ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) THE above mentioned two appeals are connected to each other as they arise out of the same judgment and order.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail prayer of the appellants, Smt. Puspa Devi and Virendra Singh. The deceased of this case is Smt.Kiran Devi. Smt. Pushpa Devi is the mother-in-law and Virendra Singh is the husband of the deceased. The deceased was married with the appellant Virendra Singh on 19.1.2002 and the alleged incident of burning took place on 14.11.2002 and the poor girl died after a lapse of some 7 days. It has been submitted from the side of the appellants that there are two dying declarations in this case. The first one was recorded by D.W.4, who was posted as Addl.City Magistrate, Kanpur on 15.11.2002. The second dying declaration was recorded on 17.11.2002 after lodging of the FIR by father of the deceased. The FIR was lodged on 16.11.2002. In these circumstances it has been submitted that the dying declaration which is favouring the accused should be considered by the Court. It has further been submitted that the learned lower Court has committed a number of errors while holding the appellants guilty. It has also been submitted that the appellants are in jail since 6.3.2009.
(3.) THE bail prayer has been vehemently opposed by the learned AGA. Both the appellants have been also found guilty by the learned lower Court under Section 304-B, IPC and the maximum punishment awarded to them is 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine in the said judgment.;