Mr. P.S. Rana, J.Present appeal is filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur in Sessions trial No. 18 of 2012 title State of H.P. v. Manoj Kumar and others.

Brief facts of the case

2. It is alleged that deceased Meenakshi Devi aged 23 years was married with co-accused Manoj Kumar on dated 9.12.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that deceased was kept nicely in her matrimonial house for about two months after marriage and thereafter deceased Meenakshi was subjected to maltreatment, harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that accused persons did not allow deceased Meenakshi to contact with her parents and relatives by way of telephone and it is further alleged that accused persons also did not allow the deceased to visit her parents and relatives during family functions and festivals. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 18.2.2010 co-accused Roop Singh father-in-law of deceased also tried to molest the deceased by way of putting off the lights of house. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons also demanded dowry from deceased in her matrimonial house. It is alleged by prosecution that family compromise was also executed between deceased and accused persons but despite family compromise accused persons maltreated deceased Meenakshi. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased was also beaten by accused persons. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house on dated 4.12.2011 at 1.30 PM by way of burning herself with kerosene oil. It is alleged that deceased sustained 91% burn injuries upon her body as per MLC Ext.PW12.B. It is alleged by prosecution that information was given to police officials. It is alleged by prosecution that investigating officials filed application before medical officer for issuance of MLC. It is alleged by prosecution that statement of Meenakshi deceased was recorded in presence of medical officer. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter deceased Meenakshi was referred to PGI Chandigarh for medical treatment. It is alleged by prosecution that investigating agency recorded statements of prosecution witnesses as per their versions and prepared spot map and obtained photographs. It is alleged by prosecution that burn clothes of deceased and one plastic canny of five litres took into possession and sealed in parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that on 7.12.2011 Meenakshi died due to burn injuries at PGI Chandigarh. It is alleged by prosecution that investigating agency filed application for post mortem of deceased and obtained post-mortem report of deceased. It is alleged that call details of deceased Meenakshi also obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that report from FSL Mandi Ext.PW11/A was also obtained.

3. Prosecution filed charge sheet against accused persons under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 306 IPC. Learned Trial Court framed charge against accused persons on 29.10.2012 under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined twenty four oral witnesses in all and also tendered documentaries evidence.

4. Learned Trial Court convicted accused persons under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC on 30.11.2013. Learned Trial Court sentenced accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10000/- each for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convict would undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Learned Trial Court also sentenced the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Learned Trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicts would further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Learned Trial Court also directed that all sentences would run concurrently and also directed that period of detention undergone by convicts during investigation and trial would be set off.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence of learned Trial Court appellants filed present appeal.

6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the entire record carefully.

7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal:-

Point No. 1

Whether judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court are perverse and based upon non-appreciation of oral and documentaries evidence properly as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal

Point No. 2

Final Order.

8. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons

8.1. PW1 Bidhi Chand has stated that he is posted as Patwari at Patwar Circle Gondpur Banhera Tehsil Amb District Una H.P. He has stated that in the year 2011 he was posted at Patwar Circle Dyoli Tehsil Amb District Una. He has stated that he has five children i.e. four daughters and one son. He has stated that out of four daughters two daughters are twins. He has stated that one of twins daughter was Meenakshi. He has stated that deceased was married with co-accused Manoj Kumar on 9.12.2009. He has stated that accused persons kept the deceased nicely for two months after marriage and thereafter started harassing the deceased. He has stated that deceased was not allowed to talk with her parents on telephone and she was not permitted to visit her parents house. He has stated that his daughter disclosed him directly that she was harassed and maltreated by accused persons in her matrimonial house. He has stated that he told the deceased to come to her parental house but deceased showed her inability. He has stated that once his wife fell ill and his wife was admitted in Government hospital Una he tried to contact his deceased daughter but she was not allowed to talk with him. He has stated that whenever his daughter fell ill medicines were not provided by accused persons to her. He has stated that his deceased daughter came to her maternal house at village Chameti and spent 15-16 days. He has stated that he contacted co-accused Manoj Kumar by way of telephone but co-accused Manoj Kumar always avoided to speak with him. He has stated that thereafter he contacted co-accused Roop Singh and Nirmala Devi and requested them to amicably resolve the matter with help of elders. He has stated that in the month of September 2010 accused persons along with 15-20 persons came to village Chameti and deliberation took place. He has stated that during deliberation accused persons started fighting with him but on intervention of elder persons matter was amicably resolved and his deceased daughter returned back to matrimonial house with assurance that she would be kept properly in her matrimonial house. He has stated that thereafter he purchased a cell phone with SIM No. 94186-00251 and gave the same to his deceased daughter. He has stated that on 22.2.2010 he organised a function at village Nehriyan Tehsil Amb District Una and invited his daughter and accused persons to attend the function. He has stated that on 22.2.2010 his daughter and his son-in-law co-accused Manoj Kumar came at about 1.30 PM for lunch and stayed in night. He has stated that on the eve of Karwa Chauth he went to the house of accused to give gifts and other articles to his daughter but accused persons did not behave properly with him. He has stated that accused persons kept harassing and maltreating his deceased daughter in her matrimonial house. He has stated that on one occasion he had given Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to accused persons through his daughter for repayment of loan amount because they had received a bank notice. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 he was in his office and at about 11 AM he received a missed call from his daughter. He has stated that he immediately called his daughter and found that deceased was disturbed and she wanted to talk with her mother. He has stated that thereafter he called his wife and told her to call deceased Meenakshi on her cell phone. He has stated that later he received telephone call from his wife disclosing that deceased Meenakshi was in deep trouble. He has stated that thereafter he told his wife to contact Pardhan and Up-Pardhan of Panchayat and to meet him at Nehriyan. He has stated that when he was coming from his office to Nehriyan on way he received a telephone call from Sarla Devi Pardhan G.P. Kamlah disclosing that his deceased daughter had sustained burn injuries upon her body. He has also stated that at Nehriyan he met Gurdyal Pardhan, Satish Kumar Up-Pardhan and Kashmir Chand Ward Member, his wife, his daughters Seema and Rakhi and went together to village Galol in a private vehicle. He has stated that deceased was brought to Nadaun hospital in Ambulance and thereafter deceased was rushed to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that his deceased daughter remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh w.e.f. 4.12.2011 to 7.12.2011. He has stated that on night of 7.12.2011 his daughter died due to burn injuries. He has stated that his statement was recorded by police officials which is Ext.PW1/A. He has stated that his deceased daughter committed suicide because she was fed up with cruelty and atrocities given by accused persons. He has stated that deceased was compelled to put an end to her life by accused persons. He identified accused persons in Court. He has denied suggestion that deceased was always provided with medical aid whenever medical aid was required by deceased. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Manoj Kumar was taking care of deceased by providing necessities and money. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Manoj Kumar used to talk with him on telephone frequently. He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not subject the deceased to mental or physical harassment and cruelty. He has denied suggestion that no demand of any kind was made by accused persons after marriage.

