JUDGMENT Jitendra Ciiauhan, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely, Krishna Rani, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 7.4.200I (hereinafter referred as impugned judgment) and order of sentence of the same date passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred as trial Court), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence under Section 307 and 498-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, namely. Smt. Prem Lata was married to Parveen Kumar about six years back and was blessed with two children, namely, Mohnish Kumar, aged about five years and daughter, Priyanka, aged about four years. Right from the day of her marriage, her mother-in-law, Krishna Rani, along with his son, Parveen Kumar, had been maltreating her. The marriage of younger brother of her husband, namely, Sonu, was fixed for 28.6.1999 and her mother-in-law, in this behalf, raised a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her and asked her to bring the same from her parents. However, on 7.6.1999, she expressed her as also her parents inability to meet out the said demand as they were not in financial position to fulfill the same. On 8.6.1999, since morning, her mother-in-law was harassing, maltreating and coercing her to go to her parental home and bring the amount in question to which she refused. At about 1.00/1.30 p.m., while she was present in the house, along with her daughter, Priyanka, and mother-in-law, and she was cleaning floor of the house and her husband had gone to his shop at Makhu, in the meantime, her mother-in-law came from back side and poured kerosene oil on her person. At about 1.00/1.30 p.m., while she was present in the house, along with her daughter, Priyanka, and mother-in-law, and she was cleaning floor of the house and her husband had gone to his shop at Makhu, in the meantime, her mother-in-law came from back side and poured kerosene oil on her person. When she looked towards her, her mother-in-law meanwhile, set her on ablaze and rushed to the roof-top of the house. The complainant ran towards the door raising shrieks whereupon, one Darshana w/o Surinder Kumar and her Devrani, were attracted to the spot and were succeeded in extinguishing the fire. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital by her father-in-law, Harbans Lal and his brother, Mohan Lal. 3. On this statement, formal FIR, Ex. P9, was registered and the investigations were conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, thereafter, final report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code was prepared and presented before the Court of Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, charge was framed under Section 307/498-A Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as seven following witnesses :- 5. PW1-Dr. Rajeev Chaudhary, medically treated the complainant. He prepared injury report and according to him, the complainant was having 60% burns and he declared the same to be dangerous to life. 6. PW2-Dr. Sheetal Framlin, MO, CMC, Ludhiana, deposed that she was on duty in casualty room on 8.6.1999, and on the same day, she informed the police about the admission of complainant with burn injuries. 7. PW3-complainant deposed on the same lines as that of her earlier version given at the time of registration of the FIR. 8. PW4-Darshana w/o Surinder Singh deposed that about one year back, when she was present in her house at about 1.00/1.30 p.m., she heard hue and cry and she came out of the house in the street and saw some persons had gathered in the street. In the meantime, she saw Prem Lata, whose clothes were having fire, she with other persons extinguished the fire. 9. PW5-SI Gurmit Singh, Anti Fraud Squad, Ferozepur, deposed that on 31.8.1999, he was posted as Addl. In the meantime, she saw Prem Lata, whose clothes were having fire, she with other persons extinguished the fire. 9. PW5-SI Gurmit Singh, Anti Fraud Squad, Ferozepur, deposed that on 31.8.1999, he was posted as Addl. SHO at Police Station, Makhu, and on that day, the accused-Krishna Rani, was produced before him whom he arrested after her interrogation. 10. PW6-ASI Gurbhej Singh, deposed that on 9.6.1999. he was posted at Police Station, Makhu. He received a wireless message from Incharge Guard, CMC, Ludhiana, to the effect that Prem Lata w/o Parveen Kumar is admitted in the hospital with burn injuries whereupon he along with other police officials reached the hospital and sought opinion from the Medical Officer about the fitness of the injured. After the injured was declared fit to make statement, her statement Ex.P4, was recorded by him without any addition or alteration. On 10.6.1999, he joined investigation with Surjit Singh, SHO, and the half- burnt Clothes of the injured, one chadar, and one plastic cane, etc. were taken into police possession. On 11.6.1999, he moved an application before JMIC Ludhiana, for recording the statement of the injured and the same was recorded. 11. PW7-ASI Sukhjit Singh, CM Security, has deposed that on 9/10.6.1999, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Makhu. He, along with ASI Gurbhej Singh, and other police officials visited the place of occurrence and recovered one kameej, one salwar and one chadar with one plastic cane. Site plans, Exs. P 13 and P14, were prepared by him. 12. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code while putting all the incriminating evidence against her in the prosecution evidence, which she denied and pleaded innocence on the ground that she never asked for money from her daughter-in-law and further that she caught fire from a stove in the kitchen and she was not present in the house at the time of occurrence. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused. 13. Upon appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence and term mentioned at the outset in para 1 of this judgment. 14. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused, herein appellant, has preferred the present appeal before this Court which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2001. 14. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused, herein appellant, has preferred the present appeal before this Court which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2001. The appellant was enlarged on bail on 21.6 2001. 15. Learned counsel has submitted that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the medical evidence and in the statement of complainant Prem Lata, PW3, which were noticed by the learned trial Court in para 16 of the impugned judgment. However, the same were ignored by the learned trial Court while reaching to the final conclusion. 