RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J - (1.)As both the appeals arise out of same incident, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)Appellant Bhuneshwar Sahu has preferred appeal (CRA No. 300 of 2010) against the judgment dated 16-4-2010 and appellant Rukhmani Bai has preferred appeal (CRA No. 326 of 2010) against the judgment dated 22-4-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti,Session Division Janjgir Champa (CG) in Session Trial No. 132 of 2009 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellants for the commission of offence under Section 304- B read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulations.
(3.)In the present case, name of the deceased is Smt. Sushila Kumari Sahu who was married to Nand Kumar Sahu. Present appellant Bhuneshwar Sahu is younger brother of Nand Kumar Sahu and appellant Rukhmani Bai is mother of said Nand Kumar Sahu i.e., mother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage of Sushila Kumari Sahu and Nand Kumar Sahu took place two years ago from the date of incident i.e., 12-3-2009. It is alleged that both appellants harassed the deceased physically and mentally for demand of dowry and it is alleged that they set the deceased on fire as result of which she succumbed to the injuries. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed, the appellants did not plead guilty and the trial was conducted. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 3 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit as under:
i) The trial Court erred in relying on the statement of the father and mother of the deceased who were interested witnesses.

II) The trial Court erred in relying upon dying declaration of the deceased. As she sustained 95% burn injuries in that condition, it is not possible for her to give her statement,

iii) Before recording dying declaration no fitness certificate from the concerned doctor has been obtained, therefore, dying declaration itself is doubtful. It is made in such a manner that entire matrimonial family members of the deceased would be involved in a false case.

iv) The trial Court overlooked the version of defence witnesses who deposed that at the time of incident the appellant Rukhmani Bai was at her Biyara (Khailihan) for the purpose of repairing bullock cart and omnibus allegations have been made against her, therefore, finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside.