JUDGMENT : Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. 1. This instant criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2005 respectively passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – III, Howrah in S.T. Case No. 257/2005 whereby the Learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498A/34 and Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.10.2004 one Sk. Nijamuddin lodged the complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Jagacha Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the marriage between his elder sister namely Selima Begum and Mubarak Laskar took place on 22.12.2002 and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given. After the marriage, his elder sister was subjected to ill-treatment by her husband and other inmates due to black complexion. They also used to demand money. On 04.10.2004 in the morning at about 08:45 AM, he was informed about the burning of his elder sister. He along with others went there and found his elder sister in burnt condition. Then and there they took her to hospital. On the way, his sister stated that on the very day in the morning at the time of cooking, there was quarrel between his sister and her husband. Thereafter, her husband went out work and thereafter, mother-in-law of his sister caught hold of mouth of his sister and set fire on her person by burning wooden piece. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, Jagacha P.S. Case No. 126/04 under Sections 498A/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Sakina Megum and six others including the appellant. Subsequently the said Salima Begum died and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was added. 4. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet bearing No. 118/04 dated 27.12.2004 was submitted against the said Sakina Begum, Mobarak Ali Laskar, Mamud Ali Laskar (appellant), Abu Siddik Laskar, Mohamad Ali Laskar and Samina Ali Laskar for the offence under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. 4. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet bearing No. 118/04 dated 27.12.2004 was submitted against the said Sakina Begum, Mobarak Ali Laskar, Mamud Ali Laskar (appellant), Abu Siddik Laskar, Mohamad Ali Laskar and Samina Ali Laskar for the offence under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The charge under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Mamud Ali Laskar (appellant), Mobarak Ali Laskar (husband) and Sakina Begum to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused persons and exhibited certain documents. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that: i) The conviction and sentence of the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law in as much as the prosecution failed to make any case against the appellant for the same by the evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial. ii) Dying declaration relied upon the prosecution never implicated the appellant and the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant and as such the impugned judgment and order was liable to be set aside. iii) The Learned Judge failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant and as such the impugned judgment and order was liable to be set aside. 8. A circumspection of prosecution witnesses revealed as follows: i. PW-1 Sk. Nazimuddin in his examination-in-chief stated that Selima Begum was his elder sister. On 28.12.2002 said Selima was given in marriage to the accused Mobarak Ali Laskar. Accused Masud Ali Laskar was the younger brother of Mobarak. Accused Sakina Begum was the mother of Mobarak and Masud. The said marriage was solemnized in their house according to Muslim rites and customs. They gave Rs.25,000/-in cash and gold necklace, gold ear rings and gold bangles to the accused persons as dowry on demand. Since after marriage, his elder sister lived in her matrimonial home. In her matrimonial home besides these three accused persons the father of Mobarak viz. Abu Siddique Laskar, sister Samina Khatoon, another brother Mohammad Laskar and mother’s brother Mamtajul Laskar used to live during the lifetime of Selima. Selima was a woman of dark complexion. Since after marriage, his elder sister lived in her matrimonial home. In her matrimonial home besides these three accused persons the father of Mobarak viz. Abu Siddique Laskar, sister Samina Khatoon, another brother Mohammad Laskar and mother’s brother Mamtajul Laskar used to live during the lifetime of Selima. Selima was a woman of dark complexion. While she had been living in her matrimonial home, all the members of her matrimonial home excepting Mamtajul Ali Laskar used torture Selima demanding money from her. They would instruct her for bringing money from the house of PW-1 with a threat that in case of her failure she would be killed by them by hanging. During her lifetime his elder sister Selima lodged diary at Jagacha P.S at that time accused Mobarak was also with Selima. On 04.10.2004 his elder sister Selima died in Howrah State General Hospital receiving burn injury at