16. He has further submitted that the complainant in her cross-examination has categorically stated that she used to visit her parental house at Moga. However, this fact is not corroborated by the parents of the complainant. It is also submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on the alleged demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- raised by the appellant after five years of marriage for the purpose of getting her younger son married, which is not established. The complainant has further admitted in her cross-examination that she used to visit her parental home at Moga and expressed the inability of her family for meeting with the demand to the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that it has come on record that the complainant has six brothers. However, none of the brothers or father has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the alleged demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- or for causing harassment to the complainant. It has further been admitted by the complainant that she did not write any letter to her parents about the demand or maltreatment meted out to her by the appellant. Therefore, the learned counsel has argued that in the absence of any corroboration with regard to the demand of dowry and the harassment at the hands of the appellant, the statement of complainant cannot be relied upon particularly when it has come in the statement that marriage of the sister of her husband Parveen Kumar was solemnised after her marriage and at that time no demand of cash was raised. 17. It has further been argued that pouring of kerosene oil on the person of the complainant by the appellant is not made out as no smell of kerosene oil was detected at the time of her medico legal examination by Dr Rajinder Chaudhary. 18. 17. It has further been argued that pouring of kerosene oil on the person of the complainant by the appellant is not made out as no smell of kerosene oil was detected at the time of her medico legal examination by Dr Rajinder Chaudhary. 18. Learned counsel has further argued that the conviction of the appellant cannot be recorded in the absence of any corroboration. 19. It has further been argued that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in making the statement by the complainant to the police. This delay has been used by the prosecution to Frame the appellant. 20. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is no corroboration of oral evidence with the help of medical evidence. 21. Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that the appellant has undergone more than 2 years and 2 months of actual sentence and is aged about 73 years of age and physically challenged. Therefore, a prayer has been made to take a lenient view in the matter of sentencing. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the complainant is an injured witness. She suffered burn injuries to the extent of 60% on her person and in this circumstance, no further corroboration is required. 23. I have carefully perused the evidence as appearing on record of this appeal and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the State of Punjab. 24. The incriminating evidence implicating the appellant in the present case is in the form of statement made by the injured Smt. Prem Lata who happens to be the daughter in law of the Appellant. As per the injured, who appeared as PW 3, the Appellant poured kerosene oil on her while she was cleaning the floor in the morning of 8.6.99 and then set her on fire. Immediately thereafter, the injured ran outside the house where she was rescued by her neighbour and her devrani who extinguished the fire. She was then taken to the hospital by her father-in-law and his brother. In her statement to the police, the injured has made specific allegations that the Appellant used to maltreat her right from the beginning of her marriage. The immediate provocation for the appellant to commit the alleged act was a demand of Rs. She was then taken to the hospital by her father-in-law and his brother. In her statement to the police, the injured has made specific allegations that the Appellant used to maltreat her right from the beginning of her marriage. The immediate provocation for the appellant to commit the alleged act was a demand of Rs. 1 lac which the appellant asked for on account of the marriage of her younger son Sonu which the injured could not fulfill. Her statement was also recorded by the learned JMIC and on identical lines was her deposition before the learned trial Court when she entered the witness box. 25. In her defence, the Appellant took the plea of alibi by submitting that at the time of alleged incident she was in the market with her husband and her son i.e. husband of Smt. Prem Lata. However, neither her husband nor her son appeared as a defence witness to corroborate her plea that she was with them in the market at the time when Smt. Prem Lata is said to have been burnt. What inspires confidence in statement of the injured, who happens to be the solitary witness to the alleged crime being the victim herself, is the fact that she did not make any effort to implicate any other member of her in-laws except the present Appellant. Had she been concocting the story of her burning, she could have easily implicated her husband or her father-in-law or even her brother-in-law (devar) for whose marriage the money was actually being demanded by the Appellant, but the facts clearly show that no such attempt was ever made by the injured which accords credence to her statement before the police as also her testimony before the learned trial court. 26. The only issue which raises a slight doubt over the prosecution version is that as per PW 1 Dr. Rajiv Chaudhary, the doctor who initially attended the injured, when she was brought to the hospital, the cause of injury as given by the injured herself was burning due to stove bursting/that she sustained injuries while working on the gas stove. The only issue which raises a slight doubt over the prosecution version is that as per PW 1 Dr. Rajiv Chaudhary, the doctor who initially attended the injured, when she was brought to the hospital, the cause of injury as given by the injured herself was burning due to stove bursting/that she sustained injuries while working on the gas stove. However, this fact, as reflected from the testimony of PW 1 can well be explained by assuming that the said statement was given to the doctor at the time of her admission in the hospital, she was accompanied by her lather-in-law and his brother and she might have hesitated in speaking the truth in front of them or she could very well have been under their influence to refrain from implicating the Appellant. 27. On reappraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution particularly when the plea of alibi taken by the accused/appellant has not been supported by her husband and the son and particularly on reappraisal of facts, I feel that it is one of the rarest cases where no effort has been made by the prosecution to falsely implicate the members of the family of the in-laws as against the prevailing trend. Though, the appellant is an old woman of 73 years of age but she does not appear to he physically challenged person. In the statement recorded by the JMIC, the injured has given the details of the occurrence, which inspires confidence. Therefore, in view of the statement of the injured witness, PW3, no further corroboration is required. 28. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 5/7.4.2001 passed by the learned trial Court is maintained. The appellant is stated to be on bail. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The accused/appellant be taken into custody forthwith to suffer the remaining part of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.