8.2. PW2 Parveen Kumari has stated that deceased Meenakshi was her twin daughter and she was brought up by her parents at village Chameti. She has stated that on 9.12.2009 deceased was married with co-accused Manoj Kumar. She has stated that accused persons kept the deceased properly for about two months after marriage and thereafter accused persons started harassing the deceased. She has stated that accused persons used to beat the deceased. She has stated that deceased was not provided with maintenance and was not provided with any medical treatment. She has stated that accused persons prevented the deceased to contact her parents by way of telephone. She has stated that deceased was not allowed to visit her parents house on functions. She has stated that she remained hospitalised at District Hospital Una and accused persons did not allow them to talk with deceased and deceased was also not allowed to visit hospital. She has stated that in the month of February 2010 there was a function in her house and accused persons and her deceased daughter were invited to attend the function. She has stated that deceased came to attend the function along with co-accused Manoj Kumar at about 1.30 PM. She has stated that deceased disclosed her personally that co-accused Roop Singh had acted indecently with deceased. She has stated that accused persons sent the deceased to her parents house when they received a bank notice with demand of money and her husband paid Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand). She has stated that her daughter had some problem in her stomach and accused persons did not treat the deceased. She has stated that deceased was harassed for not giving birth to child. She has stated that in order to resolve the dispute her husband sought assistance of Pardhan and Up-Pardhan of G.P. Kamlah. She has stated that her daughter came to village Chameti and after 15- 20 days of her stay accused persons came along with 15- 20 persons for amicable settlement. She has stated that her daughter returned to her matrimonial house along with accused persons on assurance that she would be kept properly. She has stated that behaviour of accused persons remained cordial for few days and thereafter they again started harassing the deceased. She has stated that on 4.12.2011 her deceased daughter called her husband in morning. She has stated that her husband was in office and her husband called her and told to contact Meenakshi and to inquire about her well being. She has stated that deceased did not receive her call and thereafter her daughter called back on land line number 263345 but she was very disturbed and was shouting Bachao-Bachao (Save save). She has stated that thereafter she called her husband and told her husband that deceased was not well. She has stated that her husband asked her to contact Pardhan and Up-Pardhan and also directed her to meet him at Nehriyan. She has stated that she met her husband at Nehriyan and thereafter she went to Nadaun hospital along with Pardhan, Up-Pardhan, Ward Member and other relatives. She has stated that deceased Meenakshi was brought in Ambulance 108 after 15-20 minutes and when she saw the deceased she observed burn injuries upon the body of her daughter. She has stated that deceased was brought to medical officer and thereafter she was referred to PGI Chandigarh. She has stated that her daughter died at PGI Chandigarh on 7.12.2011. She has stated that her deceased daughter committed suicide because she was physically and mentally harassed by accused persons. She identified accused persons in Court. She has denied suggestion that her relatives assaulted co-accused Manoj Kumar and co-accused Nirmala. She has denied suggestion that deceased used to frequently visit her parents house at village Chameti. She has denied suggestion that deceased was short tempered. She has denied suggestion that accused persons did not harass the deceased in any manner. She has denied suggestion that she has deposed falsely against accused persons on account of hostile animus due to death of her daughter.

8.3. PW3 Ishwar Dass has stated that he is posted as Workshop Instructor at Government Polytechnic Kangra and on 4.12.2011 he came to his house. He has stated that at about 1 PM he received a telephone call from deceased Meenakshi. He has stated that deceased Meenakshi was related to his wife. He has stated that his village is situated at about 20 K.m. from village of accused persons. He has stated that deceased Meenakshi was crying and told that she was beaten by accused persons. He has stated that deceased informed that accused persons were demanding money from her parents for her medical treatment. He has stated that after receiving telephone call he went to see deceased along with his wife at village Galol. He has stated that when he and his wife reached at village Galol he found that Meenakshi was lying injured in burn condition in a room. He has stated that he inquired from accused persons as to why the deceased was not taken to hospital for medical treatment but accused persons were not interested in providing medical assistance to deceased and thereafter he called 108 Ambulance from his cell number and took deceased to CHC Nadaun. He has stated that when they reached hospital parents and other relatives of deceased have already reached there. He has stated that Meenakshi was taken to medical officer and thereafter she was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that later Meenakshi expired at Chandigarh. He has denied suggestion that when he reached at house of accused persons they were already prepared to shift the deceased Meenakshi to hospital. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing falsely because he is in close relation with deceased.

