VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the order of Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih dated 25/5/1999 and 26/5/1999 whereby and where under the learned Court held the appellants guilty in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 1994 and convicted all of them under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for three months and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default one month imprisonment. However, both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE conviction arose out of the following prosecution story as appearing in the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) lodged by Ghanshyam Mandal the father of the victim girl.

( 3 ) IT is not at all in dispute that the deceased Anita Devi was not married to Appellant No. 1 and she did not die within seven years of the marriage. The autopsy of the dead body of Anita Devi was conducted by PW 5 Dr. who also proved the Post-mortem report (Ex. 2) and found no evidence of any injury on the person of the deceased and he could not ascertain the cause of death and consequently preserved the viscera but the viscera report did never reach the trial Court and therefore whether the viscera contained poison supporting the prosecution allegation of administering of poison to the deceased remains absence. The conviction is mainly based on the oral dying declaration of the deceased and its corroboration by the statement of doctor before the police (Ext. 8) who examined the deceased when she was first brought to him.

( 4 ) IN the aforesaid circumstance the following questions do require answer in this appeal: (1) Whether the oral dying declaration in the facts and circumstances of the case is reliable piece of evidence on which conviction can be based? (2) Whether the Ext. 8 which is the statement of the doctor before police who examined the victim is admissible evidence and can be relied upon, when the doctor did not turn up before the Court to depose? (3) Whether there is any nexus between the death and torture for the demand of dowry?

( 5 ) FARDBEYAN (Ext. 1) was recorded on the statement of the father of the victim on 1. 12. 1992. This is a detailed fardbeyan as it appear from the prosecution story (supra) but it does not disclose that the daughter of the informant had made any dying declaration before her death. This simply says that the informant got information (Pata chala) that her in-laws had administered some poison. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the fardbeyan made much after the death of the victim and contains every detail even of the previous year happening then had there actually been a dying declaration this would have been mentioned specifically in the FIR and its non mentioning makes the dying declaration subsequent concoction and doubtful. To the contrary the learned counsel for the State has argued that a fardbeyan is not the Bible and it may not contain the entire fact and therefore on this score alone the dying declaration cannot be disbelieved. But it is clear that the fardbeyan does not make any mention as to in whose presence the girl made the dying declaration. Therefore the specific evidence that has come on the record has to be scrutinized carefully. ( 6 ) PW 1 is the brother of the victim. In paragraph 2 he says that on 18. 10. 1992 in night he got information that his sister had consumed poison then he and-his elder brother Jay Prakash Mandal PW 2 went to the sasural of their sister where they found her unconscious and they removed her to the dispensary of Dr. Ramashankar and during the course of treatment there she regained sense and she uttered that at about 9 p. m. her mother-in-law and father-in-law