SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, J. - (1.) SINCE these three criminal appeals arise out of same judgment hence these are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) UNDER challenge in the instant criminal appeals is the judgment and order dated 30.06.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 73 of 2005, Police Station Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh, whereby the appellants Gandhi Yadav, Ram Deen and Smt. Amarawati were convicted for the offence under Section 304 -B, 498 -A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence under Section 304 -B IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. For the offence under Section 498 -A IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also with fine of Rs.2,000/ - with default stipulation of six months additional imprisonment. The appellants were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also with fine of Rs.1,000/ - with default stipulation of three months' additional imprisonment for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
(3.) ACCORDING to the version of the first information report, the case of the prosecution was that the deceased Smt. Nirmala, who was the daughter of the complainant Mithai Lal, was married to appellant Gandhi Yadav about three years' prior to her death. Appellants Ram Deen and Smt. Amarawati happen to be the father -in - law and mother -in -law of the deceased. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but at the time of 'Khichri', the appellants raised demand of a motorcycle or Rs.40,000/ - cash in dowry which could not be fulfilled by the complainant due to his financial constrains. Feeling aggrieved by non -fulfilment of this demand of dowry, the appellants started treating her with cruelty. The complainant and his son Jawahar Lal requested the appellants not to ill treat the deceased as they are not in a position to give motorcycle or Rs.40,000/ - cash but it made no dent on the thick skin of the appellants. The victim was beaten by the appellants several times. The deceased made complaint of this cruel treatment but she was consoled by her parents and was sent back to her matrimonial home. About 20 days' prior to the incident, Jawahar Lal, brother of the deceased, had gone for 'Vida' of the deceased then deceased Nirmala told him that due to non -fulfilment of the demand of motorcycle or cash of Rs.40,000/ -, the appellants have extended threats to kill her. They were pressing for the immediate compliance of their dowry demands as they wanted to give motorcycle in the marriage of their daughter and in spite of several requests by Jawahar Lal for 'Vida' of his sister, she was not sent. On 18.05.2005, the complainant got an information that her daughter was set ablaze then the complainant, his son and other persons went to the matrimonial village of the deceased where they got the information that the victim is lying in Sultanpur hospital. W hen these persons reached Sultanpur hospital then they were informed that the victim has succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her. The first information report of the said incident was registered on 30.05.2005 at 20:45 hours i.e. after about 12 days' of the occurrence. Perusal of the first information report shows that it is a typed complaint which was typed on 24.05.2005 and it was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and under the orders of the concerned authority, the case was ultimately registered on 30.05.2005. The Investigating Officer investigated the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan. Before lodging the first information report, inquest proceedings were conducted in the district hospital Sultanpur and thereafter post -mortem took place on 19.05.2005 at 02.30 PM. According to the post -mortem report, there were 100% burn injuries on the whole body including sole and palm. There was smell of burnt kerosene oil, skin was peeled off at place, scalp hairs singing was present. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was anti -mortem burn shock. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The case of the defence was that the appellants are innocent and they have not committed any offence. The witnesses have given false evidence. It has also been suggested to the witnesses that the deceased had a baby. She was sleeping under a thatch. Because of lamp, thatch caught fire and the incident took place. It was accidental.;