- (1.) THE appellant Smt. Sumitra alias Sumirta has filed this criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 23.07.1996 passed by III Additional Session Judge, Unnao in Session Trial No.167 of 1994, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years. A fine of Rs.3,000/ - was also imposed on her and it was provided that in case of default of payment of fine, she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
(3.) THE appellant and two others were tried for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC as well as Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in the alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was also framed against them. According to the FIR, the daughter of the informant was married to Lakhan about seven years prior to the occurrence. Two children were also born out of the said wedlock. However, in the meantime, the appellant and other members of her family continued with their demand of dowry. The informant had purchased a cow and had given it to the appellant with the request that his daughter may not be further treated with cruelty. However, after some time they continued with their demand of additional dowry. On 14.12.1993 at about 6.00, the informant was informed that his daughter has died due to burn injury. The informant on getting this informant took his daughter to Nawabganj Hospital. She had suffered extensive burn all over her body but was in conscious state of mind. She told him that her mother -in -law killed her by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. She further stated that her father -in -law was holding her hands while another lady was provoking the appellant to kill her. The statement of the deceased was also recorded by a Magistrate in the hospital. However, during her treatment at Lucknow Medical College, she died on 18.12.1993. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, but the learned trial court acquitted the two accused -persons of all the charges while the appellant was convicted under Section 304 IPC only on the basis of dying declaration. All the witnesses of fact turned hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution case. The informant Ram Bhajan, the mother of the deceased Smt. Phoolkali, the brother of the deceased Vinod and an independent witness Bacchu Lal, all the four witnesses of fact turned hostile and stated in clear words that the deceased was very much happy in her "Sasural" and none of the in -laws of the deceased ever demanded any dowry either from the deceased or from her parents. They also stated that the husband of the deceased was not present on the sport when the alleged occurrence took place. They have further stated that the deceased was completely burnt and only her eyes were visible. She was not in a position to speak properly in the hospital.;