Vishnu Sahai, J - (1.) . - Through this appeal Daya Shankar, Ganga Prasad and Smt. Ram Raja alias Kewla challenge the judgment and order dated 31.3.1990, passed by Special/ Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 1989, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced, in the manner, stated hereinafter : (1) Under section 302/34, I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life; (2) Under section 201, I.P.C. to suffer seven years' R.I.; and (3) Under section 498-A, I.P.C. to suffer three years' R.I. The sentences, on all the counts, have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.) Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under : The informant Mahadeo, P.W. 4, Smt. Rampati P.W. 5 and Shiv Narain P.W. 6 are the father, mother and brother, respectively, of the deceased Smt. Sitapati. At the time of the incident, Mahadeo was working in a factory (where vegetable oil was manufactured) at Amritsar but on the date of the incident he was present in village Raghipur. At the said time, Smt. Rampati and Shiv Narain were living in village Raghipur within the limits of police station Gauriganj, in district Sultanpur. About eight years prior to the incident, Smt. Sitapati was married to appellant Daya Shanker, son of appellants Gaya Prasad and Smt. Ram Raja alias Kewla. Three years after the marriage, the gauna of Smt. Sitapati was performed. After gauna, she started living with the appellants in village Bhadmar, within the limits of police station Mohanganj, in district Sultanpur. In the gauna ceremony, the informant gave appellant Daya Shanker a cycle. However, after gauna appellant Daya Shanker made a demand for motorcycle and continued making it till the time of murder of Smt. Sitapati. Since the informant was not possessed of sufficient means he was unable to satisfy his demand. After gauna, when Smt. Sitapati came home, she told her mother Smt. Rampati that appellants Daya Shanker and Ganga Parasad were demanding a motorcycle and were telling her that she should ask her parents to either give it or the money for purchasing it. However, the informant could not meet the demand. After staying for fifteen days with her mother, Smt. Sitapati went to live with the appellants. Three months later, her brother Shiv Narain brought her from the appellants' house. Smt. Sitapati told her mother that since the demand of motorcycle had not been met, appellant Daya Shanker used to beat and not provide her with food. During her stay of one month with her mother Smt. Sitapati used to also tell her that she should give motorcycle to the appellants, otherwise they would kill her. However, she pacified Smt. Sitapati and after sometime sent her to the house of the appellants. She stayed there for about seven months. Thereafter, Shiv Narain P.W. 6 brought her and appellant Daya Shanker to his parents house as his marriage was to be performed. After marriage, appellant Daya Shanker went away but Smt. Sitapati stayed with her mother. After sometime, she was again sent to the house of the appellants where she delivered a male child. After delivery, she became extremely weak. Consequently, Smt. Rampati sent Shiv Narain to bring Smt. Sitapati and her son to her house but the appellants refused to send her. However, Smt. Sitapati told Shiv Narain to tell Smt. Rampati that in case motorcycle or money for purchasing it was not given, appellant Daya Shanker would kill her. Shiv Narain told this to Smt. Rampati. On the night of 13.6.1989, at about 2 a.m., Ram Naresh P.W. 1, whose house was situated four houses away from that of the appellants heard cries, coming from the house of appellant Daya Shanker and when he reached there, he found that appellants Daya Shanker and Ganga Prasad were standing at the door of their house, where number of persons had assembled. He heard persons were saying. Two days after Shiv Narain returned from the house of appellants. Jai Dev Nayee accompanied by a Thakur came and informed the informant and Smt. Rampati that while boiling milk, Smt. Sitapati sustained injuries to which she succumbed. On the said information, the informant and Smt. Rampati proceeded to the house of the appellants in village Bhadmar where they found the corpse of Smt. Sitapati lying on the ground and police sealing it.
(3.) The evidence of informant Mahadeo P.W. 4 shows that after seeing the burnt corpse of Smt. Sitapati, he got the F.I.R. scribed by a pandit of his village, who after scribing it read it over to him and thereafter he proceeded to police station Mohanganj, where he lodged it. It is pertinent to mention that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 16.6.1989, at about 2.40 p.m., at police station Mohanganj and the distance between the place of the incident and police station Mohanganj was seven and a half kilometers and in the F.I.R. appellants are named. It is significant to mention that on the basis of the F.I.R. offences punish able under sections 302/304-B/201 /498- A, I.P.C. were registered against the appellants.;