Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment/order dated 11/12.6.1993 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby accused-appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 307/498-A, IPC. For offence under Section 307, IPC, Naurang Singh, Ram Narain and Shanti Devi were sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each whereas Madan accused was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 250 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. For offence under Section 498A, IPC all the accused were sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 200 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. 2. Prosecution case against accused-appellants is that on 1.9.1990 Giarsi wife of Naurang Singh accused was sleeping on a cot in the house situated in labour colony Bhiwani. Then accused Naurang Singh who is husband, Ram Narain and Madan Lal who are brothers of the husband and Shanti Devi mother of the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. She got awakened after feeling heat and saw an empty bottle lying there. Accused Naurang Singh attempted to extinguish fire by putting water on her whereas Ram Narain and Madan Lal had thrown water on her. She was taken to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani where doctor examined her and sent information to the police. A request was made by the police to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and then statement of Giarsi Devi was recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and on the basis of that statement case under Sections 307/34/498A, IPC was registered. It was investigated. Appellants were sent for trial. Case was found to be proved against them. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Counsel for the appellants had argued that there was no case for offence Section 307, IPC. It was argued, none of the accused was present in the house when occurrence took place. Accused came running and then tried to extinguish the fire, They took Giarsi Devi to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani for treatment and then also to Rohtak hospital. That they had been falsely involved just on suspicion. 4. It was argued, none of the accused was present in the house when occurrence took place. Accused came running and then tried to extinguish the fire, They took Giarsi Devi to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani for treatment and then also to Rohtak hospital. That they had been falsely involved just on suspicion. 4. Occurrence took place at 2.30 p.m. on 1.9.1990. Injured Giarsi was immediately taken to the hospital where she reached at 3.15 p.m. and was medico-legally examined. Her statement was recorded at about 5.25 p.m. that very day by Mr. L.N. Jindal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class who appeared as PW-1. In her statement, she had stated that she was married with Naurang Singh before the occurrence. That she was sleeping in the house at 3 p.m. and at that time her husband Naurang Singh, her two Dewars (brothers-in-law) i.e. Ram Narain and Madan Lal and her mother-in-law Shanti Devi were present. As she had not borne any child, her in-laws were calling her as barren lady (Banjh) and were teasing her. When she was sleeping, somebody brought kerosene and put her on fire. When she cried out of pain then she saw that her husband Naurang Singh, her Dewars Ram Narain and Madan Lal and her mother-in-law were present there. Bottle was lying on the ground. She ran to the other room by crying fire-fire and then her two Dewars put water on her and extinguished the fire. They brought her to the hospital. She had further stated that about two months prior to this, her mother-in-law had taken her ornaments and her in-laws had been beating her and teasing her. Then her in-laws had put her on fire. 5. PW-2 Dr. Kapil Kumar of General Hospital, Bhiwani where Giarsi Devi was taken immediately after occurrence had medically examined her at about 3.15 p.m. on 1.9.1990. He had found 60% burns on her body but stated that she was accompanied by her husband Naurang Singh to the hospital. This Giarsi Devi later on was shifted to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. PW-13 Dr. Azad Singh of that hospital had stated that Naurang Singh and Ram Narain used to take care of Giarsi Devi. 6. He had found 60% burns on her body but stated that she was accompanied by her husband Naurang Singh to the hospital. This Giarsi Devi later on was shifted to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. PW-13 Dr. Azad Singh of that hospital had stated that Naurang Singh and Ram Narain used to take care of Giarsi Devi. 6. The contention of the accused in this case had been that they were not present in the house and when Giarsi Devi was making tea on the stove, kerosene sprinkled from the stove and her Sari caught fire. They came running after hearing cries of Giarsi Devi and poured water and saved her. Raj Pal another brother of the husband while appearing as DW-2 had stated that his daughter Sonu was ill and his mother Shanti Devi was living in his house to take care of his daughter. On 1.9.1990 his brother Madan Lal had informed him and his mother about burning of Giarsi Devi at about 3.30 p.m. Accused had also produced on record bills and receipts showing that they had been spending money for treatment of Giarsi Devi, after the occurrence. 7. There is statement of PW-5 Lado who had acted as mediator for the marriage of Giarsi Devi with Naurang Singh accused. She had stated that some time after occurrence Giarsi had come to her and shown injuries on her hand stating that her husband and his two brothers and his mother had given her beating because she had not been able to bring more dowry particularly an amount of Rs. 30,000 for raising construction as demanded by the accused. 8. PW-9 Pehlad, father of Giarsi Devi, had also stated that accused had been teasing and torturing her as accordingto them, Giarsi was a barren lady and that she should bring some amount for purchasing house. He could not afford any money and then an attempt was made to kill Giarsi Devi, by putting her on fire. 9. PW-10 had also stated that accused were taunting and torturing Giarsi Devi since she did not deliver a child and also a demand of Rs. 30,000 was not met. 10. PW-11 Giarsi Devi had stated in the same terms as she had stated before the Magistrate. She denied having executed affidavit to the effect that occurrence had taken place when she was preparing tea on stove. 30,000 was not met. 10. PW-11 Giarsi Devi had stated in the same terms as she had stated before the Magistrate. She denied having executed affidavit to the effect that occurrence had taken place when she was preparing tea on stove. She stated that she was taken by her husband to the hospital and he might have got some affidavit written and got her thumb impression on that. 11. In this case, Giarsi Devi was sleeping when occurrence of fire took place. She got up after feeling heat of fire and saw the accused present but she had nowhere said that she had seen any of the accused bringing kerosene or putting her on fire. The fact remains that her husband and brothers of the husband had immediately taken steps to extinguish the fire and she had been taken to Rohtak hospital where husband and brothers of the husband had been looking after her. 12. If accused/appellants i.e. husband Naurang Singh, Ram Narain and Madan Lal brothers of Naurang Singh and Shanti Devi mother-in-law had put her on fire with intention to kill her, then it was very easy for them to run away and not to take any steps to extinguish fire and get her treated. It may be that due to ill-treatment or torture for not bearing a child and not bringing money as demanded, Giarsi Devi had suspected accused for putting her on fire and then named them in her statement. She, in her statement, did not say anything that she had seen anybody sprinkling kerosene oil on her. 13. From the facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the accused, it cannot be said that prosecution case against accused/appellants that they had put her on fire with intention to commit murder is proved. 14. There is positive evidence in the statement of PW-5 Lado, PW-9 Pehlad, PW- l0 Risal Singh and PW-11 Giarsi that accused had been taunting her since she had not borne a child. There had been some demand also which had not been made. 15. Under these circumstances, I hold that case for offence under Section 498A, IPC for practising cruelty is duly proved against accused/appellants who were husband, husbands brothers and mother-in-law of Giarsi Devi. 16. From the above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted. There had been some demand also which had not been made. 15. Under these circumstances, I hold that case for offence under Section 498A, IPC for practising cruelty is duly proved against accused/appellants who were husband, husbands brothers and mother-in-law of Giarsi Devi. 16. From the above discussion, this appeal is partly accepted. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 307, IPC is set aside whereas conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 498-A, IPC is maintained.