 on 21.10.1988. On the statement Ex.P/13 a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Bhanwar Lal and his mother Smt. Nanda. On 28.10.1988, in the evening, at about 7.45 P.M., Smt. Ugiya breathe her last on (sic) excessive burns and resultant toxaemia. A Medical Board consisting of Dr. D.R. (sic) Dr. B.K. Goyal and Dr. Dinesh Sarada (PW 6) was constituted and the said cause of death was recorded in the Autopsy Report Ex.P/8. The mother and son both were challaned under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, who committed the case to the said trial court at Bali. The charges were framed under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. PW 1 Panna Lal, PW 2 Jethu Ram, PW 3 Poonam Chand, PW4 Junjar Singh, PW 5 Javeri Mal, PW 6 Dr. Dinesh Sarada, PW 7 Dr. Manoj Saxena, PW 8 Niranjan Sharma, SDM, PW9 Smt. Raji, PW 10 Bhikh Singh, PW 11 Mohan Lal, PW 12 Ku. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. PW 1 Panna Lal, PW 2 Jethu Ram, PW 3 Poonam Chand, PW4 Junjar Singh, PW 5 Javeri Mal, PW 6 Dr. Dinesh Sarada, PW 7 Dr. Manoj Saxena, PW 8 Niranjan Sharma, SDM, PW9 Smt. Raji, PW 10 Bhikh Singh, PW 11 Mohan Lal, PW 12 Ku. Kusum PW 13 Om Prakash, PW 14 Smt. Pani PW 15 Sultan Khan, PW 16 Ratan Singh and PW 17Nathu Ram were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. None was examined in defence. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that his relationship with the deceased was very cordial. When he left in the morning at 7.00 AM for the factory, his tiffin was prepared by the deceased. 4. The learned court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 9.4.1992. He found the appellant guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. However, the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. His mother Smt. Nanda was acquitted of both the charges. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the accused Bhanwarlal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I find it difficult to sustain the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. There is practically no evidence to establish that it was a case good enough for conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As pointed out earlier, the deceased was living in village Kot Baliyan and not even a single person of the village has come and stated that she was uncomfortable or was tortured by the appellant. PW 2 Jetha Ram, PW 10 Bhikh Singh and PW 13 Om Prakash simply have stated that the 'Panchnama' of the dead-body Ex.P/1 was prepared by the police in the hospital. PW 3 Poonam Chand and PW 4 Junjar Singh are residents of village Kot Baliyan and they have stated that the 'site-map' Ex.P/2 and 'site-note' Ex.P/3 etc. were prepared by the police. They are residents of village Kot Baliyan and none of them say that there was any hardship to the deceased at the hands of the appellant. PW 6 Dr. were prepared by the police. They are residents of village Kot Baliyan and none of them say that there was any hardship to the deceased at the hands of the appellant. PW 6 Dr. Dinesh Sarada has deposed in respect of the postmortem report Ex.P/8 and PW 7 Dr. Manoj Saxena has stated that on 21.10.1988, he examined Smt. Ugiya in a burnt condition and recorded the injuries in the injury report Ex.P/9. Niranjan Sharma, S.D.M., has stated that at the request of the S.H.O., he went to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.P/10 of Smt. Ugiya. PW9 Smt. Raji is the grand-mother-in-law of the deceased and has turned hostile. She has admitted that there was some bickering among the deceased and the two accused-persons but refused to say that the appellant or any-body-else used to torture her. PW11 Mohan Lal (ASI) simply states that the statement Ex.P/13 was taken to the police station by him where the case was registered by the formal FIR Ex.P/I4. 7. PW 12 Ku. Kusum is a sister of the accused, PW 14 Smt. Pani is mother of the deceased, PW 15 Sulatan Khan is neighbour of the deceased and PW 16 Ratan Singh is the Sarpanch of village Kot Baliyan. They were all examined to prove the story of cruelty but none of ten supported the prosecution story and all the four turned hostile. PW 17 Nathu Ram SHO Police Station, Bali has stated that on the information, he proceeded to the hospital and found Smt. Ugiya admitted there. According to the witness, he recorded the statement Ex.P/13 of Smt. Ugiya and conducted the remaining investigation of the case. 8. PW 1 Panna Lal is an uncle of the deceased, who is resident of village Kot Baliyan. He is not a hostile witness and his testimony is to the effect that the relations of the deceased with the two accused-persons were extremely cordial and there was no problem between them. In this way, it is clear that no person from village Kot Baliyan has come and corroborated the prosecution story. 9. No FIR was lodged from the maternal side nor any person has come and supported the prosecution story. On the other hand, the mother of the deceased PW 14 Smt. Pani has denied the prosecution story in its Entirety. In this way, it is clear that no person from village Kot Baliyan has come and corroborated the prosecution story. 