8.4. PW4 Gurdyal Singh Pardhan has stated that father of deceased Bidhi Chand is resident of his village and he is personally known to him. He has stated that on 04.12.2011 at about 1.30 PM Bidhi Chand came to his shop and requested him to accompany him to village Galol as his daughter was very serious. He has stated that they immediately went to village Galol and on way Bidhi Chand received message that his daughter was shifted to Nadaun hospital. He has stated that thereafter they straightway went to CHC Hospital Nadaun and reached at 2.30 PM. He has stated that injured Meenakshi was brought in 108 Ambulance with burn injuries and her condition was serious. He has stated that injured was in her senses. He has stated that statement of Meenakshi was recorded by police officials in his presence and in presence of Pardhan G.P. Kamlah. He has stated that statement Ext.PW4/A bears his signatures in red encircle. He has stated that statement Ext.PW4/A was recorded in presence of medical officer. He has stated that statement was thumb marked by Meenakshi. He has stated that Meenakshi could not sign because of burn injuries. He has stated that after recording her statement Meenakshi was referred to PGI Chandigarh for her medical treatment. He has stated that father of injured and other relatives took the injured to PGI Chandigarh in vehicle and he accompanied them upto Nehriyan and further stated that injured was in her senses and was talking till the time he travelled with injured. He has denied suggestion that statement of deceased Meenakshi was not recorded. He has stated that statement of deceased was recorded in his presence and thereafter he signed the same and affixed his stamp. He has stated that deceased reached hospital at 2.50 PM and thereafter it took about 15-20 minutes to complete the proceedings to record statement of deceased Meenakashi. He has denied suggestion that when statement of deceased Meenakshi was recorded at that time her parents and sisters were present. He has denied suggestion that Meenakshi was not in position to give dying declaration Ext.PW4/A. He has denied suggestion that no dying declaration of deceased was recorded in his presence. He has denied suggestion that he had signed dying declaration Ext.PW4/A at the instance of parents of deceased.

8.5. PW5 Sarla Devi has stated that she is Pardhan of G.P. Kamlah Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur H.P. She has stated that accused persons reside in her Panchayat. She has stated that deceased Meenakshi was married with co-accused Manoj Kumar and was daughter-in-law of other accused persons. She has stated that on 4.12.2011 she came to village Galol to inspect the under construction work which was undertaken by MNREGA. She has stated that co-accused Roop Lal was also working in construction work. She has stated that after inspecting the work she returned to her village and at 12.45 PM she received telephone call from co-accused Manoj Kumar. She has stated that she also talked with deceased Meenakshi. She has stated that deceased Meenakshi told her that she has set herself on fire and requested her to save her. She has stated that on receiving the communication call she called Up-Pardhan Ashok Kumar to immediately rush to spot. She has stated that thereafter she informed the police officials at P.S. Nadaun. She has stated that she telephoned the father of girl. She has stated that she went to house of accused along with her husband and met the police officials on way. She has stated that Meenakshi was shifted to hospital in ambulance and thereafter she came to CHC Nadaun along with police officials. She has stated that after reaching the hospital first aid was given to deceased and thereafter her statement was recorded. She has stated that statement was recorded by SHO in her presence. She has stated that after recording her statement Ext.PW4/A she also signed the same as a witness. She has stated that statement was recorded by police officials in presence of her parents. She has stated that parents and sisters of girl compelled her to depose that co-accused Roop Singh committed indecent assault and also demanded Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand). She has stated that she objected to facts being written by police at the instance of parents of deceased. She has stated that police took her signatures on statement. She has stated that father of girl never complained to her that deceased was harassed by accused persons. Witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by prosecution. She has denied suggestion that when statement Ext.PW4/A was recorded at that time parents and sisters of deceased were not present. She has denied suggestion that statement Ext.PW4/A was recorded as per version given by deceased Meenakshi. She has denied suggestion that when statement was recorded then medical officer was also present. She has stated that she does not know that Gurdyal Singh Pardhan G.P. Nehri was present. She has stated that before signing the statement she did not refuse to sign. She has stated that she also did not make any endorsement. She has stated that she did not make any complaint against police officials to the effect that police officials did not write the statement as per version of deceased. She has denied suggestion that father of deceased met her in her house and complained about harassment of deceased in her matrimonial house. She has denied suggestion that she has resiled from her previous statement in order to help the accused persons as they are her voters. She has stated that deceased Meenakshi did not disclose to her any incident which took place on 4.12.2011 compelling her to set herself on fire. She has stated that deceased did not make any complaint against the act and conduct of accused persons.

8.6. PW6 Ashok Kumar has stated that he was posted as Vice President of G.P. Kamlah. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 at about 1/1.30 PM he received telephone call from Smt. Sarla Pardhan that wife of co-accused Manoj Kumar had set herself on fire and had sustained burn injuries. He has stated that he was asked by Pardhan to visit spot, He has stated that he went to house of accused persons but none was present there as injured was took to hospital. He has stated that police officials during investigation inspected room of deceased Meenakshi and took into possession pieces of burn clothes i.e. shirt Ext.P2, salwar Ext.P3, scarf Ext.P4, underwear Ext.P5 and bra Ext.P6. He has stated that room was smelling of kerosene oil. He has stated that police also recovered one plastic canny containing 5 litres of kerosene oil. He has stated that burn clothes were packed in cloth parcel and sealed. He has stated that sealed kerosene canny took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW6/A in his presence and in presence of Leela Devi. He identified the signatures on seizure memo Ext.PW6/A red encircled. He has stated that shirt Ext.P2, salwar Ext.P3, scarf Ext.P3, underwear Ext.P5 and bra Ext.P6 are same which were took into possession by police officials in his presence. He has stated that plastic container was also took into possession in his presence. He has stated that in the month of January 2011 he visited the house of accused persons for thanks after the election. He has stated that police officials were present at the house of accused and further stated that statement Mark E was recorded in his presence.

8.7. PW7 Sukhdev Sharma has stated that he is Vice President of G.P. Kotla Chillian Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur and on 5.12.2011 he was associated by police during course of investigation. He has stated that he went with police to house of accused at 4.30 PM during which police searched attachi, almirah and bed and recovered following documents. (1) Carbon copy of statement of Meenakshi Devi dated 9.1.2011. (2) One undated paper slip written and signed by Meenakshi Devi. (3) One undated suicide note written by Meenakshi Devi. (4) OPD slip dated 20.8.2011, X-ray form, ultrasound report comprising six leaves. He has stated that all these documents took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/A in his presence and in presence of Bidhi Chand. He identified his signatures on memo.

8.8. PW8 Jaswant Singh has stated that he is posted as Secretary G.P. Kamlah Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur since 2008 and on 8.12.2011 police filed application Ext.PW8/A requesting to issue copy of family Register of Roop Singh. He has stated that on request of police he issued copy of family Register Ext.PW8/B which is correct as per original family register.