her matrimonial home. While Selima was in hospital she narrated before them that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law set fire on her person forcibly and for that reason she received burn injuries. She actually received burn injuries on 04.10.2004 and she died after two days on 07.10.2004. On 04.10.2004 in the morning at about 08:30 A.M. one neighbour of the accused persons came to him and informed that the elder sister of PW-1 received burn injuries in course of cooking. Receiving such information, himself, his mother, his two elder brothers and two neighbours rushed to the house of accused persons. They found his elder sister Selima with her burn injuries was standing holding one window grill. Said house was situated beside a private passage. Selima received burn injuries on her front portion below her face. They took her to Howrah General Hospital and they admitted her there for treatment. On the way to hospital his elder sister Selima told them that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law caused her burn injuries setting fire with fire wood which was burning in the oven in course of cooking by his elder sister. He informed police of Jagacha P.S. over telephone. Subsequently, he lodged written F.I.R. at Jagachha P.S. He identified the written F.I.R. which was written and signed by him marked as Exhibit-1. The half burnt sari of Selima was identified by PW-1 and at the time of her receiving burn injuries (marked Mat Exhibit-1). He informed police of Jagacha P.S. over telephone. Subsequently, he lodged written F.I.R. at Jagachha P.S. He identified the written F.I.R. which was written and signed by him marked as Exhibit-1. The half burnt sari of Selima was identified by PW-1 and at the time of her receiving burn injuries (marked Mat Exhibit-1). This was the half burnt five wood by which fire was set in the person of Selima (marked Mat Exhibit-II). This was the movable mud built oven on which Selima was cooking (marked Mat Exhibit-III). At the time of setting fire on the person of Selima Kerosene oil was also poured on her by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law from that red container of kerosene oil (the contained was marked Mat Exhibit-IV). Police Officer seized Mat Exhibits I, II, III, IV in the presence of PW-1 under a seizure list. The signature of PW-1 on seizure list was marked as Exhibit – 2/1. Selima had left behind her son aged 1 ½ years at the time of her death. Since after the date of occurrence said baby was being brought up in the house of PW-1 under their care. The death of his elder sister was caused due to her receiving burn injuries and not for any other reason. ii. During cross-examination PW-1 stated the name of the child (son) of Selima was Tabarak Ali Laskar. The said boy was born at Howrah General Hospital. It was a fact that the birth of that baby was not normal and that by operation of his elder sister her delivery was done. It was not at all a fact that at the time of giving birth to her son condition of Selima was very serious. After said delivery and discharge from hospital, Selima was physically fit. At that time she was 20 years old. His father was murdered by his cousin Sk. Gora and he had been punished. No case was pending against him. He had received injury on his right hand yesterday in an accident. He was a student of Class – IX in Unsani Paresh Kumar Vidyapith. His school hours was 11:00 A.M. to 03:45 P.M. He lived in their own house at Unsani Garh Para. Accused persons lived at Unsani Laskar Para. Their house was about 2 ½ kms from the house of PW-1. He was a student of Class – IX in Unsani Paresh Kumar Vidyapith. His school hours was 11:00 A.M. to 03:45 P.M. He lived in their own house at Unsani Garh Para. Accused persons lived at Unsani Laskar Para. Their house was about 2 ½ kms from the house of PW-1. Maniruddin Laskar was the matchmaker at the marriage of his elder sister and Mobark. The said Maniruddin was a resident of Unsani Laskar Para. He had business of ready made garments. It was a fact that after collecting all informations about accused Mobarak, he gave his sister Selima in marriage with him. Before that marriage they did not get any adverse information about the accused person. They had document to show that they gave dowry to the accused persons. He mentioned in F.I.R. that they gave Rs.25,000/-in cash, one gold necklace, gold earrings and gold bangles to the accused persons as dowry on demand of the accused persons. His elder sister lodged G.D.E. at Jagachcha P.S. on 28.08.2004 at about 11:30 A.M. Sahabul Laskar informed them about Selima’s receiving burn injuries. They reached in the house of accused persons at about 08:40 A.M. on 04.10.2004. He did not inform the police that his elder sister Selima told him that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law set fire on the person. He stated before police that they saw his elder sister Selima was standing in her matrimonial home with her burn injuries. He had visiting terms in the matrimonial house of Selima. It was a fact that the accused persons had three house structures and that two were mud built and another was made of Darma. They constructed that Dorma house. It was a fact that in that house, Selima, her husband and their son used to live and that Selima used to cook in that house. It was a fact that in one mud built house structure parents and sister of Mobarak used to live and in another house structure the other brother of Mobarak used to live. It was a fact that Selima’s mother-in-law would not cook their food in the dwelling house of Selima and her husband. She used to cook in a separate place. Mobarak’s mother’s age was not known to him. Not a fact that before death of Selima her mother-in-law received fracture on her leg and due to that reason she was ill since long back. She used to cook in a separate place. Mobarak’s mother’s age was not known to him. Not a fact that before death of Selima her mother-in-law received fracture on her leg and due to that reason she was ill since long back. It was fact that the Darma house structure of Mobarak was situated just beside the public through fare. Said thorough fare was not busy and it was a mere private passage and so shutting of the door was not necessary for maintaining privacy. On three sides of Mobarak's house there were houses of others. There was one shop nearby the house of Mobarak. He called Police over telephone from a shop of goldsmith. Police arrived at the matrimonial house of Selima at about 10.00 A.M. Not a fact that when they reached the house of accused persons found that the accused persons were taking preparation for removing his elder sister Selima to hospital. It was fact that those three accused persons were arrested by Police in their presence. It was not a fact that when Mobarak would go outside his house for his works his elder sister Selima used to put pad lock on the door and used to come to their house daily. Before one week of death Selima and her husband Mobarak jointly came to their house. They came peacefully to their house and they also returned peacefully from their house after spending one night in their house. That day his mother had come to court with him. Witness Abdul Salam Laskar was not related to him. He knew him because he had one betel stall at Laskar para at a distance of about 15 feet from the house of accused persons. Mohiari(sic) Road is about 15 feet away from the house of accused persons. It was fact that there were many houses in between said road and the house of accused persons.Police left their vehicle on Mohiari Road and went to the house of accused persons on foot.At the time of taking Selima to hospital they stopped their taxi on Mohiari Road and they brought his elder sister Selima from her matrimonial home lifting her on arms. Asha Khatoon was cousin sister of accused Mobarak. He did not know Habul Laskar. He did not know Jahira Bibi. Badrunnesha was aunt of Mobarak by relation. Moslima Begum was his mother. Sk. Asha Khatoon was cousin sister of accused Mobarak. He did not know Habul Laskar. He did not know Jahira Bibi. Badrunnesha was aunt of Mobarak by relation. Moslima Begum was his mother. Sk. Safikuddin was his elder brother He was a Trakker driver.Sk. Masud was their neighbour but he was not his relative. He had business of readymade garments. He did not know Sk. Samser. Sk. Sahanoor was their neighbour. He accompanied them to the house of accused persons after receiving information of the occurrence. There was no identification mark on the material exhibits. Not a fact that the material exhibits were not found in the house of accused persons. Police went to the house of accused persons after this first visit there also. Police never went to their house in connection with this case. iii. PW-2 in her deposition stated that Selima Begum was her daughter. She was given in marriage with accused Mobarak Ali Laskar and since marriage she lived in her matrimonial home out of their wedlock one son had born and that baby was under their care since after death of Selima receiving burn injury. At the time of marriage they gave Rs. 25,000/-gold bangles and car rings on demand of accused persons as dowry. Selima died about 11 months ago in Howrah General Hospital as she was admitted there due to her burn injuries received in her matrimonial home on setting fire on her by her mother-in-law due to their failure to satisfy the further demands of dowry made by accused persons. She met Selima in hospital and she talked with her there. She narrated that her mother-in-law set fire on her persons causing her burn injuries. Husband, husband's brother and mother-in-law of her daughter Sclima were present in court that day. During her cross-examination she stated that her youngest son and she had come to Court that day. Many other persons as witnesses had also come to Court but they were not known her. Before that day she narrated the facts before their villagers and many others on several occasions. She also narrated the incidents before Panchayat. She went to P.S. once only on the very date of death of her daughter.She stated before Police that on demand of accused persons they gave Rs. 25,000/-in cash, gold earrings and gold bangles as dowry. iv. PW-3 in his deposition stated that Sk. She also narrated the incidents before Panchayat. She went to P.S. once only on the very date of death of her daughter.She stated before Police that on demand of accused persons they gave Rs. 25,000/-in cash, gold earrings and gold bangles as dowry. iv. PW-3 in his deposition stated that Sk. Nazimuddin was his younger brother. Selima Begum was his sister. She was given in marriage with accused Mobarak. Said Mobarak, his brother Masud and mother Sakina Begum were present in Court that day. Since after marriage Selima lived in her matrimonial home. During, her life time her husband, husband's parents, husband's brother and all other inmates of her matrimonial home and used to assault her and they used to commit torture on her depriving her from adequate food and clothing also. Selima died in the last year in Howrah hospital where she was admitted by them due to her burn injuries received in an incident of setting fire on her person by accused Sakina Bibi, the mother-in-law of Selima in the house of accused persons. Selima was admitted in hospital by them on one Monday and she succumbed to her burn injuries in the night of Wednesday at 12-30 midnight. During his cross-examination he stated that he was a Trekker driver in the route of Domjur to Amdul. He could avail leave on any day and he had no scheduled holiday. On the day of his work he went away from his house at 6-00 A.M. in the morning and he returned home at 9:00 PM. in the night. He heard about the incident of Selima's receiving burn injuries in the morning of the date of occurrence but he could not say the exact time of his hearing. One neighbour of accused persons came to their house and gave him that information. Instantly he went to the house of accused persons with that person on his motor-cycle from their house. On that motorcycle from their house he alone went with that person. He could not say the exact time of their arrival there. Many persons assembled there but he could not say the number of those persons even by guess. After his arrival his brother and others reached at that place within a short time. Police officer of Jagachha P.S. also went there but hecould not say thetime of his arrival there. He could not say the exact time of their arrival there. Many persons assembled there but he could not say the number of those persons even by guess. After his arrival his brother and others reached at that place within a short time. Police officer of Jagachha P.S. also went there but hecould not say thetime of his arrival there. He could not say the actual distance between the house of accused persons and Jagachha P.S. Before that day he did not narrate the incidents before any person. v. PW-4 in his deposition stated that he knew Selima. She was given in marriage with this accused. Selima died in 2004 in her matrimonial home receiving burn injuries. He went to Selima's matrimonial home with Selima's brother and after their arrival they found Selima with burn injuries, but she was alive. Selima was of dark complexion, while Selima would come to her father's house she would talk to him. She used to tell him to search for job of her husband as they were passing days with hardship. He wasa tailor by profession. It was fact that elder brother of Selima was also a tailor. He (PW1) had also come to Court with him. He did not make any discussion with him about his topic of deposition. There were 16/17 intervening hours between his house and the house of Nizamuddin. They had no reciprocal visiting terms in their respective house.It was fact that generally they gossiped in a place within their village. Before that day he did not narrate the incidents before any other persons. Police never went to his house. He never attended P.S. vi. PW-5 in his deposition stated that he was resident of Unsani Garpar. He knew Selima Begum. She was dead then. PW-5 was declined for cross-examination. vii. PW-6 in his examination-in-chief stated that he was constable no. 2335 and now posted at Howrah P.S. on 7.10.2004. He was posted at Howrah P.S. as constable. At that relevant time A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit was posted at Howrah P.S. He knew his handwriting and signature. This was carbon copy of inquest report which was written and signed by said A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit. He was present at the time of holding inquest over the dead body of Salima Begum held by A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit. He put his signature on the inquest report as witness. This was carbon copy of inquest report which was written and signed by said A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit. He was present at the time of holding inquest over the dead body of Salima Begum held by A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit. He put his signature on the inquest report as witness. The signature was marked Exhibit 3/1 and whole inquest report was marked Exhibit 3. viii. During cross-examination, PW-5 stated that at the time of holding inquest over the dead body of Salima Begum excepting himself and A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit none remained present there and then said Sk. Khokan was also present there. It was a fact that at the time of inquest nobody raised any complaint against any person relating to the said inquest. ix. PW-7 in examination-in-chief stated that he lived at Unsani Laskar Para under P.S.-Jagachcha. Salima was not known to him. He knew Sk. Najimuddin. His sister received burn injuries. He did not know the name of the sister of said Najimuddin. Said sister of Nijamuddin received burn injuries in her matrimonial home and she succumbed her said burn injuries. Getting such information of receiving burn injuries, he proceeded towards the matrimonial home of that sister of Jajimuddin and on the way he found that she was being lifted on one Ambassador for removing her to hospital. The husband, husband’s brother and mother-in-law of Nazimuddin’s sister were present in court that day. His signature was marked as Exhibit 2/2. x. During cross-examination, PW-7 stated that it was a fact that hundred of persons resided at Unsani Laskar Para like him. It was also fact that there were many shops near his shop. His shop was at a walking distance for about five minutes from his residential house. He put Exhibit 2/2 when the paper was blank. It was fact that he put his signature in his shop. Those articles (shown Mat Exhibit I, II, III and IV) were not seen by him before that day and he had been seeing those articles for the first time that day. Vehicle could not reach upto the house of the accused persons. Any vehicle should be kept at a walking distance for about three minutes from their house for want of path. He never went to P.S. Police did not come to him on any occasion in connection with this case. Vehicle could not reach upto the house of the accused persons. Any vehicle should be kept at a walking distance for about three minutes from their house for want of path. He never went to P.S. Police did not come to him on any occasion in connection with this case. It was fact that he only heard that the sister of Najimuddin received burn injuries and that he knew nothing more. xi. PW-8 stated in his examination-in-chief that he was the Head of the Department of Forensic and State Medicine of the Medical College, Kolkata. On 02.02.2004 also he was attached to the same Medical College and Hospital in the same capacity. S.I. S.P. Mondal of Jagachcha P.S. sought for an opinion from him regarding cause and manner of death of Salima Begum 20 years, Muslim, female in connection with Jagacha P.S. Case No. 126 dated 04.10.2004 and he submitted some papers for my perusal and opinion. He perused all the papers and after going through those papers, he opined that Salima Begum died due to effects of burn injuries and ante mortem in nature. Said burn injuries on the body of her and their manner and disposition on her body was unlikely to have resulted from suicidal or accidental burn and more consistent in all probability by causing burn injuries on her by some burning object and that was likely to be homicidal in nature. This was his report which was written and signed by him (marked Exhibit 4). He had mentioned the reasons on which he based his opinion in the report. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that in Exhibit 4, it had been mentioned that there was 70% burn injuries of the victim. Since it was a case of burn injuries so measurement of the injuries have not been mentioned but the part of the body affected due to burning have been mentioned. It was fact that he did not see the patient. xii. PW-9 Sheuli Banerjee in her examination-in-chief stated that he was Deputy Magistrate, Howrah. On 07.10.2004 also, he was posted as Deputy Magistrate, Howrah. On 07.10.2004 in her official capacity, he held inquest over the dead body of one Selima Begum in presence of witnesses. This was the inquest report written and signed by her under her own hand writing (marked Exhibit-5). On 07.10.2004 also, he was posted as Deputy Magistrate, Howrah. On 07.10.2004 in her official capacity, he held inquest over the dead body of one Selima Begum in presence of witnesses. This was the inquest report written and signed by her under her own hand writing (marked Exhibit-5). In course of holding inquest, he found the fact of the deceased was almost burnt. Excepting the fact and fact of the deceased, the remaining portion of her body was covered with bandage. After inquest, she suggested medical examination for ascertaining the real cause of death. xiii. During cross-examination PW-9 stated that at the time of inquest witnesses Moslema Bibi, W/o-Lt. Sk. Kader Box of Garfa, Unsani who was the mother of the deceased, Sk. Nazimuddin, S/o-Lt. Sk. Kader Box of same address; Suresh Lal Dom, S/o-Lt. Manna Lal Dom of Howrah Hospital and A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakshit of Howrah P.S. During inquest nobody made any allegations against any person relating to the death of the