9. No FIR was lodged from the maternal side nor any person has come and supported the prosecution story. On the other hand, the mother of the deceased PW 14 Smt. Pani has denied the prosecution story in its Entirety. The learned trial court has relied upon the two dying declarations and a letter Ex.P/7, which was allegedly written by PW 5 Javeri Mal, who is a brother of the appellant. I find that so far as the testimony of PW 5 Javeri Mal is concerned, it is of no consequence. In the letter Ex.P/7, Javeri Mal has written against the in-laws of the appellant and has made a mention in respect of a bicycle, regarding which, there was a dispute and has further mentioned that if need be, he may bring 2-3 bad characters to set the in-laws of the appellant right. Needless to say that for Ex.P/7, the appellant cannot be held responsible and it simply discloses the mental state of PW 5 Javeri Mal. PW 14 Smt. Pani does not say that there was any dispute regarding the bi-cycle nor the deceased in her statements Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/13 has made any mention about the bi-cycle or any such dispute. 10. In this way, the conviction remains based mainly on the two statements Ex. P/ 10 and Ex.P13. Ex.P/10 was allegedly recorded by the S.D.M. Niranjan Sharma (PW 8). He has stated that he proceeded to record the statement on a requisition by the SHO. He has further stated that he had obtained a report regarding the mental fitness of Smt. Ugiya from the doctor. The fact, however, is that neither the requisition of the SHO is on record nor there is a certificate issued by any doctor to say that Smt. Ugiya was in a fit state to get her statement recorded. Neither there is note to this effect in Ex.P/10. In this way, there is no reason to believe that Smt. Ugiya was in a fit state of mind when her statement Ex.P/10 was recorded. It is strange that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not recorded the time of the statement. The SHO Nathu Ram does not say that Niranjan Sharma SDM was requested by him for recording the statement. The result is that the statement Ex. It is strange that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not recorded the time of the statement. The SHO Nathu Ram does not say that Niranjan Sharma SDM was requested by him for recording the statement. The result is that the statement Ex. P/ 10 remains of no value to the prosecution. 11. The statement Ex.P/13 was allegedly recorded by PW 17 Nathu Ram. The time of recording of the statement is not recorded. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the certificate of the doctor, which was given after the statement was recorded, shows that the statement was recorded at 1.45 PM. Further it is pointed out that subsequently, the SHO has recorded the time 1.50 PM at the end of the statement. Be that as it may, but I find that the statement Ex.P/13 suffers from same defect as was the case of Ex.P/10. PW 17 Nathu Ram has stated that the endorsement of the doctor was obtained by him at the end of the statement. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it was Dr. Manoj Saxena who certified the fitness of the patient. Dr. Manoj Saxena was examined as PW 7 and in his statement, he does not say that the statement of the deceased was recorded in his presence or he gave a fitness certificate on Ex.P/13. Needless to say that without the positive evidence of Dr. Manoj Saxena, it cannot be accepted that the endorsement purported to be made by Dr. Saxena was actually made. Further, it may be mentioned that no fitness certificate was obtained in the beginning and Ex.P/13 contains a note at the end of it to the effect that the patient was conscious at the time of the statement. As pointed out earlier, the concerned doctor has not been examined to say that this note was actually put by him. Moreover, getting such type of note recorded at the end of the statement, is not a proper certification and solely on to basis of such dying declaration, the conviction cannot be based. As pointed out earlier, the concerned doctor has not been examined to say that this note was actually put by him. Moreover, getting such type of note recorded at the end of the statement, is not a proper certification and solely on to basis of such dying declaration, the conviction cannot be based. Reliance may Abased on the case of Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994 (4) Crimes 150 (SC) ], which was a similar case and the observations made by the Apex Court is as under:- "Where doctor did not certify before starting recording of dying declaration that patient was in fit condition but the Magistrate after putting some questions recorded that patient was in fit condition and the doctor recorded at the end that the patient was conscious during recording of declaration, it was held that certificate appended at end did not comply with requirement of law and therefore conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of the dying declaration." 12. Consequently, the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial court cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 9.4.1992 is set aside. The appellant Bhanwar Lal is acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Appeal allowed. *******