JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - In this appeal challenge is made to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri T. Purohit, 1 st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri on 10th March 2004 in S.T. Case No. 13/251 of 2003 by which he while acquitting the Appellant of the charge u/s 306 I.P.C. convicted her under Sections 498-A/304-B of the I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 304-B of the I.P.C. and in view of such sentence did not pass any separate sentence u/s 498-A of the I.P.C. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:- Manorama (hereinafter called the 'deceased') had married Srikanta Acharya, son of the Appellant, on 28.4.1999. At the time of marriage cash of Rs.50, 000/- along with gold and silver ornaments were given as dowry. However, the Appellant and her younger son Susanta Acharya (the absconding accused) demanded further dowry worth Rs.25, 000/-and subjected the deceased to ill-treatment and torture. On 17.04.2001, it is alleged that they tied up hands and legs of the deceased and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. In this process, the deceased received severe burn injuries on her body. The brother of the deceased Harekrushna Nanda on receiving telephonic message about a fire accident, came to the house of the accused persons and found the deceased lying with severe burn injuries. He, with the help of Ors. removed her to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri in an autorickshaw.On the way the deceased disclosed the occurrence before her brother. Furthermore, in the hospital, her statement about the occurrence was recorded by a doctor on police requisition to which Anr. doctor was witness. In both the dying declarations, she impficated the Appellant and Susanta Acharya to have burnt her. On the basis of F.I.R. lodged by Srikanta, police registered a P.S. Case and took up investigation. After completion of which charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant and her younger son Susanta under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the I.P.C. wherein Susanta was shown as absconder. Learned trial Court framed charge against the Appellant under Sections 498-A/304-B and also 306/34 of the I.P.C. During trial the plea of the accused was one of total denial. 3. The prosecution examined a total of 7 witnesses to prove its case. Out of whom P.W.1-Jagannath Nanda is the brother of the deceased. Learned trial Court framed charge against the Appellant under Sections 498-A/304-B and also 306/34 of the I.P.C. During trial the plea of the accused was one of total denial. 3. The prosecution examined a total of 7 witnesses to prove its case. Out of whom P.W.1-Jagannath Nanda is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2-Harekrushna Nanda is Anr. brother and informant. P.W.4-Harihar Senapati and P.W.3-Bijoy Kumar Bastia are seizure witnesses. P.W.5-Dr. Gagan Bihari Acharya recorded dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.6-Dr.Harish Chandra Pandit conducted post?mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and P.W.7-Debi Prasad Das, S.I. of Police, Puri Town P.S. is the I.O. No defence was adduced. Learned trial Court on scanning of evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid occasioning the present appeal. 4. Mr. Nachiketa Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously urged that the entire prosecution evidence is full of contradiction in this case and there have been numerous improvement, suspicious circumstances and misrepresentations. According to him, the alleged dying declarations made by the deceased are not worthy of belief and the learned Court below should not have convicted the appe!!ant basing on the same. Mr. Pani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand have supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned trial Court found the case not to be one of suicide and therefore, acquitted the accused of offence u/s 306 I.P.C. Discussion in his judgment shows that he found the case to be one of homicide inasmuch as he believed the story put forth by the prosecution at the time of trial that the Appellant and the absconding accused tied up the hands and legs of the deceased, poured kerosene on her and setup her ablaze, thereby causing her death. Charge sheet was placed u/s 306 I.P.C. since the I.O. found the case to be one of suicide and not of homicide. The prosecution can succeed only by proving the very case as it alleges and not otherwise. The charge may be same but the manner of commission of the offence 6 may be different. Charge sheet was placed u/s 306 I.P.C. since the I.O. found the case to be one of suicide and not of homicide. The prosecution can succeed only by proving the very case as it alleges and not otherwise. The charge may be same but the manner of commission of the offence 6 may be different. lt is true that even if, the death of the deceased was caused by suicide or homicide and if there was a dowry demand soon before her death then offence under 304-B can be said to have been made out. However, the prosecution cannot allege a case of suicide and be allowed to succeed by proving homicidal death. To give an example, if the prosecution alleges in a particular case that the accused caused the death of the deceased by cutting off his head, at the time of trial, the prosecution cannot be allowed to prove that the accused caused the death of the deceased by poisoning though in both the cases the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. would have remained the same. At the cost of repetition it may be reiterated that charge sheet was submitted in this case inter alia u/s 306 I.P.C. and the mode of death alleged by the prosecution was suicide and no charge u/s 302 I.P.C. was framed in this case. 6. Sri A.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel has suggested that Section 304-B I.P.C. consists of two parts i.e. unnatural or suicidal death and demand of dowry and therefore, though the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of offence u/s 306 I.P.C. it rightly convicted the accused u/s 304-B I.P.C. since Section 306 I.P.C. is a minor offence with regard to Section 304-B I.P.C. This Argument though ingenious is fallacious. The death of the deceased was found by the trial Court to be due to homicide and not by suicide. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of offence u/s 306 I.P.C. The State having not preferred any appeal against such finding must be deemed to have accepted the finding and cannot now turn around and seek a conviction under the very same Section showing that is a minor offence with regard to Section 304-B I.P.C. In addition to that as would be seen infra, demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased by accused has not been established in this case. Therefore, the charge u/s 304-B of I.P.C. is bound to fail. 7. A man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It is under this supposition that a dying declaration has been made admissible u/s 32 of the Indian Evidence Act though it is untested by cross-examination. Inherently therefore, it is a weak piece of evidence and usually courts should seek some corroboration from independent sources. Conversely, if a dying declaration is tainted with some suspicious circumstances, it should be thrown out wholesale. In the present case, the dying declaration is the sole basis of the prosecution case in as much as no other circumstance is forthcoming directly or indirectly regarding the death of the deceased. The first dying declaration was allegedly made to the brothers of the deceased in the tempo while the deceased was being shifted to the hospital and thereafter the second dying declaration was made to two doctors one of whom has been examined in this case. The I.O. namely Debi Prasad Das (P.W.7) has tried to make out a third dying declaration showing that the deceased made such a dying declaration in his presence and in the presence of the doctor which was not reduced to writing and thereafter he left the place and the doctors recorded a similar dying declaration again. This aspect of this case has not been stated by any other witness nor has it been reflected in the case diary. Therefore, it can safely be excluded from consideration. 8. As far as the dying declaration made to the doctor (P.W.5), it is fraught with serious infirmities. The alleged requisition was addressed to the A.D.M.O. but it never reached the A.D.M.O. P.W.5 himself intervened and recorded the dying declaration on his own without being directed by the A.D.M.O. in this behalf and without his permission. This aspect has been sought to be explained away by P.W.5 by showing that there was no time to obtain the permission of the A.D.M.O. Under such circumstances, what prevented the I.O., who was present at the hospital to have addressed the requisition to P.W.5 himself who was the doctor in attendance and was treating the deceased and what prevented P.W.5 from mentioning in the dying declaration that he could not obtain permission of the A.D.M.O. because of urgency. No signature of any other witness was obtained in the dying declaration though it is admitted by witnesses that 10 to 15 persons were present at that time. None of such witnesses was also examined in the case nor has been cited in the charge sheet. No signature or L.T.I, of the deceased was taken in the dying declaration. It is sought to be explained away by showing that her hands were burnt so her L.T.I, or signature could not be obtained. However, no endorsement to this effect is available in the dying declaration nor the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination has noted that her palms were burnt. The condition of the deceased was extremely low as revealed from the bed head ticket and as deposed by the doctor-P.W.5. The bed head ticket exhibited as Ext. A on behalf of defense, shows that the deceased had suffered 100% burn and was grasping, her pulse could not be felt and B.P. was not recordable. She had been administered pain killers. Under the circumstances, she could hardly have made the dying declaration as alleged. The presence of I.O. at the time of recording of the dying declaration is also contradictory. Whereas P.W.1 has stated that P.W.7 was present at the time of recording of dying declaration, P.W.2 has denied the same. P.W.7 himself has stated that he was not present at the time of recording of dying declaration though he has tried to make out a third case by showing that the deceased first made a dying declaration and after he went away, the doctor again recorded the same. The most telling circumstance is that in the case diary though it has been specifically mentioned that the dying declaration was recorded in a separate sheet by the doctor and the same has also been confirmed by the I.O. the said paper is not forthcoming. Under the circumstances, what happened to the separate sheet on which the dying declaration was recorded remains doubtful. Such a dying declaration either recorded in the separate sheet or on the back side of the requisition was not forwarded to the Court at the earliest but as it seems was sent to the Court along with charge sheet only. Under the circumstances, what happened to the separate sheet on which the dying declaration was recorded remains doubtful. Such a dying declaration either recorded in the separate sheet or on the back side of the requisition was not forwarded to the Court at the earliest but as it seems was sent to the Court along with charge sheet only. To caps it all, P.W.5 the doctor the sole witness on behalf of the prosecution in whose presence the dying declaration was recorded has been constrained to admit in the cross-examination that a case has been instituted against him relating to an earlier incident alleging that he fabricated a dying declaration and the case was then sub-judice. In that case also this witness had recorded the dying declaration with Dr. Udaya Bhanu Das, who is also a witness to the dying declaration in this case and an accused in that case. The dying declaration is thus extremely suspicious and therefore is not worthy of belief. It is apparent that P.W.5, the other doctor and the brothers of the deceased have conspired to create a dying declaration to see the accused convicted. For the aforesaid reason the other dying declaration i.e. the one made by the deceased in the auto is also not believable. 9. With regard to demand of dowry by the Appellant, the I.O. did not find the same to be sustainable on evidence collected and hence, no charge sheet was placed u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. Demand of dowry being an integral part of offence u/s 304-B I.P.C., it is not understood how charge was framed under this Section without a charge having been framed u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. In any event, scanning of the record shows that the allegation with regard to the demand of dowry by the accused is prevaricating, scanty and at best omnibus. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that demand was made of articles worth about Rs. 25, 000/-. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are brothers of the deceased have stated in an omnibus manner that the accused and her son Sushanta were demanding Rs.50, 000/-more as dowry and well ill-treating the deceased for the same though they have not stated when such demand was made nor in whose presence. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there is virtually no evidence available that the accused had demanded Rs. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there is virtually no evidence available that the accused had demanded Rs. 25, 000/- as further dowry soon before the death of the deceased and that she was subjected to cruelty or ill-treatment with regard to the demand of dowry by the accused. Likewise no evidence is at all available with regard to any specific ill-treatment or any other demand besides dowry. So charge u/s 498-A I.P.C. is also bound to fail. 10. The role of the police in this case is extremely suspicious. As soon as report about commission of cognizable offence is made to the Officer-in-charge of a police station he is duty bound to proceed as provided u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure In other words, he must give a copy of the written F.I.R. or reduce the report to writing if made orally and provide a copy of the same to the informant. Thereafter he must register a P.S. Case and make an S.D. entry and take up investigation of the case and he may proceed to the spot himself. In the present case the case diary reveals that none of such procedure was followed. The case diary starts after receipt of the F.I.R. allegedly lodged by Jagannath Nanda (P.W.1) at 12.15 P.M. Later a note has been made that 10.30 A.M. one Jaykrushna Nanda reported the matter before the A.S.I., J.N. Mishra alleging dowry death of the deceased committed by the accused and absconding accused Sushanta. This J.K. Nanda has not been cited as charge sheet witness nor has been examined in this case. What happened to the F.I.R. lodged by him is not known ? It is also not known whether he had reported the matter orally or had presented a written report. J.N. Mishra, A.S.I, of Police before whom this J.K. Nanda alleged to have reported the matter has also not been cited as a witness in the charge sheet and has not been examined in the case by the prosecution. If the A.S.I., J.N. Mishra in fact received the F.I.R. or if the matter was reported to him orally then what he did with regard to the case is not known. He being merely an A.S.I, of Police of the Town Police Station could not have issued requisition for dying declaration not could have taken any steps for investigation of the case. He being merely an A.S.I, of Police of the Town Police Station could not have issued requisition for dying declaration not could have taken any steps for investigation of the case. Then who issued the requisition for recording of dying declaration? P.W.7 has claimed that he had done so. However, he was definitely not in-charge of the investigation by then and therefore did not have any authority to issue the requisition. It is interesting to note that no P.S. Case number is forthcoming on the requisition for recording of dying declaration. This shows that no P.S. Case was registered at least till then. In fact as mentioned above, till 12.15 P.M. no P.S. Case was registered. During this time, however, the police had involved itself in the case and supposedly P.W.7 was at the hospital and had given a requisition for recording of dying declaration and had received intimation regarding the death of the victim along with dying declaration and also had examined two doctors who were involved in recording the supposed dying declaration which is found to be suspicious as noted above. 11. As per the recording in the case diary itself, the earlier F.I.R. has been suppressed and later investigation was done on the basis of the 2nd F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1 Under the circumstances, this gives rise to a grave suspicion as to why the first F.I.R. was suppressed. This fact coupled with the conduct of the doctors, I.O. and P.Ws. 1 and 2 makes it abundantly clear that the informant party has left no stone unturn to secure the conviction of the accused. Unfortunately, they have also succeeded in their effort. 12. The I.O. when inspected the spot found two wooden railings of the window to have been cut and also seized the same. The husband of the deceased has stated before the police that he cut the railings and entered into the room of the deceased and put out the fire. The accused has also stated in her statement u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that the deceased committed suicide. She has given reason for the same that when she asked the husband of the deceased to leave the residential house, he told that his wife was not willing for the same and there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband for the said reason. She has given reason for the same that when she asked the husband of the deceased to leave the residential house, he told that his wife was not willing for the same and there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband for the said reason. Obviously that was the reason for the deceased committing suicide and all the materials in this case supported the theory of suicide and not of murder. The deceased allegedly told the doctor in her dying declaration that her legs and hands were tied by the absconding accused, however, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that only her hands were tied. In the F.I.R. also tying up the hands only is mentioned and not of the legs. In any event, neither any ropes nor any other materials was recovered or seized by the police from the spot. Even if it is assumed that the deceased was burnt with her legs and hands tied then there could not have been any continuous burn injuries in her hands and legs as is apparent from the photographs on record. 13. On the above discussion, we conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C., therefore the Appellant is acquitted of the charges. She be set at liberty forthwith. The appeal is accordingly allowed. P.K. Tripathy, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Allowed