8.9. PW9 Raj Lal has stated that on 30.12.2011 he remained associated with police during investigation and on request of police Khushi Lal son of Dagroo Ram handed over following articles in his presence to police. (1) One paper written by deceased Meenakshi when she was in fifth class of the year 1999 Ext.PW9/A. (2) Two outer cardboard cover of photo album containing writings of deceased Ext.PW9/B and Ext.PW9/C. He has stated that above mentioned articles were handed over to police which were took into possession by police vide seizure memo Ext.PW9/D and he identified his signatures on memo.

8.10. PW10 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan has stated that she joined State Forensic Science Laboratory H.P. as Assistant Director on 13.6.2000 and further stated that after joining the service she received trainings in various aspects of forensic document examination from National Institutes of country. She has stated that she examined number of cases comprising of thousand of exhibits and submitted the report. She has also stated that she appeared as an expert witness in various courts of State of H.P. and since November 2011 she has been posted at RFSL Dharamshala. She has stated that she examined the documents carefully with scientific aid. She has stated that documents are written by one and same person. She has stated that she did not find any fundamental difference between writing characteristics of questioned and standard items. She has stated that report is Ext.PW10/D.

8.11. PW11 Dr. B.R. Rawat has stated that he has qualified Ph.D in Chemistry and examined about 25 cases pertaining to poison etc. He has proved report Ext.PW11/A. PW11 identified clothes shirt Ext.P2, salwar Ext.P3, scarf Ext.P4, underwear Ext.P5 and bra Ext.P6.

8.12. PW12 Dr. Savita Rana has stated that she is posted as medical officer at CHC Nadaun since 1996. She has stated that on 4.12.2011 at about 2.50 PM injured Meenakshi wife of Manoj Kumar resident of village Chillian, P.O. Karot Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur was brought to her with alleged history of quarrel at home followed by burn by kerosene oil. She has stated that police officials filed request application Ext.PW12/A for medical examination of injured and also sought opinion whether injured was fit to give statement. She has stated that on general examination she found that injured was well conscious, oriented to time place and person with BP 140/80 Pulse 76 per minute. She has stated that she observed following injuries. (1) Burn on both upper arms, (2) Thorax both sides. (3) Abdomen both sides. (4) Left leg both sides with thigh both sides. (5) Right thigh both sides and leg one side. (6) Perineum burnt. She has stated that Meenakshi had sustained 91% burn injuries. She has stated that duration of injuries was within three hours and she issued MLC Ext.PW12/B which is in her hand and bears her signatures. She has stated that after examining Meenakashi she found that Meenakshi was fit for making statement. She has stated that dying declaration of Meenakshi Ext.PW4/A was recorded by police officials in her presence. She has stated that statement was read over to Meenakshi Devi who later put her thumb impression. She has stated that injured on account of her burn injuries was not in a position to sign and she attested dying declaration Ext.PW4/A. She identified her signatures over dying declaration Ext.PW4/A. She has stated that in view of nature of injuries sustained by injured patient was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further medical treatment. She has denied suggestion that dying declaration Ext.PW4/A was not recorded in her presence. She has denied suggestion that she had attested and sign dying declaration Ext.PW4/A on mere asking of police officials.

8.13. PW13 Khushi Ram has stated that deceased Meenakshi was his granddaughter. He has stated that deceased Meenakshi after her birth resided with him and his family at village Chameti. He has stated that she was brought up, educated and married by him. He has stated that deceased was married to co-accused Manoj Kumar on 9.12.2009. He has stated that after period of two months of marriage accused persons started troubling the deceased for trivial matters and accused persons started demanding money. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 deceased committed suicide by burning herself as she was fed up with act and conduct of accused persons. He has stated that on 30.12.2011 on request of police he handed over Ext.PW9/A and Ext.PW9/B hand writing of deceased Meenakshi. He has stated that police took into possession documents vide seizure memo Ext.PW9/D and he also signed as a witness. He identified accused persons in Court. He has stated that accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) but he could manage to pay only Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not harass the deceased.

8.14. PW14 Sachin Bansal has stated that he is working as JTO (WLL) in office of GM-CM Chotta Shimla and he has been authorised by Divisional Engineer (Admn) BSNL to depose before Court vide authority letter Ext.PW14/A. He has stated that on request of police call details of Cell No. 94186-00251 w.e.f. 28.11.2011 to 4.12.2011 were provided which are Ext.PW14/B-1 to Ext.PW14/B-10. He has stated that call details are computer generated and computer password is protected. He has stated that record contains call details maintained by department and it is correct as per computerised record.

8.15. PW15 HC Sanjay Kumar has stated that he is posted as MHC P.S. Nadaun District Hamirpur for the last two years. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 at about 1.20 PM a telephone call was received in police station from Sarla Thakur Pradhan G.P. Kamlah regarding incident and information was entered at GD Entry No. 19(A) dated 4.12.2011. He has stated that pursuant to information a party headed by SI Santokh Singh along with police officials went to spot and GD entry is Ext.PW15/A. He has stated that he brought original GD Entry register and copy Ext.PW15/A is correct as per original record. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 following articles were deposited by ASI Onkar Singh. (1) One sealed cloth parcel with five seals of impression A containing burn clothes and undergarments of Meenakshi. (2) One sealed plastic canny of green colour containing 1.5 litres of kerosene. He has stated that entry regarding deposit of above mentioned articles recorded vide Sr. No. 573/113/2011 and he has also brought original malkhana register No. 19 and entries are correct as per original record. He has stated that on 9.12.2011 above mentioned articles were sent to forensic examination at RFSL Gutkar through C. Baldev Singh No. 265 vide RC No. 185 of 2011. He has stated that copy of RC register is Ext.PW15/C. he has stated that same is correct as per original record. He has stated that case property remained intact during his custody. He has stated that on 2.1.2012 one sealed parcel containing documents was sent to RFSL Dhramshala through HHC Mohinder Singh No. 222 vide RC No. 4 of 2012 copy of which is Ext.PW15/D. He has stated that copy Ext.PW15/D is correct as per original record.

8.16. PW16 HHC Mohinder Singh has stated that he is posted at P.S. Nadaun since August 2011 and he remained associated with police during investigation. He has stated that on 30.12.2011 police took into possession diary Ext.P8 containing admitted handwriting of deceased vide seizure memo Ext.PW16/A in his presence. He has further stated that on 2.1.2012 HC Sanjay Kumar MHC of P.S. Nadaun handed over him one sealed parcel for depositing at RFSL Dharamshala vide RC No. 4/12 Ext.PW15/D and he deposited safe and intact parcel and handed over the receipt to MHC.

8.17. PW17 HHC Ashok Kumar has stated that on 4.12.2011 he was posted as general duty at P.S. Nadaun and SI Santokh Singh I.O. P.S. Nadaun handed over him statement of Meenkashi Ext.PW4/A which he took to P.S. Nadaun and FIR No. 200 of 2011 dated 4.12.2011 was registered under Sections 498-A IPC at P.S. Nadaun. He has further stated that after registration of FIR he took case file to CHC Nadaun and handed over the same to Investigating Officer.

8.18. PW18 C. Baldev has stated that he is posted at P.S. Nadaun for the last four years and on 9.12.2011 HC Sanjeev Kumar handed over to him one sealed cloth parcel bearing five seals impressions containing burn clothes and undergarments of deceased and one sealed plastic canny of green colour containing 1.5 litres of kerosene for depositing at RFSL Gutkar vide RC No. 185 of 2011 Ext.PW15/C. He has stated that he deposited these articles on same day and on return handed over its receipt to MHC.

8.19. PW19 ASI Suresh Kumar has stated that he was posted as I.O. in P.S. Nadaun till April 2012 and on 14.2.2012 Inspector Mool Raj handed over to him the case file for further investigation. He has stated that on 14.2.2012 he recorded statements of three witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. HHC Ashok Kumar, HHC Mohinder Singh and Neelam Kumari as per their versions and thereafter he handed over the case file to SHO.

8.20. PW20 ASI Ashok Kumar has stated that he is posted as I.O. at P.S. Nadaun since January 2011 and on 4.12.2011 at 4.10 PM he received original statement of Meenakshi Devi Ext.PW4/A scribed by SI Santokh Singh Addl.SHO P.S. Nadaun and he registered FIR No. 200/2011 dated 4.12.2011 against accused persons under Section 498-A IPC at P.S. Nadaun which is Ext.PW20/A and endorsement on FIR is Ext.PW20/B.

8.21. PW21 SI Santokh Singh has stated that he was posted as Investigating Officer at P.S. Nadaun District Hamirpur. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 an information was received at P.S. Nadaun through Smt. Sarla Thakur Pardhan G.P. Kamlah Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur regarding burn injuries case at village Galol. He has stated that on receiving information same was entered in GD Entry No. 19(A) at 1.20 PM Ext.PW15/A and thereafter he left for the spot along with ASI Onkar Singh, HHC Ashok Kumar, HHC Mohinder Singh in official vehicle being driven by HHC William Singh. He has stated that when he reached near village Galol he came to know that Meenakshi Devi who had sustained burnt injuries was already shifted to CHC Nadaun and thereafter he contacted Sarla Thakur and came to CHC Nadaun along with Pardhan and HHC Ashok Kumar. He has stated that ASI Onkar Singh and HHC Mohinder Singh stayed back for conducting investigation. He has stated that on reaching at CHC Nadaun Meenakshi Devi was under treatment and some relatives from her parental house also reached. He has stated that he immediately moved application Ext.PW12/A to medical officer CHC Nadaun for issuance of MLC regarding status of patient for making statement. He has stated that Dr. Savita Rana found Meenakshi Devi fit for making statement and thereafter he recorded dying declaration Ext.PW4/A in presence of Dr.Savita Rana, Smt. Sarla Thakur Pardhan G.P. Kamlah and Gurdial Singh Pardhan G.P. Nehri Tehsil Amb District Una. He has stated that after obtaining thumb impression of Meenakshi he sent dying declaration Ext.PW4/A with endorsement to P.S. Nadaun through HHC Ashok Kumar and thereafter FIR was registered at P.S. Nadaun under Section 498-A IPC and copy of FIR is Ext.PW20/A. He has stated that he recorded statement of Sarla Thakur Ext.PW21/A as per her version. He has stated that he also recorded statements of Gurdial Singh, Ishwar Dass Ext.PW21/B as per their versions and he also recorded statement of Neelam Kumari under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated that he arrested accused persons present in Court from CHC Nadaun and on 5.12.2011 he went to village Galol along with accused and searched room of deceased and recovered following documents. (1) Carbon copy of statement of Meenakshi Devi dated 9.1.2011 Mark E. (2) OPD slip dated 20.8.2011 Mark F. (3) Two X-ray forms Mark G and Mark H. (4) Ultrasound TPs Mark-J, Mark-K and Mark L. (5) One handwritten note on paper slip of Meenakshi Ext.PW10/B. (6) Suicide note (undated) written by Meenakshi Ext.PW10/A. He has stated that above stated documents took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/A in presence of two witnesses Sukh Dev Sharma and Bidhi Chand. He also recorded statement of Bidhi Chand Ext.PW21/C. He has stated that on 30.12.2011 he went to village Chameti to the house of Khushi Ram and Khushi Ram handed over following articles. (1) One paper written by deceased Meenakshi when she was in fifth class of the year 1999 Ext.PW9/A. (2) Two outer cardboard cover of photo album containing writings of deceased Ext.PW9/B and Ext.PW9/C. He has stated that above mentioned documents took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW9/D in presence of Raj Lal. He has stated that he also recorded statements of Raj Lal and Khushi Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated that he again went to village Galol where co-accused Roop Singh handed over diary Ext.P8 containing the matter written by deceased which was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW16/A in presence of HHC Mohinder Singh No. 220. He has stated that he also recorded statement of HHC Mohinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after conducting aforesaid investigation he handed over case file to ASI Onkar Singh I.O.P.S. Nadaun as per direction of SHO on account of his transfer. He has stated that dying declaration Ext.PW4/A was recorded in room where deceased was given first aid by medical officer. He has stated that before recording dying declaration of deceased he sent out her parents and relatives. He has denied suggestion that dying declaration Ext.PW4/A was not recorded as per version of Meenkashi. He has denied suggestion that dying declaration Ext.PW4/A was recorded at the instance of parents and relatives of deceased Meenakshi.

