JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 165­ SB of 1993, filed by Anil Kumar, Bimla Wanti, and Atul Mittal, and Criminal Appeal No. 233-SB of 1993, filed by Dr. Jatinder Kumar, accused (now appellants), against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 25.05.93, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide which, it convicted and sentenced them, as under:­- Names of the accused Offence for which Sentence awarded (now appellants) convicted 1. 2 3 i Jatinder Kumar (a) Under Section To undergo rigorous ii. Anil Kumar 304-B of the imprisonment for a iii. Bimla Wanti Indian Penal Code. Period of 10 ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. v. Jatinder Kumar (b) Under Section 306 To undergo rigorous vi. Anil Kumar of the Indian Penal imprisonment for a period vii. Bimla wanti Code of four years each, and to viii Atul Mittal pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. ix. Jatinder Kumar (b) Under Section 498-A No separate sentence x. Anil Kumar of the Indian Penal was passed because of xi. Bimla wanti Code the sentence, having been xii Atul Mittal passed, against the accused, in the major offence, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. All the substantive sentences, were ordered, to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Meenakshi daughter of Som Parkash, complainant, was married, to Jatinder Mittal, accused, on 07.03.91. Nirmala Devi, accused, is the mother, Atul Kumar, and Anil Kumar, accused, are the brothers of accused Jatinder Mittal. A sum of Rs. 2 ½ lacs was spent by the parents of Meenakshi, at the time of her marriage. Before the marriage Anil Kumar and Jatinder Kumar, raised a demand of Rs. 1 lac from the parents of Meenakshi, so that they could purchase a Maruti car with that amount. Som Parkash told his brother Ved Parkash and his relation Bharat Bhushan. He also obtained financial help for meeting this demand from Bharat Bhushan and Ved Parkash aforesaid. Before the marriage Anil Kumar and Jatinder Kumar, raised a demand of Rs. 1 lac from the parents of Meenakshi, so that they could purchase a Maruti car with that amount. Som Parkash told his brother Ved Parkash and his relation Bharat Bhushan. He also obtained financial help for meeting this demand from Bharat Bhushan and Ved Parkash aforesaid. After two days of the marriage, when Meenakshi came to her parents house, she told Som Parkash, in the presence of his wife and Bharat Bhushan that Smt. Bimla, her mother-in-law, Atul Mittal and Anil, accused, were taunting her for bringing inadequate and, inferior quality of dowry articles. Meenakshi was however, told by them, that with the passage of time, everything will be smooth. Whenever the relations of Meenakshi used to go to meet her in her in­ laws house, they were not allowed to meet her by the accused. The accused also did not allow Meenakshi to come to meet her parents at Ambala. When Meenakshi came to her parents house at Ambala, for appearing in B.A. Examination, she told her parents and Bharat Bhushan that the accused were subjecting her to cruelty, in connection with the demand of Rs. 50,000/-, required for the extension of clinic of Jatinder Kumar. When Meenakshi went back to her in-laws house at Mulana, after the B.A. Examination was over, she was handed over a sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of the aforesaid amount for giving the same to the accused. She was also told that the remaining amount shall be arranged later on. On 03.09.91, Ved Parkash, real brother of the complainant fell ill. He sent a telephonic message at the house of the in-laws of Meenakshi, with a request that she be sent to his house, but she was not sent. On 04.09.91, Rajat son of Ashok Kumar, a relation of the complainant was sent to bring Meenakshi, but she was not sent. On 20.09.91, Ved Parkash, aforesaid died. At that time, the accused did not come to condole the death of Ved Parkash. On 11.09.91, Puma Devi, sister-in-law of the complainant died. Meenakshi was sent by the accused, to condole her death, with a great difficulty. On 20.09.91, a pagree ceremony of Ved Parkash and Puma Devi, was held. Meenakshi was left in the house of her parents at about 9.30 AM. on 20.09.91. On 11.09.91, Puma Devi, sister-in-law of the complainant died. Meenakshi was sent by the accused, to condole her death, with a great difficulty. On 20.09.91, a pagree ceremony of Ved Parkash and Puma Devi, was held. Meenakshi was left in the house of her parents at about 9.30 AM. on 20.09.91. At that time Meenakshi narrated the tale of her woes aforesaid; to her parents. In the evening Jatinder accused took back Meenakshi. At about 10.10 PM, on 20.09.91 the complainant received a telephonic message, from his relative Parveen Kumar, residing at Mulana, that Meenakshi, had been taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala. She died on account of consumption of aluminum phosphide. On the basis of the statement of Som Parkash, the first information report was registered. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received, by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 306, 406, 304-B, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as seven witnesses. Som Parkash, complainant (PW1), is the father of deceased Meenakshi, and Bharat Bhushan (PW2), is the paternal uncle of the deceased. The broad features of their testimony, have already been noticed, while narrating the facts of the case. 5. Jeet Ram, Inspector, CIA Staff, Kamal (PW3), was entrusted the investigation, of this case, in March, 1992, and he recorded the statement of Parveen Kumar. 6. Parveen Kumar (PW4), was the mediator, and arranged marriage, between the parties. Rajat Kumar, is the maternal cousin of deceased Meenakshi (PW5). 