JUDGMENT S. B. ROY, C.J. : This appeal is pending in this Court since 1998. About seven years’ time has elapsed. The appellants are languishing in jail. When we wanted to take up the matter for final hearing and disposal, learned counsel for the appellants sought for adjournment. We are sorry to say that here the appel¬lants are languishing in jail for long period, and therefore, it would not be proper for us to adjourn the hearing of this appeal. 2. This appeal at the instance of the three appellants, namely, Jogeswar Swain (A.1) and his parents, namely, Kalandi Swain and Kumari Swain (A.2 and A.3 respectively), is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.1998 passed by the learned Addi¬tional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No.265/8 of 1997 con¬victing all the three appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and also under Section 498A/34, IPC and sentencing them all to R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month each in respect of their conviction under Section 302/34, IPC and also R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.1.000/- each, in default to R.I. for further period of one month each in respect of their conviction under Section 498A/34, IPC. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.1.1997 at or about 10 P.M. P.W. 1 Ghanashyam Sahu lodged a written complaint before the A.S.I. of Kusumi Out Post alleging, inter alia, that his daughter Budhei (since deceased) was given in marriage with appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain in 1993. But since her marriage with appellant No.1, all the appellants were torturing her for not supplying various dowries as mentioned therein by her par¬ents. On this score she was driven out from the house of the appellants and the matter was taken up by the Panchayat. The Panchayat settled the matter and on such settlement she was sent back to the house of the appellants. When she became pregnant, she was mercilessly assaulted by appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain and for such assault she had to suffer miscarriage. Thereafter the deceased went to the house of her parents in a pitiable condition. Again there was a panchayat meeting for settlement of the dispute and she was sent back to the house of the appellants. When she became pregnant, she was mercilessly assaulted by appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain and for such assault she had to suffer miscarriage. Thereafter the deceased went to the house of her parents in a pitiable condition. Again there was a panchayat meeting for settlement of the dispute and she was sent back to the house of the appellants. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 31.1.1997 on learning from one Debri Khajuria that the deceased was in a precarious condition, the complainant being accompanied by one Arun Kashyap and P.W. 7 Binod Nahak came together to see the deceased. On being asked, the deceased told them that on 29.1.1997 night her husband throttled her neck. However, when she raised alarm appellant No.1 left her. Again on 30.1.1997 night appellant No.1 forcibly administered some poisoned sweet locally called “Mitha Gajja”. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that appellant No.1 did not deliberately as the informant failed to fulfil his demand for dowry. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Kuntara hospital. The gist of the said complaint was entered into the station diary and the complaint was forwarded to Mahul¬pali P.S. where it was registered as an F.I.R. under Sections 307/498A/34, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As later on, the victim died at the said Hospital on 1.2.1997, Section 302, IPC was added to this case. On usual investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Section 498A/304B/302/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In usual course, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. On transfer the case was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambal¬pur. The trial Court on perusal of the materials on record framed charges against all the appellants under Sections 498A/34, IPC, 304B/34, IPC, Section 302/34, IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. All the appellants pleaded not guilty. 5. In course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution in all 14 P.Ws. were examined. None was examined on behalf of the appel¬lants. Out of the 14 P.Ws none is an eye-witness. The case is based on the evidence of torture on the deceased purported by the appellants and also other circumstantial evidence including the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by P.W. No.9 Dr. were examined. None was examined on behalf of the appel¬lants. Out of the 14 P.Ws none is an eye-witness. The case is based on the evidence of torture on the deceased purported by the appellants and also other circumstantial evidence including the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by P.W. No.9 Dr. Omprakash Patel and the expert evidence leading to the conclusion that she died due to poisoning. 