8.22. PW22 SI Onkar Singh has stated that in the month of December 2011 he was posted as I.O. at P.S. Nadaun District Hamirpur H.P. and on 4.12.2011 he went to village Galol along with SI Santokh Singh and other police officials after receiving information regarding burn injuries case. He has stated that on reaching the spot SI Santokh Singh left to CHC Nadaun where deceased Meenakshi was shifted. He has stated that he stayed back and after associating Ashok Kumar Up Pardhan G.P. Kamlah and Leela Devi Ward Member G.P. Kamlah he prepared spot map Ext.PW22/A and took photographs of site Ext.PW22/B-1 to Ext.PW22/B-3 by official digital camera. He has stated that thereafter he took into possession pieces of burn clothes i.e. shirt Ext.P2, salwar Ext.P3, scarf Ext.P4, underwear Ext.P5 and bra Ext.P6 and one green colour five litres plastic canny Ext.P7. He has stated that burnt clothes were packed in a cloth parcel and sealed. He has stated that he recorded statements of Ashok Kumar, Leela Devi, HC Sanjay Kumar and C. Baldev Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further stated that on 7.12.2011 communication regarding death of deceased Meenakshi received at P.S. Nadaun and on information he went to PGI Chandigarh and conducted inquest proceedings. He has stated that he also took photographs of dead body at Chandigarh Ext.PW22/F-1 to Ext.PW22/F-6 with official digital camera and filed application Ext.PW22/G for post mortem examination of deceased. He has stated that body of deceased Meenakshi was handed over to her father on 8.12.2011 at PGI Chandigarh in presence of witnesses. He has stated that he recorded statement of Bidhi Chand at PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that after death of Meenakshi section 306 IPC was added and after completion of investigation case file was handed over to Inspector Mool Raj SHO P.S. Nadaun. He has denied suggestion that statements of witnesses were not recorded as per their versions.

8.23. PW23 Inspector Mool Raj SHO has stated that he is posted as SHO in P.S. Nadaun since 15.11.2011. He has stated that on 8.12.2011 he procured the copy of family register of accused Roop Singh from Secretary G.P. Kamlah vide request application Ext.PW8/A. He has stated that copy of family register is Ext.PW8/B. He has stated that he also recorded statement of Jaswant Singh, Secretary G.P. Kamlah and after receiving FSL report Ext.PW10/B, Ext.PW11/A and call details Ext.PW14/B-1 to Ext.PW14/B-10 he prepared challan and presented in Court of learned Judicial Magistrate.

8.24. PW24 Dr. M. Kumaran has stated that he is posted as Junior Resident Department of Forensic Medicine PGI Chandigarh since July 2011 and on 8.12.2011 in between 10.28 AM to 11.45 AM he along with Dr. Dalbir Singh Professor Department of Forensic medicine PGIMER Chandigarh conducted post mortem examination of deceased Meenakshi wife of co-accused Manoj Kumar aged 23 years. He has stated that body was brought by ASI Onkar Singh and identified by Bidhi Chand and Lekh Raj. He has stated that case was of thermal burns dated 4.12.2011 at about 11.30 AM at her matrimonial house when deceased ignited herself with kerosene oil. He has stated that firstly deceased was brought to CHC Nadaun and thereafter she was referred to PGI Chandigarh. Following details were noted. (a) Date and time of arrival to PGIMER as per police information dated 4.12.2012 at 9.37 PM. (b) Time and date of death 7.12.2012 at 9.28 PM. (c) Time and date of commencing the autopsy 8.12.2012 at 10.28 AM. (d) Time and date of completing the autopsy 8.12.2012 at 11.45 AM. He has stated that on external examination it was observed that body was of moderately built female of length 153 cm and weight 48 Kg. and rigor mortis present over lower limbs. He has stated that total burn injuries area of deceased was approximately 65% septic burns injuries. He has stated that cause of death was shock due to septicemia as a result of 65% septic burn injuries. He has further stated that all injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He has stated that probable time that has elapsed between injury and death was three days as per police paper and probable time that elapsed between death and post mortem was 13 hours. He has stated that post mortem report is Ext.PW24/A which is signed by him and Dr. Dalbir Singh. He has stated that photographs of deceased on post mortem table are Ext.PW22/F-1 to Ext.PW22/F-6 and they all bear his signatures.

9. Following documentaries evidence filed. (1) Ext.PW1/A is statement of Bidhi Chand. (2) Ext.PW21/C is statement of Bidhi Chand. (3) Ext.PW22/D is statement of Smt. Parkash Kumari. (4) Ext.PW22/B is statement of Ishwar Dass. (5) Ext.PW4/A is statement of deceased Meenakshi. (6) Ext.PW6/A is seizure memo of recovery of clothes and kerosene canny. (7) Ext.PW7/A is seizure memo of documents. (8) Ext.PW8/A is application filed by Investigating Officer before Secretary G.P. for supply of family register. (9) Ext.PW8/B is copy of family register. (10) Ext.PW9/A is hand written specimen. (11) Ext.PW9/B is specimen hand writing. (12) Ext.PW9/D is seizure memo of document. (13) Ext.PW10/A is specimen hand writing of deceased Meenakshi. (14) Ext.PW10/B is specimen hand writing of deceased Meenakshi. (15) Ext.P8 is diary. (16) Ext.PW10/D is FSL report. (17) Ext.PW11/A is FSL report. (18) Ext.PW12/A is application filed before medical officer. (19) Ext.PW12/B is MLC of Meenakshi aged 23 years. As per MLC Ext.PW12/B Meenakshi sustained 91% burn injuries upon her body. (20) Ext.PW14/A is authority letter given by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. (21) Ext.PW14/B are call details. (22) Ext.PW15/A is abstract of daily station diary. (23) Ext.PW15/B is copy of malkhana register. (24) Ext.PW15/C is copy of road certificate. (25) Ext.PW15/D is copy of road certificate. (26) Ext.PW16/A is seizure memo of diary of deceased. (27) Ext.PW20/A is FIR No. 200 dated 4.12.2011 P.S. Nadaun District Hamirpur registered under Section 498-A IPC. (28) Ext.PW22/A is site plan. (29) Ext.PW22/B-1 to Ext.PW22/B-3 are photographs of deceased Meenakshi. (30) Ext.PW22/C is seal impression upon plain cloth. (31) Ext.PW22/E is inquest report. (32) Ext.PW22/F-1 to Ext.PW22/F-6 are photographs. (33) Ext.PW22/H is receipt of dead body of Meenakshi. (34) Ext.PW24/A is post mortem report. As per post mortem report death is ante-mortem in nature and cause of death is shock due to septicemia of 65% septic burns.

10. Statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Accused persons have stated that they are innocent. Accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence.

11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that criminal offence under Section 498-A IPC is not proved against co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that Section 498-A IPC was enacted to prevent cruelty upon married women in her matrimonial house. PW1 Bidhi Chand father of deceased has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that deceased was married with co-accused Manoj on 9.12.2009. PW1 has specifically stated that deceased was not allowed to talk with her parents on telephone and she was also not allowed to contact her parental house. PW1 has also stated that deceased has disclosed him directly that she was harassed and tortured in her matrimonial house. He has stated that Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) was also paid by him for repayment of loan amount. Testimony of PW1 is corroborated by PW2 Parveen Kumari who is mother of deceased. PW2 has stated when she appeared in witness box that deceased was beaten by accused persons in her matrimonial house and she was not provided maintenance allowance. PW2 has also stated in positive manner that deceased was prevented to contact her parents by way of phone. PW2 has also specifically stated when she appeared in witness box that co-accused Roop Singh also tried to outrage modesty of deceased during night period. PW2 has also stated that accused persons also demanded money from deceased when they received a bank notice. PW2 has further stated in positive manner that her husband had paid Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to accused persons. PW2 has specifically stated that deceased called her upon land line No. 263345 and she was disturbed and was shouting "bachao-bachao"(Save save).

12. PW3 Ishwar Dass has specifically stated in positive manner that he received telephonic call from deceased Meenakshi. He has stated that Meenakshi was related to his wife. He has stated that on 4.12.2011 deceased Meenakshi was crying and told him that she was beaten by accused persons. PW3 has also stated in positive manner that deceased directly informed him that accused persons demanded money from her parents. PW12 Dr. Savita Rana has stated that deceased was brought in hospital with 91% burn injuries upon her body. PW13 Khushi Ram has stated that deceased had committed suicide because deceased was fed up with act and conduct of accused persons. PW13 has stated that Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) were demanded from him but he could pay only Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand). Testimonies of PW1 Bidhi Chand, PW2 Parveen Kumari, PW3 Ishwar Dass, PW13 Khushi Ram and PW12 Dr. Savita Rana are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of above stated persons.

13. Court has also pursued the dying declaration of deceased Meenakshi Ext.PW4/A placed on record. It is proved on record that dying declaration of deceased was recorded in hospital when deceased sustained burn injuries to the extent of 91% upon her body. There is recital in dying declaration Ext.PW4/A placed on record given by deceased that she was harassed in her matrimonial house relating to money. There is recital in dying declaration given by deceased Ext.PW4/A that on 8.2.2010 when deceased was alone in her matrimonial house then her father-in-law co-accused namely Roop Singh came to her during night period and switched off the electric light and started outraging her modesty. Deceased Meenakshi also stated in dying declaration Ext.PW4/A that she was forced to bring money from her parental house several times and her parents paid Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand). There is recital in dying declaration that deceased Meenakshi was also beaten in her matrimonial house. There is recital in dying declaration that deceased was fed up with act and conduct of her husband and father-in-law and under compelling circumstances deceased sprinkled kerosene oil upon her body and set her body upon fire. It is well settled law that cruelty in matrimonial house are of two types. Mental cruelty and physical cruelty. Court is of the opinion that directing the married women to bring money from her parental house amounts to mental cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. Court is also of the opinion that trying to outrage the modesty of married woman in her matrimonial house by her father-in-law also amounts cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. Testimony of above said persons is corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. medical certificate and post mortem report placed on record. It is held that cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC upon deceased is proved against co-accused Manoj Kumar and co-accused Roop Singh beyond reasonable doubt. There is no allegation against co-accused No. 3 Nirmala Devi in dying declaration Ext.PW4/A placed on record by name. Hence it is held that Nirmala Devi is legally entitled for benefit of doubt relating to criminal offence under Section 498-A IPC. See (1977) 9 SCC 338 title Balram Prasad v. State of Bihar. See (1994)4 SCC 690 title Arun Vyas and others v. Anita Vyas. See (2001) 6 SCC 407 title Arvind v. State of Bihar. See (2005) 6 SCC 281 title Sushil Kumar v. Union of India. See (2002) 7 SCC 4141 title Mohd. Hussain v. State of A.P. See (2002) 2 SCC 619 title Gananath Patnaik v. State of Orissa.

14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against co-accused Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter. It is proved on record that deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial house within two years after her marriage. As per Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act 1872 the Court should presume that accused persons have committed the abetment of suicide upon married woman if suicide is committed within seven years of her marriage. Deceased Meenakshi Devi committed suicide in her matrimonial house when she was aged 23 years within two years of her marriage. Deceased Meenakshi has specifically stated in her dying declaration Ext.PW4/A that she committed suicide due to torture and harassment given to her in her matrimonial house and deceased was immediately brought to hospital for her medical treatment and thereafter deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh and in PGI Chandigarh deceased died. Co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 did not adduce any defence evidence despite opportunity granted by learned Trial Court. Evidence under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act 1872 by way of dying declaration remained un-rebutted against co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2. There is no evidence against co-appellant Nirmala Devi that she abetted deceased to commit suicide. There is no reference of Nirmala co-accused in dying declaration Ext.PW4/A. Hence it is held that no criminal offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against co-accused Nirmala Devi in present case under Section 306 IPC. See AIR 1990 SC 209 title Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh. See AIR 1989 SC 1661 Brij Lal v. Prem Chand.