7. Tarsem Kumar Monga (PW6), alongwith Dr. P.S. Ahuja, and Dr. Rozy Aneja, conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of Meenakshi wife of Dr. J.K. Mittal, aged about 21 years, r/o 5395, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. According to him, the cause of death of Meenakshi, deceased, was consumption of aluminum phosphide. 8. Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW7), the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation, of this case. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 9. J.K. Mittal, aged about 21 years, r/o 5395, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. According to him, the cause of death of Meenakshi, deceased, was consumption of aluminum phosphide. 8. Kewal Krishan, Sub Inspector (PW7), the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation, of this case. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 9. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Accused Jatinder Kumar, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, there was no demand of dowry, at any stage. He further stated that, after the marriage, his wife Meenakshi, started living, at Mulana. She being a modem girl, did not like to live in the village. She told him a number of times, that her father had married her, with him (accused), so that he should live at Ambala Cantt, she being the only child of her parents. It was further stated by him, that he refused to oblige her. It was further stated by him, that he used to come to his clinic, in the morning, from Mulana, and go back late, in the night. It was further stated by him, that there were a number of deaths, in the family of the father of Meenakshi, deceased. For this reason, she was feeling very much depressed. It was further stated that he and his co-accused, never gave her beatings, or taunted her, for bringing insufficient dowry, or made any demand of a Maruti car or Rs. 50,000/-. It was further stated by him, that on the day of occurrence, he brought her, from his in-laws house, without any pressure, and with her consent. In the night, she felt somewhat uneasy after she came from Ambala. It was further stated by him, that he alongwith his two brothers namely Atul and Anil, brought her to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt, after informing her parents. It was further stated that, in the hospital, he provided her medicines, as prescribed by the doctor. It was further stated that his brothers were separate, from him, in business, and mess. His mother was living alongwith his brother Atul. 10. It was further stated that, in the hospital, he provided her medicines, as prescribed by the doctor. It was further stated that his brothers were separate, from him, in business, and mess. His mother was living alongwith his brother Atul. 10. Accused Anil Kumar, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, he was running a separate business, under the name and style of M/s Shadi Ram Anil Kumar, of which, he was the sole proprietor. It was further stated by him that he was an. income tax assessee. It was further stated by him, that he had a separate mess, and residence, from his other brothers. 11. Accused Bimla Devi, in her statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, she was living separately, from Jatinder, and Anil Kumar, accused. She further stated that, she was living, with her younger son Atul, who was unmarried. It was further stated by her, that she was 65 years of age, and her son Atul, looked after her. 12. Accused Atul Kumar, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, he alongwith his aged mother, was living separately, from Jatinder Kumar, and Anil Kumar, it was further stated by him, that he was having a separate mess, residence, and business, from them. 13. In defence, Jatinder Kumar, accused, tendered into evidence, documents D32 to D63, and photographs marks Xl to X7. Thereafter, the accused, closed the defence evidence. 14. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 15. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals, were filed by the appellants. 16. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 17. The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that, no doubt, the marriage of Meenakshi, was performed with Jatinder Kumar, one of the accused, on 07.03.91, and she died in the hospital, on 20.09.91, i.e. within about six and a half months, of her marriage. He further submitted that the death of Meenakshi, was, on account of aluminum phosphide consumption. He further submitted that Meenakshi, was never tortured by the accused, in connection with the demand of dowry, much less, before her death. He further submitted that the death of Meenakshi, was, on account of aluminum phosphide consumption. He further submitted that Meenakshi, was never tortured by the accused, in connection with the demand of dowry, much less, before her death. He further submitted that Jatinder Kumar, was having his established medical­ clinic, at Ambala Cantt. He had already installed the latest machines, in his clinic. He further submitted that, in fact, Meenakshi, was adopted by Sam Parkash, PW1. He further submitted that there were four deaths, in the family of Meenakshi, i.e. of her real grand-father, a distant relation, her uncle, and aunt, on account whereof, she was depressed. He further submitted that Meenakshi, was an educated lady, and she did not want to live, at Mulana, where Jatinder Kumar, accused, was having his house, and wanted to shift to Ambala Cantt, where he was running his clinic, but he did not agree to the same. He further submitted that accused Anil Kumar, and Atul Kumar, were running their separate business, and living separately, from Jatinder Kumar. He further submitted that Bimla Wanti mother of Jatinder Kumar, was also residing, with Atul Mittal, her unmarried son, and, as such, the question of their torturing the deceased, in connection with the demand of dowry, did not at all arise. He further submitted that, on account of depression, due to the aforesaid circumstances, Meenakshi, deceased, committed suicide. He further submitted that in the letters produced on record there was nothing to show that she was ever subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry by any of the accused. He further submitted that the evidence, produced by the prosecution, was of interested witnesses, and the trial Court, was wrong, in relying upon the same, to convict the accused, and award them sentence. 18. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, Meenakshi, was tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry, by all the accused continuously until her death. He further submitted that, otherwise, there was no reason, on the part of Meenakshi, to end her life, within six and a half months of her marriage, with Jatinder Kumar, accused. It was further submitted by him, that Meenakshi, was not depressed, at all. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence. 19. He further submitted that, otherwise, there was no reason, on the part of Meenakshi, to end her life, within six and a half months of her marriage, with Jatinder Kumar, accused. It was further submitted by him, that Meenakshi, was not depressed, at all. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence. 19. For constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304­ B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that a married lady died, within seven years of her marriage; otherwise than under normal circumstances; and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by her husband, or his relatives. Once, these ingredients are proved, then the statutory presumption, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, operates that the accused committed the dowry death. No doubt, such a presumption, is rebuttable. Now, let us see, as to whether, these ingredients, are proved, in this case, or not. In the instant case, it was admitted by the accused, that Meenakshi, died, within six and a half months of her marriage, on account of aluminum phosphide consumption. The death of Meenakshi, was, thus, within 7 years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances. Two ingredients for, constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, stood proved from the evidence on record. 20. Coming to the third ingredient, as to whether, Meenaskhi, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before her death, it may be stated here, that the evidence, produced by ­the prosecution, clearly proved this factum, beyond a reasonable doubt. Som Parkash, PW1, the adoptive father of Meenakshi, stated that a demand of Rs.2 ½ lacs, for the marriage, was raised by the accused. It was further stated by him, that after a few days of ‘Rokna Ceremony’, the accused made a demand, that Maruti car, should be given to them. He visited the house of the accused, when he was accompanied by his wife’s brother Bharat Bhushan, Parveen Kumar, and Dr. Yogender Pal. It was settled that, in lieu of car, they would provide to the accused, a cash amount of Rs. 1 lac. He visited the house of the accused, when he was accompanied by his wife’s brother Bharat Bhushan, Parveen Kumar, and Dr. Yogender Pal. It was settled that, in lieu of car, they would provide to the accused, a cash amount of Rs. 1 lac. The evidence of Som Parkash, PW1, was further to the effect, that on 06.03.91, when they went to the house of the accused, for ‘Sagai Ceremony’, they handed over the agreed amount of Rs. 1 lac, and other usual gifts. He further stated that when his daughter, came to his house, after three days of the marriage, on customary visit, she told him, in the presence of his wife and (wife’s) brother Bharat Bhushan, that she was being taunted by the accused, for bringing inadequate dowry. It was further sated by him, that on 24.06.91, Meenakshi came, to his house, for taking her B.A. Examination. At that time, she told him, that ‘the accused, used to torture her, for having brought inadequate dowry, and insisted that, she should bring a cash amount of Rs.50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 20,000/-, was handed over to her, and it was assured, that the remaining amount, shall be sent subsequently. Bharat Bhushan, PW2, uncle of Meenakshi, also stated that Jatinder Kumar, and other accused, demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, for extension of clinic. He further stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, was paid, out of the same. He also corroborated the statement of Som Parkash, PW1, on other material aspects. Parveen Kumar, PW 4, mediator, also corroborated the statement of Som Parkash, in material particulars. From the cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of these witnesses, it was proved, that Meenakshi, was being tortured, in connection with the demand of cash amount aforesaid, in the shape of dowry. It was also proved that a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, out of the amount demanded, in the shape of dowry, was paid, by Som Parkash. The torture of Meenakshi, in connection with the demand of dowry, referred to above, continued upto her death. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touch-stone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. The torture of Meenakshi, in connection with the demand of dowry, referred to above, continued upto her death. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touch-stone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. No doubt, some minor discrepancies and contradictions occurred, in their statements, but those did not have any effect, on the merits of the case. Had she been not tortured, in connection with demand of dowry, referred to above, continuously, until her death, there was no reason, on her part, to commit suicide, by consuming aluminum phosphide, as she had been married only, for the last six and a half months, and must be entertaining high hopes to enjoy a happy and comfortable married life. The death of her grand-father, aunt, and uncle, as also a distance relation of Meenakshi, could not be said to be such a circumstance, as could, compel her to commit suicide. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased very well knew, that Jatinder Kumar, accused, was running his clinic, at Ambala Cantt., but was living, at Mulana. The deceased, as also her parents, very well knew, that there were no chances of Jatinder Kumar settling Ambala Cantt., in the very near future. On account of that reason also, there could not be any depression, on the mind of the deceased, so as to compel her to end her life. No doubt, the deceased was an educated lady. However, it could not be said that, on account of this reason, she could not adjust herself, in the house of Jatinder Kumar, accused, at Mulana, and, thus, ended her life. Initially it takes time, to make adjustment, in the matrimonial home, by a newly wedded girl go in depression, and end her life. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding, that Meenaskhi (now deceased),was tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry, referred to above, continuously, until her death, and, thus, the third ingredient, required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was proved. This Court, after reappraisal and re-appreciation of the prosecution evidence, also comes to the same conclusion. This Court, after reappraisal and re-appreciation of the prosecution evidence, also comes to the same conclusion. The finding of the trial Court, to the extent, that the deceased was tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry continuously, until her death, being correct, is affirmed. 21. Since the marriage had only taken place, six and a half months ago, when Meenakshi, died, there was no question of, making the things public, with regard to her harassment, by convening the Panchayats, to sort out the matter. A married woman, in the first instance, does not make the things public, if she is tortured, in the house of her in-laws, in connection with the demand of dowry. In the first instance, she tolerates, all such acts of maltreatment, of the members of her in-laws family. Only when the things go beyond all tolerable limits, that she confides in her parents, to tell them. the tale of her woes. In the instant case, Meenakshi, whenever visited her parents, she narrated the tale of her woes to them. The parents of Meenakshi, also thought that, with the passage of time; the things will become normal. It was, under these circumstances, that no Panchayat, was convened, and the matter remained within the relations i.e. Som Parkash, father, Bharat Bhushan, uncle, and Parveen Kumar, mediator (relative), of the deceased. In these circumstances non-convening of Panchayat, by the parents of Meenakshi, when she was tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry, referred to above, did not, in any way, go to prove that, no such torture was perpetrated against her. In such like family matters, outsiders are generally not involved. There also cannot be any independent witness, to the ongoing activities, in a particular house. Only the members of that family, or their near relations, come to know of such like activities. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to the effect, that had Meenakshi, been tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry, Panchayat, would have been convened, and, in the absence thereof, the case of the prosecution, was false, does not appear to be correct. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 22. No doubt, Meenakshi, was an educated lady. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 22. No doubt, Meenakshi, was an educated lady. She could write letters, with regard to her torture, to her .parents, but if she, did not do so, that did not cast, any doubt, on the prosecution story, with regard to her torture, in connection with the demand of dowry. DB is letter dated 29.07.91, written by the mother of Meenakshi, to her. DC is the letter dated 13.07.91, written by Mamta (sister of Meenakshi), and DA is the letter dated 18.07.91, written by Pushpa Devi (mother of Meenakshi). These letters were written, by the mother and Sister of Meenakshi, to her in normal routine. No doubt, in DB, it was written by Pushpa Devi, that since long, she did not receive any letter, from her (Meenakshi). As stated above, as and when Meenakshi visited her parents, she told her tale of woes aforesaid to them. So, such tale of woes, if not reflected by her relations, in the aforesaid letters, that did not mean that she was not tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry. If any letter was written by Meenakshi, to her mother Pushpa Devi, and that was not produced, that also did not, in any way, go to suggest, that she was not tortured, in connection with the demand of ­dowry. Similarly, photographs D3 to D13, and photographs marks A and B, and marks X1 to X7, respectively, have been produced, in which, Meenakshi, and Jatinder Kumar, accused, have been shown to be in happy mood. Some of these photographs appear to have been taken, at the time of marriage, or at the time of ‘Rokna Ceremony’. These photographs also, did not, in any way, go prove that Meenakshi, was not continuously tortured, in connection with the demand of dowry. No help, therefore, from the aforesaid letters, and the photographs, could be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellants, to prove, that Meenakshi, ended her life, on account of depression, and not, on account of the alleged torture, having been caused to her, in connection with the demand of dowry, continuously, until her death. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 23. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 23. The next question, that arises for consideration is, as to which of the accused, could be said to have tortured Meenakshi, continuously, in connection with the demand of dowry, aforesaid leading to her death. It has come in the evidence, that Anil Kumar, and Atul Mittal, brothers of Jatinder Kumar, were living separately, from him. They had their separate mess, and business. It has come in the evidence, that Bimla Wanti, mother of Jatinder Kumar, was residing with her son Atul Mittal, who was unmarried, at that time. Under these circumstances the only beneficiary, of the cash amount, for the purchase of car, or for extension of clinic, in the shape of dowry, could be said to be Jatinder Kumar, accused, husband of deceased Meenakshi. Anil Kumar, married brother, Atul Mittal, unmarried brother, and Bimla Wanti, mother of Jatinder Kumar, were not to be benefitted, either on account of the demand of car, in the shape of dowry, or, on account of demand of cash, for the extension of clinic. It is a matter of common knowledge that, when the bride dies, in the house of her in-laws, under unnatural circumstances, then no love is lost between the parents of the deceased, and members of her in-laws family. In such a situation, the parents of the deceased are out and out, to rope in, as many members of the in-laws family of the bride-groom, as they could possibly do. The evidence of Som Parkash, complainant, Bharat Bhushan, paternal uncle of the deceased, and Parveen Kumar, mediator, that the accused, other than Jatinder Kumar, used to torture­ Meenakshi, in connection with the demand of dowry, as a result whereof, she died, could not be said to be reliable. On the basis of omni-bus allegations, against Bimla Wanti, Atul Mittal, and Anil Kumar, that they subjected Meenakshi to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry continuously, until her death, they could not be convicted. It appears that, Anil Kumar, Bimla Wanti, and Atul Mittal, were falsely implicated, in the instant case, with a view to exaggerate the number of the, accused. Only Jatinder Kumar, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that, Anil Kumar, Bimla Wanti, and Atul Mittal, were falsely implicated, in the instant case, with a view to exaggerate the number of the, accused. Only Jatinder Kumar, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Out of abundant caution, Anil Kumar, Bimla Wanti and Atul Mittal, accused, are required to be given the benefit of doubt, and, thus, are entitled to acquittal. The findings of the trial Court, only to the extent aforesaid are affirmed. 24. The trial Court, convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, also in addition to the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Once, it was proved, beyond doubt, that all the ingredients required for constituting the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, were proved, against Jatinder Kumar, accused, and he was convicted, for the said offences, no separate conviction, for the offence, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, could be recorded, against him and the other accused. The accused could be either convicted for the offence under Section 306 or for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, was thus, wrong in recording conviction, and awarding sentence to the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, are liable to be set-aside. 25. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 26. The conviction and sentence of the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, are liable to be set-aside. 25. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 26. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, for the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by the trial Court, qua Jatinder Kumar, accused, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, deserve to be upheld, whereas, the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, for the offence, punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, qua Jatinder Kumar, and the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, for the offences, punishable under Sections 304­-B, 306, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, qua Anil Kumar, Bimla Wanti, and Atul Mittal, accused, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, are liable to be set­ aside. 27. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Appeal No. 233­ SB of 1993, filed by Jatinder Kumar, accused (now appellant), is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, for the offences, punishable under Sections 304-B, and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, qua him, are maintained. If he is on bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. 28. The judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, for the offence, punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code, qua Jatinder Kumar, are set-aside, and he is acquitted of the said charge. 29. Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 1993, filed by Anil Kumar, Bimla Wanti, and Atul Mittal, is accepted. The judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence, qua them, are set-aside. They shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against them. If they are on bail, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. If they are in custody, they shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. 30. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement promptly, in accordance with law. ----------------------