Hon ble THANVI, J.—By the instant appeal, the accused appellants have challenged the legality of the conviction and sentences recorded against them for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, vide his judgment dated 23.7.03 delivered in Sessions Case No. 6/2002. For the offence u/S. 302 IPC, all the three accused appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo six months imprisonment, whereas under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to three years S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo S.I. for two months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.11.2001 at 5.15 PM, Dr. Sushila Choudhary, S.M.O., Govt. Hospital, Sangaria informed to Mahendra Dutt, Sub Inspector, Police Station, Sangaria that one lady Smt. Kamlesh w/o Subhash (accused), who consumed spray, was admitted in the hospital, therefore, necessary action should be taken. Upon this, he went at the hospital and recorded the statement of Smt. Kamlesh in which she stated that she married three years back with Subhash son of Sri Ram. She was harassed by her husband and in-law for dowry and they demanded Rs. 50,000/-. Her husband caught hold of her mouth and mother-in-law Bhagwati, father-in-law Sri Ram and sister-in-law Manju forcibly administered spray and, thereafter, they took her to the hospital in a private jeep. Upon this statement, a case under Secs. 498A and 307 IPC was registered. The statement of Smt. Kamlesh was also recorded by the magistrate at the hospital itself. On the next day, Smt. Kamlesh died. The cause of death as the post mortem report was poison. The doctor opined that the nature of poison will be given after chemical examination report. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and filed chargesheet. After hearing the arguments on charge, the learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused u/Ss. 498A and 304 B IPC and in alternative u/Ss. 302 and 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. They produced 4 witnesses in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants as above. (3). 498A and 304 B IPC and in alternative u/Ss. 302 and 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. They produced 4 witnesses in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants as above. (3). During the pendency of appeal, accused appellant Bhagwati died and, therefore, the proceedings against her stood abated. With regard to the remaining two accused appellants viz Subhash and Sri Ram, while questioning the legality of the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that conviction is based on two dying declarations, which have been recorded at the time when the patient was not in fit condition to give the statement and also it is improved version of the deceased Kamlesh, when her parents came at the hospital. Had spray been administered by the accused appellants, she would have narrated it to the doctor, who met him earlier in the way or on reaching at the hospital to Dr. Sushila Choudhary. According to the learned counsel, except the omnibus statements, there is nothing on record that any demand was made by the accused for dowry and on the contrary, when the deceased took the spray, she was immediately taken to the hospital by the accused appellants. In such a situation, it cannot be said to be a case of either dowry death or of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/S. 302 IPC. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on some citation, which will be referred later on. (4). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. (5). Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, it appears that there is no direct evidence on the record to suggest that the accused appellants administered the spray to the deceased in the room on demand of dowry, except the two dying declarations. The first dying declaration is before the magistrate which is Ex.P. 22 recorded by Shri Gajanand Sharma (PW. 15) in the form of question-answer. In answer to question No. 3, she stated that her husband demanded Rs. The first dying declaration is before the magistrate which is Ex.P. 22 recorded by Shri Gajanand Sharma (PW. 15) in the form of question-answer. In answer to question No. 3, she stated that her husband demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her and in answer to question No. 5, she stated that after beating, her husband, his mother and father administered spray to her and she was brought to the hospital by them. This dying declaration was recorded at 5.50 PM on 19.11.01 on giving certificate by the doctor, Ex. P. 18 that patient is in a fit condition to give statement. (6). Second dying declaration is Ex. P. 1, which has been recorded by the police at 5.55 PM, which is in the form of statement recorded by the police in which she supported the earlier dying declaration Ex. P. 22 and further stated that her husband caught hold of her mouth and her mother in law Bhagwati, father in law Sri Ram and sister in law Manju forcibly administered spray to her and they took her to the hospital. Prior to this, she was taken to the private hospital. Thereafter, her parents came and took her to the