15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh that PW1 Bidhi Chand, PW2 Parveen Kumari, PW3 Ishwar Dass, PW13 Khushi Ram are relatives of deceased and their testimonies cannot be relied is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that if testimonies of relative witnesses are coherent then same could be relied in criminal case. It is well settled law that in matrimonial dispute relatives are best witnesses. It is also well settled law that generally married women used to disclose the facts of cruelty upon her in matrimonial house to her relatives only. It is also well settled law that if cruelty in matrimonial house is committed within four walls of house then procurement of independent witness is not possible. It is well settled law that if criminal offence is committed within four walls then burden is upon owner of house to prove his innocence as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 See JT (2016) 2 SC 459 title Gajanan Dassrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra.

16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants namely Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh that there is major contradiction between testimonies of prosecution witnesses and on this ground appeal filed by co-appellants Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh did not point out any major contradiction which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when testimonies of prosecution witnesses are recorded after a gape of sufficient time. In present case incident took place on 4.12.2011 and testimonies of witnesses were recorded on 14.1.2013, 15.1.2013, 16.1.2013, 17.1.2013, 19.1.2013, 21.1.2013, 22.1.2013, 23.1.2013, 26.4.2013, 6.5.2013. See (2010) 9 SCC 567 title C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu. See AIR 1972 SC 2020 title Sohrab and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. See AIR 1985 SC 48 title State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony. See AIR 1983 SC 753 title Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat. See AIR 2007 SC 2257 title State of Rajasthan v. Om Parkash. See (2009) 11 SCC 588 title Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh. See (2009) 9 SCC 626 title State of Uttar Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar and others. See AIR 1988 SC 696 title Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat. See AIR 1999 SC 3544 title Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh. See (2000) 1 SCC 247 title State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and another. See (2004) 10 SCC 94 title Laxman Singh v. Poonam Singh and others. See (2012) 10 SCC 433 title Kuriya and another v. State of Rajasthan.

17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh that above said co-appellants cannot be convicted simply on testimonies of PW1 Bidhi Chand, PW2 Parveen Kumari, PW3 Ishwar Dass, PW12 Dr. Savita Rana, PW13 Khushi Ram is rejected being devoid of any forced for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that no particular number of witnesses in any case is required for the proof of any fact. It is well settled principle of law that conviction can be based on solitary statements of witnesses if Court comes to conclusion that statement is true and correct version of the case of prosecution. It is well settled law that Courts are concerned with merits of statements of particular witnesses and Courts are not concerned with number of witnesses examined by prosecution. See AIR 2010 SCW 4470 title Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal. See AIR 2016 SCW 1160 title Sadhu Saran v. State of U.P.

18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 that in view of statement of deceased Meenakshi Devi Ext.PW10/A and Ext.PW10/B placed on record co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 be acquitted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Statements Ext.PW10/A and Ext.PW10/B are rebutted by dying declaration Ext.PW4/A placed on record. Dying declaration Ext.PW4/A placed on record is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of eye witness PW4 Gurdial Singh Pradhan Gram Panchayat Nehri Tehsil Amb District Unda (H.P.) Dying declaration Ext.PW4/A placed on record is also proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of eye witness PW12 Dr. Savita. Dying declaration Ext.PW4/A is also proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW21 Santokh Singh. Dying declaration Ext.PW4/A is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. See (2000) 8 SCC 514 title Lakhan v. State of M.P. See (2010)5 SCC 451 title Munnawar and others v. State of U.P. See (2007) 12 SCC 562 title Saya alias Sultan Begum v. State of Maharashtra. See (1992) 2 SCC 126 title Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar. See AIR 1992 SC 1817 title Paniben v. State of Gujarat. See AIR 1985 SC 416 title State of H.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav. See AIR 1983 SC 164 title Ramavati v. State of Bihar. See AIR 1979 SC 1505 title Suraj Deo Oza and others v. State of Bihar. As per post mortem report placed on record deceased had died due to ante mortem injuries to the extent of 65% septic burns.

19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 that in view of testimony of PW5 Sarla Devi dying declaration Ext.PW4/A cannot be relied is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Dying declaration Ext.PW4/A is duly signed by PW5 Sarla Devi. PW5 Sarla Devi did not give her dissenting note when she signed dying declaration Ext.PW4/A. PW5 did not complaint to any competent authority. Co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are voters of PW5 Sarla Devi. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to disbelieve dying declaration Ext.PW4/A on testimony of PW5 Sarla Devi.

20. Rulings cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants namely Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh i.e. 2003 SCC (Cri.) 1523 title State of Haryana v. Jai Parkash, (2005) 9 SCC 769 title State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar, (2009) 4 SCC 52 title Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 5 SCC 371 title Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2009) 10 SCC 164 title Mankamma v. State of Kerala are not applicable in present case. Facts of present case and facts of cases cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are different and distinguishable.

21. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC is also proved beyond reasonable doubt against co-accused Nirmala Devi is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Name of Nirmala Devi did not figure in dying declaration given by deceased Ext.PW4/A placed on record. Even none of witnesses examined in Court stated by name that co-accused Nirmala Devi had committed cruelty and abetment as alleged by prosecution. Hence it is held that prosecution did not prove ingredients of Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against co-accused Nirmala Devi in present case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No. 1 is partly answered in yes and partly answered in No.

Point No. 2 (Final order)

22. In view of findings on point No. 1 appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court against co-appellants Manoj Kumar and Roop Singh affirmed and conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court against co-appellant Nirmala Devi is set aside. Co-appellant Nirmala Devi is acquitted qua offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC by way of giving her benefit of doubt. Learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) will issue release warrant in favour of co-appellant Smt. Nirmala Devi forthwith if not required in any other case. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith. Criminal appeal No. 4247 of 2013 is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.

Final Result : Partly Allowed