6. We have already stated about the gist of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1. He has stated in his evidence the same story. P.W. 1 happen to be the father of the deceased. He heard the oral dying declaration made before him by the deceased. In his evi¬dence he stated that he knows all the appellants. The deceased was given in marriage with appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain in 1993 according Hindu rites. At the time of marriage he gave gold orna¬ments weighing about 10 grams to his daughter. Besides that he gave utensils, one HMT wrist watch, one Hercules cycle and a Phillips radio as dowry to his son-in-law. About six months after the marriage, the accused-appellants demanded a brass pitcher from the deceased. As she could not get it from her parents, she was assaulted by the appellants and driven out from their house. In this connection, a panchayat was convened in the village to settle the matter. As per the settlement arrived at the said panchayat meeting, appellant Jogeswar Swain agreed to take back the deceased to his house, and he further agreed that he would not torture his wife (deceased) any more. In or about March, 1996, when the deceased was pregnant, she was mercilessly as¬saulted by appellant No.1 for not fulfilling the demand for brass pitcher as dowry. As a result of such assault she suffered mis¬carriage and appellant No.1 left the deceased in the house of P.W.1. The deceased was then in the house of P.W. 1 for about a month. However, thereafter appellant No.1 came and took the de¬ceased back to his house. Only on 29.1.1997 she was taken to the house of the appellants. During the said night appellant No.1 in a drunken condition pressed the neck of the deceased. This was learnt by P.W.1 from the deceased. Later on P.W.1 was informed by one Debri Khajuria that the deceased was in a precarious condi¬tion. On learning this news. Only on 29.1.1997 she was taken to the house of the appellants. During the said night appellant No.1 in a drunken condition pressed the neck of the deceased. This was learnt by P.W.1 from the deceased. Later on P.W.1 was informed by one Debri Khajuria that the deceased was in a precarious condi¬tion. On learning this news. P.W. 1 rushed to the house of the appellants on 31.1.1997. The deceased was still then alive. She narrated him that the appellants administered some poison to her through a sweet locally called “Mitha Gajja”. At that time, Arun Kashyap and PW 7 Binod Nahak took her to Kuntara hospital for her treatment. But, ultimately she died in the hospital a day there¬after. He further stated in his evidence that on 31.1.1997 he lodged a complaint at Kusumi Out Post which was treated as an FIR. On 1.2.1997 at about 4 P.M. the ASI of Kusumi Out Post came to Kuntara hospital where the deceased was lying dead, and the said ASI of Kusumi Out Post held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of this witness. Accordingly, he put his signature on the said inquest report. This is, in short, the evidence this witness gave during his examination-in-chief. On perusal of the cross-examination part of evidence of this wit¬ness, we do not find any infirmity whatsoever to hold that the evidence of this witness is not credible. We find his evidence is fully trustworthy. 7. P.W.2 Para Sahu happens to be the mother of the de¬ceased. In her evidence she stated that after marriage of the deceased with appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain in 1993 the appel¬lants were demanding for a bass pitcher from the deceased. The said demand of the appellants could not be fulfilled. It is further stated by her that the deceased told her at the Police Station as also in the hospital that the appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain pressed her neck. But, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, we find that the deceased was first taken to the hospital, there¬after P.W.1. visited the Police Station/Out Post to lodge the complaint. From this evidence of P.W.1 it appears that the P.W.2 never visited either the Police Out Post/Police Station and therefore, P.W.2 had no occasion at all to hear such oral dying declaration from the deceased. visited the Police Station/Out Post to lodge the complaint. From this evidence of P.W.1 it appears that the P.W.2 never visited either the Police Out Post/Police Station and therefore, P.W.2 had no occasion at all to hear such oral dying declaration from the deceased. So far as this part of her evi¬dence is concerned, we are unable to give any credence at all. For the aforesaid reason, it is difficult to place any reliance whatsoever upon the testimony of P.W.2 as regards her claim that the deceased made some dying declaration to her. However, the other part of her evidence that the appellants demanded a brass pitcher from the deceased and the deceased could not fulfil this demand can be acted upon so far as the case against the appel¬lants under Section 498A/34, IPC is concerned. 8. P.W. 4 Chandramani Patel is an important witness as he gave important evidence with regard to the case against the appellants under Section 498A/34, IPC. In his evidence he stated that there was a panchayat meeting for settlement for the dispute between the deceased and appellant No.1. The settlement of dis¬pute was reduced into writing in course of the said panchayat meeting which is marked as Ext.6 and the same was signed by this witness. Said Ext.6 which contains the terms of settlement be¬tween the appellants and the deceased also contains the signature of appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain. The said statement clearly indicates about the demand for dowry made by the appellant from time to time and consequential torture upon the deceased for her failure to fulfil the demand. Therefore, this documentary evi¬dence coupled with the evidence of P.W.4 lends ample corrobora¬tion to the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to demand of the appellants for dowry and torture upon the deceased by them for failure of the deceased to fulfil such demand. 9. Similar is the evidence of P.W.5 Joseph Bakla. His evidence is similar to the evidence given by P.W.4. For the sake of brevity, we do not like to go into details of his evidence. 10. P.W.6 is Debaki Singh. In her evidence she stated that on the issue of brass pitcher, there was some dispute between the appellants and the deceased. She could learn about this dis¬pute from the deceased herself. Such occurrence took place about a year back. 10. P.W.6 is Debaki Singh. In her evidence she stated that on the issue of brass pitcher, there was some dispute between the appellants and the deceased. She could learn about this dis¬pute from the deceased herself. Such occurrence took place about a year back. She further stated in her evidence that when on one day she had gone to village pond she found that the deceased was weeping. On being asked by her as to why the deceased was weep¬ing, she told her that she could not arrange a brass pitcher from her father to fulfil the demand of her parents-in-law for dowry in this regard, and for such failure appellant No.1 was torturing her. So far, she supported the prosecution story. However, in other respects she declined to support the prosecution story and therefore, she was declined hostile and with the leave of the trial Court she was cross-examined by the prosecution. But, so far as demand for dowry and failure of the deceased to fulfil such demand and for which she was put to torture are all support¬ed by this witness. 11. P.W. 7 Binod Nahak, as we have already indicated, is an important witness for the prosecution. In his evidence she stated that about a year ago P.W.1 called him to his house and told him that his daughter was seriously ill. Then this witness and one Arun Kashyap accompanied P.W. 1 to the house of appellants. On reaching the village of the appellants, the villagers of that village reported them that the appellants did not abide by the settlement arrived at by the panchayat. They further requested them to report the matter at the Police Station and shift the deceased to the hospital. When she was being shifted to the hospital, she narrated that her husband pressed her neck. She also told them that in the previous night the appellants gave her poison. After her admission in the hospital, she was made to vomit there. At that time, both of them were present along with the police constable. When she was being shifted, she further told them that for not supplying the brass pitcher, the appel¬lants were torturing her. This is, in short, the evidence given by this witness during her examination in chief. 12. At that time, both of them were present along with the police constable. When she was being shifted, she further told them that for not supplying the brass pitcher, the appel¬lants were torturing her. This is, in short, the evidence given by this witness during her examination in chief. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that P.W.7 stated in his evidence that when the deceased was being shifted to hospital the deceased made an oral dying declaration. On the other hand, this prosecution witness P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the deceased made an oral dying declaration in the house of the appellants themselves. So, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this is clearly a contradiction with regard to the place where precisely the deceased made the dying declaration. Hence the evidence given by P.W.7 with regard to oral dying declaration should be discarded. We are sorry to say that on that ground the evidence relating to oral dying declara¬tion as given by P.Ws.1 and 7 cannot be discarded for the simple reason that the deceased might have made the dying declarations at more than one place and therefore, on that ground alone we cannot discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 in this regard which we otherwise find to be fully credible. We have also scanned the evidence the evidence given by this witness during his cross-examination. But, we find nothing substantial to discredit this witness. We find this witness to be fully reliable and there is absolutely no reason to discard his evidence. 13. P.W.8 Dr. Mahendra Kumar Tripathy was attached to S.D. Hospital, Kuchinda on 2.2.1997. On that date he conducted Post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. During such examination he found no external injury and therefore, he opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. However, he preserved the viscera for chemical analysis. Time of death as ascertained by him is 48 hours from the time of Post-mortem examination. 14. P.W. 9 Dr. Omprakash Patel stated in his evidence that on 31.1.1997 he was attached to Kuntara P.H.C. as an Assistant Surgeon on deputation. On the requisition of Police, he examined the deceased. He found an injury of swelling and tenderness over the left side of the neck measuring 2" x 3" in size, which was simple in nature. 14. P.W. 9 Dr. Omprakash Patel stated in his evidence that on 31.1.1997 he was attached to Kuntara P.H.C. as an Assistant Surgeon on deputation. On the requisition of Police, he examined the deceased. He found an injury of swelling and tenderness over the left side of the neck measuring 2" x 3" in size, which was simple in nature. It was further found by him that such injury might have been cause due to throttling. He submitted his report being Ext.11 in this regard. This story that he found a swelling injury on the neck which might have been caused by throttling lends corroboration to the dying declaration of the deceased that she was attempted to be throttled. During his further re-examina¬tion by the prosecution, he stated in his evidence that on Police requisition he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 1.2.1997 at 1 p.m. when she was still alive. On being asked by him as to what caused her condition like that, she stated that on 29.1.1997 during night appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain being her husband quarrelled with her for not bringing brass utensils and brass pitcher from the house of her parents and throttled her neck. As she raised alarm, appellant No.1 released her from further throttling. On the next day, during night he forcibly administered into her mouth a sweet locally called “Mitha Gajja” and for this reason she was suffering. On further inquiry by P.W. 9 as to why her husband tortured her, she stated that appellant No.1 was always demanding for dowry. He also quarrelled with her earlier on this issue. In order to kill her she was throttled and forcibly poisoned. Her parents-in-law were also torturing her. They were also demanding for dowry. This dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased in the hospital itself was recorded by P.W.9 which is marked as Ext.12. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the cross-examination part of evidence of this witness stated that admittedly the dying declaration does not contain official seal of P.W.9, and for this reason he wants us to discard his evidence of the dying declara¬tion as recorded by him. We are sorry to say that this cannot be a ground in law to discard the dying declaration of the deceased. We are sorry to say that this cannot be a ground in law to discard the dying declaration of the deceased. It is not the requirement of Section 32 of the Evidence Act that the Doctor who records the dying declaration of the deceased must give his official seal in order to render it admissible. There¬fore, we are constrained to reject this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. It is further case of the learned counsel for the appellants that during the time when the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded, her pupils were dilated and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants wants us to believe that the deceased was not in a fit state of body and mind to make a conscious statement while making the dying declaration in ques¬tion. However, it clearly appears from the evidence of P.W.9 that when the deceased was making the dying declaration she was able to talk. From this, we are of the view that the deceased was in a fit state of body and mind to make a conscious statement when she made the dying declaration. Merely because the pupils were dilat¬ed, we cannot readily jump to the conclusion that she was not in a fit state of body and mind or for that reason the dying decla¬ration has to be discarded. We are sorry to observe that on that ground we cannot reject the evidence furnished by the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 9. In the dying declaration the deceased stated in answer to the first question posed by P.W. 9 as follows : “In the night of 29th January, 1997, my husband Jogeswar Swain quarrelled with me. He asked me to get a brass pitcher from my father’s house. Thereafter he pressed my neck and when I shouted he left me. On the next day night he forcibly put a sweet (Mitha Gajja) in my month for which I am suffering.” Pursuant to second question put to her by P.W.9, she further stated as follows : “He was always demanding dowry. Earlier also he quarrelled with me. With the intention of killing me he had pressed my neck and also administered poison. My mother-in-law and father-in-law were also torturing me and they were also demanding dowry.” 