deceased. She did not collect or seize any material from the persons of the deceased. xiv. PW-10 Dr. Hanashit Sarkar stated in his evidence that he was Medical Officer and now posted at Howrah District Hospital. On 07.10.2004 also he was attached to the same hospital in the same capacity. On that date he held P.M. examination over the dead body of Selima Begum, 20 years, Mahamedan, female in connection with U.D. Case No. 429/04 dated 07.10.2004 of Howrah P.S. The dead body was identified by Constable no. 2335 Sankar Ghosh before him. In course of P.M. examination, he found the deceased was burnt on the both hands, both legs but accidentally the back portion and hair was not involved. He opined that the death was due to septicaemia in a case of ante mortem and suicidal burn. This P.M. report (carbon copy) was written and signed by him in the uniform process of writing and signing the original (marked Exhibit-6). xv. During cross-examination PW-10 deposed that in the exhibit-6 he had written the name, age, sex etc of the deceased from inquest report of police. He had not mentioned the measurement of the burn injuries of the deceased in exhibit-6. xvi. xv. During cross-examination PW-10 deposed that in the exhibit-6 he had written the name, age, sex etc of the deceased from inquest report of police. He had not mentioned the measurement of the burn injuries of the deceased in exhibit-6. xvi. PW-11 Ajit Kumar Mondal stated that he was A.S.I. of Police and now posted at Joypur P.S. as A.S.I on 04.10.2004 he was posted at Jagachcha P.S. as A.S.I. On that date, while he was discharging his duty as Duty Officer at Jagachcha P.S., he received one written complaint from Sk. Najimuddin and receiving the same he put his endorsement on it under his own handwriting and signature. This was that endorsement with his signature (marked Exhibit 1/1). He drew up formal F.I.R. under his own handwriting and signature. This was that formal F.I.R. (Marked Exhibit-7). He put the formal F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Jagachcha P.S and he passed necessary order for holding investigation. During cross-examination PW-11 stated that he had no personal knowledge about the incident written on the written complaint. xvii. PW-12 S.I. Shyamapada Mondal stated that he was S.I. of Police and then posted at Jagachcha P.S. as S.I. on 04.10.2004 he was posted at Jagachcha P.S. as S.I. On that date the then O.C. of Jagachcha P.S. Sandip Mal endorsed Jagachcha P.S. Case No.126/04 dated 04.10.2004 in his favour for holding investigation and accordingly he took up investigation of that case. After framing charge of investigation, he perused the F.I.R. visited the place of occurrence, drew up rough sketch map of the place of occurrence and prepared its index. This was the rough sketch map with index written and signed by him (marked Exhibit-8). He examined the available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He held seizure under a seizure list written and signed by him. This was the seizure list written and signed by him (marked Exhibit-2). The inquest over the dead body of the victim Salima Begum was held by A.S.I. Ajay Narayan Rakhit. During his service, he worked with him and so he was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of him. This was carbon impression of that inquest report written and signed by him which he knew (identified exhibit-3). One Magisterial inquest over the dead body of the victim was held and he collected the report of Learned Magistrate. He collected the post mortem report. This was carbon impression of that inquest report written and signed by him which he knew (identified exhibit-3). One Magisterial inquest over the dead body of the victim was held and he collected the report of Learned Magistrate. He collected the post mortem report. On going through the post mortem report, it also appeared to him that it was not clear as to whether the death was homicidal or suicidal and of taking the same he went to F.S.L. Calcutta and made consultation with Dr. Gupta who after perusing the documents he gave his final opinion relating to the cause of death of the victim of this case. He collected that final report. The victim made dying declaration before Learned Executive Magistrate. He collected that dying declaration which was recorded by the Learned Magistrate. He collected the death certificate of Salima Begum from Howrah District Hospital. This was that death certificate which was issued from Howrah District Hospital relating to the death of Salima Begum (marked Exhibit-9). He collected the bed-head-ticket of Salima Begum from Howrah District Hospital. This was that bed-head-ticket which he collected (marked X for future identification). After completion of investigation, he made consultation with his superior official and submitted charge-sheet no.118 dated 27.12.04 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act against six accused persons of this case. xviii. During cross-examination, PW-12 stated that he had been working as a police officer since 1967. During investigation, he visited the