Govt. Hospital. The spray was administered in the `Kacha Kotha of the house. Upon perusal of these two statements, it seems that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by her husband accused appellant Subhash and thereafter spray was administered by all the four. But if these two dying declarations are read in the light of the statements given by Dr. B.L. Sharma (PW. 9), Dr. Jitendra Sharma (PW. 12) and Mahendra Dutt (PW. 14), it is revealed that deceased Kamlesh herself took the spray. (7). Dr. B.L. Sharma (PW. 9) is the doctor, who saw the deceased first in a jeep on way from Bhagatpura to Sangaria in which there were 2-3 persons alongwith 2-3 ladies. Upon asking, they told that the lady was vomitting and it cannot be said as to what she had consumed. He then advised them to call her parents. In the cross examination, he has stated that the parient did not tell anything about her bad condition. (8). Dr. Jitendra Sharma (PW. Upon asking, they told that the lady was vomitting and it cannot be said as to what she had consumed. He then advised them to call her parents. In the cross examination, he has stated that the parient did not tell anything about her bad condition. (8). Dr. Jitendra Sharma (PW. 12), who is Junior Specialist at Sangaria Hospital and had conducted the post mortem, has stated that the cause of death was poisoning but he cannot say as to whether the position was administered to her or she herself consumed it. (9). Mahendra Dutt (PW. 14), who is the investigating officer, has stated that at 5.15 PM on 19.11.01, he received a telephonic message from Dr. Sushila Choudhary that Smt. Kamlesh, who is admitted in the hospital, has taken spray. Dr. Sushila Choudhary is also a member of the Board, who conducted the post mortem vide Ex. P. 17 but she has not been examined by the prosecution. The statement of Dr. B.L. Sharma (PW. 9) and Mahendra Dutt (PW. 14), if read with the statements of Ladhu Ram (DW. 1) and Surendra Kumar (DW. 2), who went to call the parents of the deceased in the jeep with the Circle Officer Shivraj Meena (PW. 16) as admitted by him, it appears that the deceased Kamlesh took the poison herself, as told by the accused appellants. These initial versions of the above four witnesses inspire more confidence than the dying declarations which have been recorded after arrival of parents of deceased. (10). That apart, the magistrate viz; Shri Gajanan Sharma (PW. 15), who recorded dying declaration, in the cross examination has stated that when he recorded the statement, there was no drip on the body of Kamlesh and she was also not on oxygen, whereas Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg (PW. 13) has stated that the drip was in motion, when the statement by the magistrate was recorded. (11). Further, the investigating officer Shivraj Meena (PW. 16) has said that from his investigation, he found that Manju was innocent and accused Subhash, his mother Bhagwati and neighbours took deceased Kamlesh to hospital in a jeep and father in law of deceased viz; Sri Ram was not on the day of the occurrence at his house and he had gone to village Bolawali, which has been corroborated from the testimony of Surendra Kumar (DW 2). (12). (12). The above evidence clearly demonstrates that on demand of Rs. 50,000/-, deceased Kamlesh took poison for which only the accused appellant Subhash is liable under Section 304 B IPC, being a case of dowry death. It is only when the deceased Kamlesh took spray, she was taken to the hospital by her husband and mother in law Bhagwati and other neighbours, where her parents were also present and in their presence and at their instance, she improved the theory of administering poison by the accused appellants. Such a dying declaration, which is improved one and made in the presence of the parents, cannot inspire confidence, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the recent decision of Mohan Lal vs. State of Haryana reported in 2007(1) WLC P. 741, wherein the relatives of the deceased were asked to leave the room, when the dying declaration was recorded, in which the allegation of dowry death was made. (13). Having scrutinized the case in the light of the above infirmities, we are of the view that it is a case of dowry death punishable u/S. 304 B & 498 A IPC against the accused appellant Subhash only. (14). Consequently, we allow this appeal in part. While setting aside the conviction & sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh vide his judgment dt. 23.7.03 against appellant Sri Ram for the offences u/Ss. 302 & 498A IPC, he is acquitted for the charges levelled against him. He is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, accused appellant Subhash is convicted for the offence u/S. 304 B, instead of Section 302 IPC & sentenced to eight years ... alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- & in default, to further undergo six months imprisonment. However, his conviction u/S. 498 A IPC & sentence of three years S.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo two months S.I. is maintained. Accused appellant Subhash is in jail, he will serve out the remaining part of the sentence, awarded.