16. Earlier also he quarrelled with me. With the intention of killing me he had pressed my neck and also administered poison. My mother-in-law and father-in-law were also torturing me and they were also demanding dowry.” 16. P.W. 10, who was A.S.I. attached to Kusumi Out Post at the time of occurrence, conducted investigation of the case at the initial stage and stated in his evidence that Dr. Omprakash Patel of Kuntara P.H.C., seized some vomited substance of the deceased and the same was seized by P.W.10 under a seizure memo. It further appears that the aforesaid samples of earth containing vomited materials, control earth, one glass bottle, one printed orange red colour saree of the deceased, one orange red colour saya and one rose red colour blouse were forwarded by the Inves¬tigating Officer of the case (P.W.14) under his letter dated 5.3.1997 with appropriate authorization certificate from the S.D.J.M., Kuchinda for medical analysis of the said articles with certain questions formulated therein. The Deputy Director and Chemical Examiner of the Government of Orissa for the Regional Forensic Laboratory by his letter dated 30.4.1997 addressed to the S.D.J.M., Kuchinda submitted his report. On analysis of the aforesaid articles forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory they were found to contain “active principle of cleistanthus collinus (karada)”. Therefore, from the aforesaid report of the Forensic Laboratory, it is clear that the deceased died due to poisoning. This report clearly lends corroboration to the dying declaration made by the deceased not only to his relations and others, but also to a completely disinterested witness, namely, P.W. 9 Dr. Omprakash Patel; 17. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, coupled with the written dying declaration as well as oral dying declaration, we are left with no doubt that the deceased was poisoned to death, and for poisoning her it was none but appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain, who was responsible. However, there is no evidence that appellant Nos.2 and 3, namely, Kalandi Swain and Kumari Swain respectively were responsible directly or indirectly for adminis¬tering poison to the deceased for causing her death. In these circumstances, we find that the conviction of appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain under Section 498A/34, IPC were fully justified. But the conviction of appellant Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302/34, IPC was not at all justified. However, it needs to be stated here that as appellant No.1 himself administered poison to the de¬ceased. In these circumstances, we find that the conviction of appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain under Section 498A/34, IPC were fully justified. But the conviction of appellant Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302/34, IPC was not at all justified. However, it needs to be stated here that as appellant No.1 himself administered poison to the de¬ceased. As per our conclusion on the basis of evidence discussed above, his conviction should have been recorded directly under Section 302, IPC instead of holding him to be vicariously respon¬sible for the death of the deceased under Section 302/34, IPC. Therefore, we alter the conviction of appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain to Section 302, IPC. We quash the conviction of appellant Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302/34, IPC and maintain conviction of all the appellants under Section 498A/34, IPC, as we have found that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased made dying declaration not only before her relations but also she made dying declaration before P.W. 9 Dr. Omprakash Patel that for her failure to fulfil the demand for dowry by the appel¬lants she used to be tortured frequently. In the circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of all appellants under Section 498A/34, IPC and sentence passed thereunder and also altering the conviction of appellant No.1 Jogeswar Swain from Section 302/34, IPC to Section 302, IPC and sentence of the life imprisonment thereunder, we quash the conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302/34, IPC. We are told that appellant Nos.2 and 3, namely, Kalandi Swain and Kumari Swain have already been released on bail after they suffered imprisonment to some extent. 18. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal of appel¬lant No.1. With regard to appellant Nos. 2 and 3, we have already quashed their conviction and sentence under Section 302/34, IPC, while maintaining their conviction and sentence under Section 498A/34, IPC. With regard to appellant Nos.2 and 3, we direct that if they have not fully served out the sentence already passed by the trial Court, they shall surrender before the trial Court within a month from today to serve out the remaining part of sentence passed against them under Section 498A/34 IPC. 19. The Criminal Appeal is thus disposed of. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Crl. appeal disposed of.