place of occurrence for about 10/15 times. On going through the C.D., he could say that he had visited the place of occurrence on 04.10.04 at 11:20 a.m. on receiving one R.T. Information in course of his discharging duty in R T. Mobile duty, said information was sent by S.I. Ajit Das. He did not receive any telephone message from the informant Nijamuddin. During investigation, he came to learn that said Nijamuddin informed the P.S. Jagacha over telephone. He did not investigate as to wherefrom he sent the message over the telephone and at what point of time it was received as P.S. On 04.10.04 he went to place of occurrence with their police personnels and stayed there for about 15/20 minutes only. During investigation, he visited the matrimonial home of the victim Salima Begum. Said house was made of brick and mud and shedded with tiles. During investigation, he visited the matrimonial home of the victim Salima Begum. Said house was made of brick and mud and shedded with tiles. In a portion of that house the parents of Salima’s husband and brothers of Salima’s husband used to reside. Salima and her husband used to live in a small room beside the veranda of that house. He did not measure the room. Said house was went facing. The room where Salima and her husband used to live had no window but there was a door of bamboo split and tin. Not a fact that there was village path beside that door. It was their family private passage. Not a fact that said house was situated within the congested area. He examined the neighbouring witnesses namely Abdul Salim, Asha Khatun, Saibar Laskar, Betu, Sk. Sabikuddin, Sk. Sajahan, Sk. Masud on 04.10.2004. Those witnesses were the neighbouring persons of Naskarpara. He also examined Muslima Begum on 08.10.2004. He prepared the seizure list at the place of seizure. Seized articles had not been produced in Court that day. He did not seized G.D. Book of Jagacha P.S. during investigation. He did not send any seized article to F.S.L. Calcutta for its chemical analysis. He interrogated the accused persons after arrest but he did not record their statements. He did not investigate about the occupation of the accused persons. Salima was not moved to hospital by any police vehicle. During investigation, he came to learn that Salima’s brothers and others removed Salima to hospital by a vehicle. xix. PW-13 Krishna Mardi, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he was Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector and at that time he was posted at Howrah District Collectorate. On 04.10.2004 he was attached to the same post in the same place. On 04.10.2004 he recorded dying declaration of Salima Begum, W/o-Mobarak Laskar of Unsani Naskarpara under Jagacha P.S., Howrah in the female surgical ward of Howrah District Hospital. She stated before him that while she had been cooking in the morning of that date, a quarrel was going on between her and her husband and after that quarrel, her husband went away for his work. She also stated before PW-13 that her mother-in-law closed her mouth and set fire on her person with ‘burning wooden piece.’ The statement recorded by him under his own handwriting and signature with seal was marked as Exhibit-10. 9. She also stated before PW-13 that her mother-in-law closed her mouth and set fire on her person with ‘burning wooden piece.’ The statement recorded by him under his own handwriting and signature with seal was marked as Exhibit-10. 9. During cross-examination, PW-13 stated that the patient was identified before him by doctor P. Bhattacharyya, Dr. P. K. Halder and Dr. Tapan Banerjee. He recorded the dying declaration before those three doctors but it had not been specifically written in Exhibit 10 that it was recorded in their presence. Before recording the dying declaration, he did not give any caution to the patient. 10. The entire gamut of prosecution evidence revealed the existence of the dying declaration in particular which described the role of the mother-in-law of the deceased victim in ablazing her with a burning piece of wood aptly corroborated by the Post Mortem Doctor’s evidence. There had been differences in the family and the victim had earlier lodged a complaint at the police station along with her husband, i.e. present appellant. Normal wear and tear in domestic life concerning a married couple cannot be ramified as torture for demand of dowry. In the instant case, apart from mere omnibus allegations the torture upon the victim by the appellant with specific overt acts was absent. The victim’s version indicated the criminality of the mother-in-law in the absence of the appellant. The appellant therefore should not be punished unreasonably without proof of guilt against him. 11. Under the facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the criminal appeal is allowed. 12. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being CRA 168 of 2006 stands disposed of. 13. There is no order as to cost. 14. Lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action. 15. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities