JUDGMENT Honble R.A. Singh, J.—This appeal has been preferred by appellants Smt. Shyam Pyari, Meeta Rajbhar, Shyam Jeet Rajbhar and Ram Jeet Rajbhar against judgment and order dated 19.7.2001, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 938 of 1998, State v. Ram Jeet Rajbhar and 5 others, under Section 304-B/34 and 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jansa, District Varanasi, whereby all appellants except Shambhu Rajbhar and Amravati have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and under Section 498-A to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years as well as under Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. But accused Shambhu Rajbhar and Smt. Amravati have been acquitted of above charges framed against them. 2. Prosecution case briefly described in FIR is that Gita Devi aged 20 years, sister of informant Munna Lal Rajbhar was married with appellant Ram Jeet Rajbhar, son of Meeta, resident of Village Titkhauri, P.S. Jansa, District Varanasi about three and half years before this occurrence, in which informant parted with dowry according to his capacity. The family members of bridegroom thereafter continued to make demand of money, utensils, television and golden ornaments. On 26.1.1997 in the afternoon Shambhu Rajbhar, brother-in-law of appellant Ram Jeet informed the informant Munna Lal Rajbhar at his house about his sister Gita being seriously ill, at which informant along-with his younger brother Bachau @ Dau reached Titkhauri and came to know that his sister was in burnt condition and confined in a kothri of weaving factory near house of accused persons. The informant etc. then found their sister Gita lying in burnt condition on a cot, at which they got her admitted in Kabir Chora Hospital at 9 PM. The victim Gita made her statement before them that her husband Ram Jeet Rajbhar and his elder brother Shyam Jeet Rajbhar had been pressurising her to bring Television for last ten days and on 25.1.1997 at about 9 PM, they sprinkling kerosene oil burnt her by setting fire and also confined in the said kothri and on the alarm raised by her the inhabitants of nearby places took her out and carried to a doctor at Akelwa crossing and again brought her to the house at about 11 PM. The accused persons did not get her treated because they intended to kill her. 3. The victim Gita was then brought by informant party to S.S.P.G. Hospital and was medically examined on 26.1.1997 at 9 PM vide medical report (Ex. Ka 3) and admitted for treatment. On the basis of written report (Ex. Ka 1) lodged by Munna Lal a case under Section 307/506/498-A, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at P.S. Jansa on 28.1.1997 at 1 PM and investigated by the police. 4. During her treatment victim died at S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi on 5.2.1997 at 7.20 PM due to septicaemiac shock as a result of infected burn injuries. The dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) of victim Gita was also recorded by Sri Radhey Shyam Mishra Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi on 27.1.1997 at 11.45 AM after getting a fitness certificate from the doctor. 5. The Investigating Officer then altered the case under Section 304-B, IPC, along with other sections and inquest proceedings were conducted by Sri Awdhesh Mani Tripathi Additional City Magistrate, IV, Varanasi on 6.2.1997 at 1.20 P.M. in S.S.P.G. Hospital Varanasi vide inquest report (Ex. Ka 8) and autopsy of dead body was also conducted by Dr. G.S. Jaiswal and Dr. C.M. Tiwari on 7.2.1997 vide post-mortem report (Ex. Ka 2). The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation submitted chargesheet (Ex. Ka 10). 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi after having supplied copies of all documents to the accused persons under Section 207, Cr.P.C. committed them to the Court of Sessions for trial vide his order dated 3.10.1998. 7. The charges under Section 304-B/498-A, IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act were framed by Additional Sessions Judge 12th Varanasi against Ram Jeet Rajbhar and Shyam Jeet Rajbhar on 20.4.1999. The separate charges under Section 304B read with Section 34 and 120-B/498-A, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act were also framed against accused Meeta Rajbhar, Smt. Shyam Pyari Devi, Smt. Amravati Devi and Shambhu Rajbhar on the same day. All accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to substantiate the charges prosecution examined P.W. 1 Bachau, brother of deceased, P.W. 2 Kalawati, mother of deceased, P.W. 3 Munna Lal, brother of deceased and P.W. 4 Guddar father of deceased. Prosecution also examined P.W. 5 Dr. All accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to substantiate the charges prosecution examined P.W. 1 Bachau, brother of deceased, P.W. 2 Kalawati, mother of deceased, P.W. 3 Munna Lal, brother of deceased and P.W. 4 Guddar father of deceased. Prosecution also examined P.W. 5 Dr. G.S. Jaiswal, who conducted post-mortem examination, P.W. 6 V. P. Jaiswal, who examined injuries of victim, P.W. 7 head constable Manbodh Singh, who prepared First Information Report and made entry in general diary of police station, P.W. 8 Radhey Shyam Mishra, Additional City Magistrate, who recorded dying declaration and P.W. 9 Dy. S.P. Rajiv Narayan Mishra, Investigating Officer. The accused persons examined D.W. 1 Shyam Lal in their defence. 9. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in which they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to have been falsely implicated on account of some misunderstanding and village enmity. They also stated that the deceased caught fire due to burst of stove and they did not set her on fire. 10. P.W. 1 Bachau, P.W. 2 Smt. Kalavati, P.W. 3 Munna Lal , P.W. 4 Guddar did not support the prosecution story and they were declared hostile by prosecution, however P.W. 3 Munna Lal in his cross-examination admitted his signature on written report (Ex. Ka 1). He stated that this report was prepared by his brother-in-law Shobhnath on dictation of Sub-Inspector of Police. 11. P.W. 5 Dr. G.S. Jaiswal conducted post-mortem examination of deceased Gita Devi w/o Ram Jeet Rajbhar on 7.2.1997 at 7.20 P.M. in mortuary of BHU and prepared post-mortem report (Ex. Ka 2). He found infected burnt injuries on the entire body of victim Gita Devi and she died due to septicemic shock. 12. Dr. V.P. Jaiswal examined the injuries of victim Gita Devi on 26.1.1997 at 9 PM, prepared examination report (Ex. Ka 3) and found superficial to deep burn injuries on her face, neck and front and back of chest, abdoman, lever and both legs about 75%. He admitted the victim in hospital for treatment and informed the police and Magistrate accordingly. 13. P.W. 7, Head Constable Mahabodh Singh prepared chick FIR (Ex. Ka 3) and found superficial to deep burn injuries on her face, neck and front and back of chest, abdoman, lever and both legs about 75%. He admitted the victim in hospital for treatment and informed the police and Magistrate accordingly. 13. P.W. 7, Head Constable Mahabodh Singh prepared chick FIR (Ex. Ka 4) in his own handwriting and stated that it was prepared on the basis of written report lodged by informant Munna Lal and he also made an entry in General Diary of Police Station vide extract (Ex. Ka 5). 14. P.W. 8 Radhey Shyam Mishra, Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi after receiving a written message, reached hospital on 27.1.1997 at about 11.40 AM and found victim Gita fit to make statement and then he obtained certificate of the doctor to this effect. He recorded dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) of the victim on the same day at 11.45 AM, read over the same to her and obtained her thumb impression thereon. 15. P.W. 9 Rajiv Narain Mishra Dy. S.P. investigated this case and on completion of investigation he submitted chargesheet (Ex. Ka 10). He stated that initially investigation of this case was conducted by S.I. R.P. Gautam, who prepared site plan (Ex. Ka 7) of the spot. He also proved inquest report (Ex. Ka 8) and Naksha Nash (Ex. Ka 9) in the handwriting of Awadesh Mani Tripathi, the then Additional City Magistrate IV. 16. D.W. 1 Shyam Lal examined on behalf of appellants during trial stated that on 25.1.1997 at about 9 PM victim Gita was preparing food on stove which got burst due to excessive filling of air, in which she caught fire. He further submitted that appellants did not set her on fire, on account of non-delivery of dowry demanded by them. In his cross-examination he stated that when he reached the spot, he found Gita lying on cot in burnt condition and at that time Bachau and Munna Lal, brothers of Gita Devi also reached there. The learned Trial Judge recorded his findings about this witness that he did not see actual incident as he reached there after the occurrence took place. The learned Trial Judge observed that the appellants could not get any support from statement of this defence witness. 17. We have heard Dr. Abida Sayed, learned Advocate for appellants and Km. The learned Trial Judge recorded his findings about this witness that he did not see actual incident as he reached there after the occurrence took place. The learned Trial Judge observed that the appellants could not get any support from statement of this defence witness. 17. We have heard Dr. Abida Sayed, learned Advocate for appellants and Km. Anjum Haq, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this appeal and perused the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by prosecution. It has further been submitted that deceased Gita Devi committed suicide and the appellants got her admitted in Kabir Chora Hospital and no demand of dowry was made by the appellants at any point of time. The dying declaration of Gita Devi was recorded at the time when she was unconscious and no reliance could be placed thereon. 18. So far as this argument is concerned that Gita Devi committed suicide, this is neither the case of the appellants nor they have taken this plea during trial. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have stated that Gita Devi caught fire in burst of stove. The learned counsel for appellants have not suggested such type of plea during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The defence witness has also not made such statement during trial, D.W. 1 Shyam Lal has stated that Gita Devi caught fire in burst of stove. Thus this argument advanced on behalf of appellants cannot be accepted as there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased committed suicide. 19. The learned counsel for appellants has contended that deceased Gita Devi was not in a position to make her statement as she was unconscious at the time when the dying declaration is alleged to have been recorded. The learned AGA repelling above contention has submitted that there is no such evidence on record or circumstance, which may show that deceased was unconscious or was not in a position to make her statement when dying declaration was recorded. On the other hand P.W. 6 Dr. V.P. Jaiswal, who examined injuries of Gita Devi, victim at the time of her admission in S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi, categorically stated that the victim was not unconscious at the time when her injuries were examined by him. On the other hand P.W. 6 Dr. V.P. Jaiswal, who examined injuries of Gita Devi, victim at the time of her admission in S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi, categorically stated that the victim was not unconscious at the time when her injuries were examined by him. 20. The evidence on record goes to show that P.W. 8 Radhey Shyam Mishra, Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi recorded the dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) of victim Gita Devi on 27.1.1997 at 11.45 AM. The victim Gita Devi was admitted in above hospital on 26.1.1997 at 9 PM and her injuries were examined by Dr. V.P. Jaiswal on the said date and time, who stated that she was not unconscious by that time. P.W. 8 Radhey Shyam Mishra, Additional City Magistrate stated on oath that victim Gita Devi was not unconscious and she was in a position to make her statement at the time when he recorded her statement (Ex. Ka 6) and the doctor also appended his certificate thereon to this effect that patient was conscious and fit to make her statement. He again appended his certificate at the end of statement (Ex. Ka 6) that patient remained conscious during her statement and remained so after that. No evidence or circumstance is found on record against the above factum. 21. In view of above evidence and circumstance there is nothing on record to conclude otherwise. The learned counsel for appellants has failed to point out any evidence in order to substantiate her argument that victim was unconscious at the time of her statement being recorded by above witness. The Investigating Officer has not recovered any piece of stove from the spot. There is no other evidence on record to suggest that the victim was cooking food at the time of occurrence. The defence version alleged on behalf of the appellants that she committed suicide, is not worth reliance. This contention raised on behalf of the appellants that she was not conscious when her statement is alleged to have been recorded, is also not acceptable. 22. The defence version alleged on behalf of the appellants that she committed suicide, is not worth reliance. This contention raised on behalf of the appellants that she was not conscious when her statement is alleged to have been recorded, is also not acceptable. 22. In view of above facts and circumstances attending to the case, the testimony of D.W. 1, Shyam Lal does not help the appellants in any manner as he in his cross-examination has categorically stated that when he reached the spot he found Gita Devi lying on cot in burnt condition, meaning thereby he did not see actual occurrence as alleged by the defence. Moreover he also mentioned the distance of his house from the place of occurrence as five furlongs or five bighas. Thus it was not possible for him to reach the spot on screams of the victim. He also stated that brothers of victim also reached the spot at the time when he himself reached there. It tends to the conclusion that he could not reach the spot and see the actual occurrence, because the brothers of victim reached the spot when they came to know about the incident at their house much after the occurrence took place. 23. A perusal of dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) goes to show that she made her statement without any fear or pressure on 27.1.1997 before Radhey Shyam Mishra, Additional City Magistrate nor the same can be termed to be tutored. She categorically stated that her husband Ram Jeet and his elder brother Shyam Jeet sprinkled kerosene oil on her and then set her on fire with match box and match stick and in the meantime, the inhabitants of the village reached the spot and covered her with quilt. She also stated that the appellants Ram Jeet and Shyam Jeet threatened her and made demand of Television, at which she did not speak and then the appellants set her on fire. 24. The dying declaration made by victim Gita Devi has been found corroborated by this circumstance that Ram Jeet Rajbhar being husband and custodian of his wife, Gita Devi was bound to explain the circumstances under which she fell victim of unnatural death. 24. The dying declaration made by victim Gita Devi has been found corroborated by this circumstance that Ram Jeet Rajbhar being husband and custodian of his wife, Gita Devi was bound to explain the circumstances under which she fell victim of unnatural death. On behalf of defence, it has been mentioned that she caught fire in stove burst but no part of any such stove has been found by the Investigating Officer or police on the spot. The evidence of D.W. 1 Shyam Lal is not found worth reliance on this point as discussed above. No other evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence on this point. Under these circumstances the appellants have failed to explain the circumstances under which Gita Devi fell victim of unnatural death. 25. From perusal of the evidence on record, it transpires that it has not been explained on behalf of appellants as to why the victim was not admitted in Hospital for treatment after the occurrence and the brothers of victim were not informed about this incident by any one of the appellants soon after the occurrence. No doubt prosecution witnesses including informant Munna Lal have not supported the prosecution case and thus they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. This possibility cannot be ruled out that these witnesses might have been won over by the appellants and this could be the reason that they did not support the prosecution case. All these circumstances may lead against the appellants in the light of evidence on record. 26. The dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) is supported by medical evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution as well as the circumstances as indicated above. The dying declaration is evident to show that the appellants are alleged to have sprinkled kerosene oil on victim Gita Devi and ignited flame. The statement of victim Gita Devi was recorded on 27.1.1997 at about 11.45 A.M. and she was admitted by her brothers at S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi on 26.1.1997 at 9 P.M. and thus there was no occasion for the brothers of victim to tutor her nor there was any reason of her being tutored. She succumbed to her injuries on 5.2.1997at 7.20 PM due to her deep burn injuries, in said hospital, meaning thereby she survived for about nine days after her dying declaration recorded by Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi. She succumbed to her injuries on 5.2.1997at 7.20 PM due to her deep burn injuries, in said hospital, meaning thereby she survived for about nine days after her dying declaration recorded by Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi. The victim made her dying declaration consistent with above circumstances. The victim also disclosed the entire sequence of the events before her brothers when they visited her in the kothri, wherein she was lodged by the appellants. The victim made two dying declarations, one before her brothers and second before Additional City Magistrate, who reduced the same in writing in accordance with provisions of law. Both the dying declarations have been found consistent and corroborative of each other. 27. The law relating to dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule and it is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which is quoted below : “Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases : (1) When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.” 28. The learned Additional Government Advocate has relied on Jaishree Anant Khandekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) AIR SCW 5997, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following principle: “Apart from an implicit faith in the intrinsic truthfulness of human character at the dying moments of one’s life, admissibility of dying declaration is also based on the doctrine of necessity. In many cases victim is the only eye-witness to a crime on him/her and in such situations exclusion of the dying declaration, on hearsay principle, would tend to defeat the ends of justice. American Law on dying declaration also proceeds on the twin postulates of certainty of death leading to an intrinsic faith in truthfulness of human character and the necessity principle.” 29. On certainty of death, the same strict test of English Law has been applied in American Jurisprudence. American Law on dying declaration also proceeds on the twin postulates of certainty of death leading to an intrinsic faith in truthfulness of human character and the necessity principle.” 29. On certainty of death, the same strict test of English Law has been applied in American Jurisprudence. The test has been variously expressed as ‘no hope of recovery’, ‘a settled expectation of death’. The core concept is that the expectation of death must be absolute and not susceptible to doubts and there should be no chance of operation of worldly motives. 30. The credence and the relevance of the dying declaration is admissible only when the person making such statement is in hopeless condition and expecting imminent death. Section 32 is an exception of the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death. In this respect, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of Section 32 to avoid injustice. 31. Minor discrepancies in dying declaration would not be material. A dying declaration does not cease to be one just because death took place 24 days after the incident. Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule against hearsay. Sub-section (1) of Section 32 makes the statement of the deceased admissible which is generally described as dying declaration. The dying declaration essentially means statements made by the person as to the cause of his death or as to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death. The admissibility of the dying declaration is based upon the principle that the sense of impending death produces in man’s mind the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath. The dying declaration is admissible upon consideration that the declarant has made it in extremity, when the maker is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to the falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. 32. The dying declaration is admissible upon consideration that the declarant has made it in extremity, when the maker is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to the falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. 32. The care and caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to these species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The Court has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased is not the result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court has also to see and ensure that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the Court in order to satisfy itself that the deceased was in fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, has to look for the medical opinion. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on the dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaishree Anant Khandekar’s case (Supra) has finally laid down the principles relating to admissibility of dying declaration, on the basis of which conclusion can be raised, which is reproduced as below : “The judicially evolved rules of caution for acceptance of dying declaration have been stated by this Court in Paniben (Smt.) (supra), and in para Nos. 18 and 19 of the said report, this Court has formulated several principles for accepting dying declaration, which have been laid down in various judgments of this Court in the last few decades. The principles stated in Paniben (Smt.) (supra) have been again repeated by this Court in Shakuntala (Smt.) v. State of Haryana, (2007) 10 SCC 168 . 18 and 19 of the said report, this Court has formulated several principles for accepting dying declaration, which have been laid down in various judgments of this Court in the last few decades. The principles stated in Paniben (Smt.) (supra) have been again repeated by this Court in Shakuntala (Smt.) v. State of Haryana, (2007) 10 SCC 168 . The said principles are so salutary and cardinal in nature that they deserve to be reiterated and this Court does so hereinbelow : (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (See Munnu Raja v. State of M.P.) (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (See State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar) (iii) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The Deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (See K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor.) (iv) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (See Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P.) (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (See Kake Singh v. State of M.P.) (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (See Ram Manorath v. State of U.P.) (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (See State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu.) (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (See Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar.) (ix) Normally, the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (See Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar.) (ix) Normally, the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (See Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P.) (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (See State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan.) (xi) Where there are more than one statements in the nature of dying declaration, the one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of the dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. (See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra.)” 34. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the dying declaration was a result or product of imagination tutoring or prompting, but on the other hand the same appears to have been made by the victim Gita Devi voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility. It has been noted that the evidence in the dying declaration has been corroborated by the circumstances of the case. The rule of caution has been followed and the statement given in a dying declaration is consistent. There is also endorsement that the same has been read over and explained to the declarant. The victim was physically in a position to give the declaration. It has been found that the declarant was conscious to make the declaration and all the judicially evolved rules on caution were observed by the Magistrate, who recorded the statement. No error is found in recording the dying declaration of the victim and the same is found worth reliance, on the basis of which the conviction of the appellants Shyam Jeet Rajbhar and Ram Jeet Rajbhar has been recorded by the trial Court, which does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. 35. In the present case, no evidence is found against appellants Smt. Shyam Pyari and Meeta Rajbhar. The deceased has not levelled any allegation against them in her dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) in order to constitute any offence against them. 35. In the present case, no evidence is found against appellants Smt. Shyam Pyari and Meeta Rajbhar. The deceased has not levelled any allegation against them in her dying declaration (Ex. Ka 6) in order to constitute any offence against them. The learned Trial Court has wrongly held Smt. Shyam Pyari and Meeta Rajbhar guilty under the offences/charges, as the evidence against them is completely lacking and the victim Gita Devi has not uttered a word against them in this case. Consequently, appellants Smt. Shyam Pyari and Meeta Rajbhar are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them and this appeal filed on their behalf is liable to be allowed. 36. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice will be served if appellants Shyam Jeet Rajbhar and Ram Jeet Rajbhar are sentenced under Section 304 B of IPC for ten years only, in addition to sentences imposed on them under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. 37. Appeal filed on behalf of Smt. Shyam Pyari and Meeta Rajbhar is allowed and they are acquitted of the charges under Section 304 B read with Section 34 and 120-B, IPC, 498-A, IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. 38. Appeal filed on behalf of Shyam Jeet Rajbhar and Ram Jeet Rajbhar is partly allowed and sentence imposed under Section 304-B read with 34, IPC is reduced to ten years only. The sentences imposed under Section 498-A, IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act are upheld. All sentences are directed to run concurrently. The sentences already undergone by these appellants are directed to be set off in view of provisions of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned forthwith for compliance. ———