Judgment Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376/511, 306, 365 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed under Sections 376/511 and also punished with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to serve further rigorous imprisonment for one month, eight years for the offence committed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also punished with fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default to serve further rigorous imprisonment for one month and five years for the offence committed under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and also punished with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to serve further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report by the informant Gulfasa Aslam is that the appellant used to blackmail and vex her so her mother sent her to her Mausi at Delhi where appellant also vexed her and ultimately eloped with him. She further alleged that she was threatened to kill her family members to fulfil the demand of the appellant. She has further alleged that on 09.05.2011 at about 11:55 A.M. while she was standing near her door, the appellant along with another unknown person forcibly kidnapped her on a motorcycle with intention to commit rape, however, the informant anyhow managed to escape. It is further alleged that the appellant pressurized her to administer poison to her parents and to kill them and come with the appellant forever. She has been compelled to commit suicide and ultimately she sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, First Information Report was lodged bearing Laheri P.S. Case No. 104 of 2011 and later on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was also added to the original First Information Report lodged under Sections 341, 342, 365, 376, 324, 307/115 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After lodging of the First Information Report investigation proceeded and during investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and post-mortem was also conducted. 5. After lodging of the First Information Report investigation proceeded and during investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and post-mortem was also conducted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and subsequently case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge was framed for the offence under Sections 342, 365, 376, 511 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and after trial the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that there is no legal evidence except the evidence of P.W. 7 as the father and mother of the victim have also declared hostile having not supported the prosecution case. 7. Learned counsel for the State, however, contended that P.W. 9 is the Police Officer who recorded the statement of the victim and her statement has also been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. P.W. 9 has specifically stated that the victim in her statement deposed about the circumstance of the case and was found in burnt state and died during her treatment and hence, her statement recorded by P.W. 9 Police Officer as well as the Magistrate being deemed to be dying declaration and judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been recorded in view of the fact that her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate as dying declaration is within the purview of Sections 32 and 6 of the Evidence Act and hence, contended that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is required to be maintained as the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 8. However, First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the statement of the victim herself as an informant recorded by P.W. 9 Prabha Kumari S.I. posted at Biharsharif Police Station and she has stated that on that day on the order of the Officer-in-Charge she recorded the fardbeyan of Gulfasa Aslam and after recording her statement the same was read over and after hearing the statement she put her signature and P.W. 9 proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 3. 9. 3. 9. P.W. 7 Basant Kumar is Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and after recording her statement, signature of the victim was taken. P.W. 7 has also proved the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her signature over it, which has been marked as Exts. 2 and 2/1. 10. However, two witnesses have been examined as P.W. 8. One is Sunil Kumar Ambastha, Sub-Inspector who is the Investigating Officer of the case. He referred the victim to the PMCH and on 27.05.2011 got the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate and has proved the fardbeyan Ext. 3. Another P.W. 8 is Doctor Sri Kant Prasad who has conducted the post-mortem on the person of the deceased on 29.07.2011 at 6:15 P.M. and has stated that the cause of death is septicemia by burn injury and has proved the post-mortem report as Ext. 5. 11. P.W. 1 has stated that he learnt that the victim Gulfasa Aslam has set herself on fire, went there and saw her in burnt state. 12. P.W. 2 has stated that on the sound of cry he went and broke open the door and saw the victim in burnt state. 13. P.W. 3 is the father of the victim. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was at his shop and when he learnt on telephone about the occurrence went there and broke the door and took her to the PMCH. 14. P.W. 4 is the mother of the victim. She has stated that on the sound of cry she ran at the place of occurrence and Mohalla people broke open the door and found the victim in burnt state. 15. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the witnesses of the inquest report. 16. Hence, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there is no witness to support the prosecution case regarding the occurrence alleged in the First Information Report and the only material is the statement of the victim recorded by P.W. 9 on the basis of which First Information Report lodged and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate which has been marked as Ext. 2. 2. However, in both the documents, the statement of the victim recorded has been duly proved. The victim stated that appellant used to blackmail and vex her so her mother sent her at Delhi to the place of her Mausi. The appellant also used to vex her there and elope her by force. She further alleged that the appellant used to compel her under the threat of the life of her family members to fulfill the demand of the appellant. She has further alleged that on 09.05.2011 at about 11:55 A.M. while she was standing near her door the appellant along with another unknown person forcibly kidnapped her on a motorcycle with intention to commit rape. However, the informant anyhow managed to escape. It is further alleged that the appellant pressurized her to administer poison to her parents and to kill them and come with the appellant forever, so she was compelled to commit suicide and ultimately she sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire because she did not want to live with the appellant who is of criminal character. 17. However, similar type of statement has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 27.05.2011 and subsequently she died and post-mortem was conducted on 29.07.2011 by Dr. Sri Kant Prasad. The said post-mortem report has been proved as Ext. 5. 18. Hence, the evidence of the victim/informant before the Police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act which states that statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, and these statements are relevant when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the causes of that person’s deaths comes into question. 19. 19. Here the question for consideration is that the victim in her statement both before P.W. 7 the Judicial Magistrate as well as P.W. 9 the Police Officer stated to the effect that she was being vexed by the appellant and she committed suicide by putting kerosene oil and setting her on fire and hence, under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, the circumstance of the transaction which resulted into her death is admissible in evidence and hence, with regard to the cause of death these are the relevant consideration. 20. However, the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code recorded against the appellant is maintainable in view of the fact that the statement made by the victim is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act regarding the cause of death. However, the conviction under Sections 365 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable as with regard to these offences, the only evidence is the evidence of the victim which is not admissible for conviction under Sections 376/511 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and is hit by hearsay. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that it is a matter of love affairs and the appellant is in jail since 09.08.2011 i.e. more than three years and hence, a lenient view may be taken. 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone by him and hence, with this modification in the sentence to the extent of period already undergone, the appeal is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.