U.C. Dhyani, J. – PW1 Hari Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Pat-wari, Mauna, Tehsil Koshyan Kutoli, District Nainital on 4.5.2001 against Gopal Singh and Kunti Devi under sec­tions 307, 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The inci­dent allegedly took place on 1.5.2001, at an unknown time and FIR was lodged on 4.5.2001, at 12:00 P.M. As per the complaint, complainant's daughter Meena was married to Gopal Singh ac­cording to Hindu rites and rituals about 6-7 years ago. On 1.5.2001, PW1 re­ceived information on telephone that his daughter sustained burn injuries. PW1 went to Almora Base Hospital, where his daughter was undergoing treatment. PW1 inquired from his daughter about the incident. Victim disclosed to PW1 that her husband alongwith her mother-in-law and father-in-law set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil and spread the news among the villagers that she (vic­tim) sustained injuries while cooking food. Victim sustained burn injuries. When PWl's daughter used to come to her parental home, she used to complain that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They used to ridicule her that she came from a family of paupers. When PW1 saw her daughter in the hospital, her condition was critical. Investigation began on the basis of said FIR. 2. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Gopal Singh (husband), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law) and Pan Singh (father-in-law) for the of­fences punishable under sections 307, 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecu­tion opened it's case, charge for the self­same offences was framed against the accused persons on 19.11.2001. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 3. PW1 Hari Singh (informant), PW2 Smt. Meena Devi (injured), PW3 Kishan Singh (neighbour of the victim), PW4 Navin Chandra Rajwar (I.O.) and PW5 Dr. R.S. Shahi (Medical Officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecu­tion. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C, in reply to which they said that false charge- sheet was submitted by the police against them. Accused Gopal Singh also stated that he Stongwith Meena (victim) used to live separately. Co-accused Pan Singh and Kunti Devi stated that Meena (victim) did not live with them. No evidence was given in defence. Accused Gopal Singh also stated that he Stongwith Meena (victim) used to live separately. Co-accused Pan Singh and Kunti Devi stated that Meena (victim) did not live with them. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused Gopal Singh and Pan Singh were acquitted of the charges lev­elled against them. Smt. Kunti Devi was acquitted of the charge under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She was, how­ever, convicted under section 307 of IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith a fine of ? 1,000/-, in default of payment of which, she was directed to undergo further six months' rigorous imprison­ment, vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred by Smt. Kunti Devi, who was the mother-in-law of the victim. 4. Prosecution led the evidence through PW1, who was the father of the victim. In his exarnination-in-chief, PW1 said that his daughter Meena was mar­ried to Gopai Singh on 25.4,1996. In-laws of the victim used to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They also used to assault her. Whenever, victim visited her parental home, she used to complain about the behaviour and con­duct of her in-laws On 1.5.2001, PWI's wife made a telephone' call to PW1 in­forming him that the condition of his daughter w|s_. critical. She was set on fire by her in-la^p. Victim was admitted in Almora Hospital. She was set in flames by her mother-in-law and husband. PW1 reached Almora on 3.5.2001. PW1 went to see his daughter in the hospital. Victim told PW1 that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and her hus­band ignited the matchstick. When the incident took place, PW1 was serving at Jaipur. One Pratap Singh wrote the complaint on the dictation of PW1. PW1 proved the contents and his signatures on the complaint (Ext. Ka-1). 5. The testimony of PW2 was the most important piece of evidence brought on record. She was the victim, who said, in her examination-in-chief, that she was married to Gopal Singh about six years ago (from the date of her deposition). According to PW2, her fa­ther gave articles in her marriage, to the best of his capacity. Ka-1). 5. The testimony of PW2 was the most important piece of evidence brought on record. She was the victim, who said, in her examination-in-chief, that she was married to Gopal Singh about six years ago (from the date of her deposition). According to PW2, her fa­ther gave articles in her marriage, to the best of his capacity. For initial two years, PW2's in- laws treated her properly, but after that her in-laws started harassing the victim. In-laws of PW2 threatened her that Gopal Singh will be married to some other girl. PW2's husband stopped talking to her after two years of mar­riage. PW2 was given a separate room in her matrimonial home. PW2 was not provided with food. PW2's mother-in-law assaulted her. The others used to hurl abuses at PW2. PW2 further stated that on 30.4.2011, in the night, her hus­band and mother-in-law assaulted her. When PW2 took tea in the morning, she was again assaulted by both of them. PW2's father-in-law had gone to fetch milk. Mother-in-law of PW2 poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. PW2's husband was standing there. Vic­tim cried. Her husband tried to douse the fire. Thereafter, PW2 became uncon­scious. She did not know as to what happened thereafter. PW2 recollected that her mother came later on. PW2's husband, her mother and villagers took her to Almora Base Hospital, where she was medically examined. Victim re­mained admitted in the hospital for one month and five days. PW2's father came to the hospital on, perhaps, 4th (of May 2001) Victim disclosed the incident to her mother. 6. PW3 stated that Gopal Singh (accused) requested him to call his mother-in-law, ihasmuchas, Meena (victim) sustained burn injuries. PW3 went to inform victim's mother. PW3 also brought victim's mother, to Almora hospital. Burnt wearing apparels of the victim were taken into possession by the Patwari. PW3 was also a signatory to the memo of taking into possession of the burnt clothes of the victim. He was also a signatory to another memo (Ext. Ka-3), whereby ornaments put on by the victim, at the time of incident, were taken into possession. 7. PW4 was the Patti Patwari posted in Patti Mauna, Tehsil Koshyan Kutoli from 4.5.2001 to 4.7.2001. Accord­ing to PW4, PW1 gave him a written complaint, on the basis of which chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was registered. Ka-3), whereby ornaments put on by the victim, at the time of incident, were taken into possession. 7. PW4 was the Patti Patwari posted in Patti Mauna, Tehsil Koshyan Kutoli from 4.5.2001 to 4.7.2001. Accord­ing to PW4, PW1 gave him a written complaint, on the basis of which chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was registered. An entry of the same was also made in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-5). PW4 took the statement of the witnesses, went to see the victim, inspected the place of incident, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-6) and also prepared memos (Ext. Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3). PW4 also proved material exhibits like blouse and petticoat of the victim and, after investigation, submitted charge- sheet (Ext. Ka-7) against the accused persons. 8. PW5 was the Medical Officer posted in Base Hospital, Almora, who examined burn injuries sustained by the victim. The injured was brought by Gopal Singh (husband) and Pan Singh (father-in-law). PW5 found following injuries on the person of the injured (victim). The same are being reproduced here-in-below: (i) Burn injuries involving whole of die neck anteriority. (ii) Burns on chest (both breasts) upto left shoulder downwards upto xyphisternum. (iii) Left upper arm upto elbow anteriority and posteriority and right arm near wrist joint. (iv) Left lower limb anteriority and posteriority from upper 1/3rd of thigh to ankle joint. (v) Right lower limb extending from lower 3rd of thigh including knee joint upto upper 2/3 of right leg. This involves anteriority. Blisters were scattered. 9. According to PVV5, PW2 sustained 40 per cent burn injuries. PW5 also proved injury report (Ext. Ka-8).Medical Officer also stated that the vic­tim remained in Almora Base Hospital upto 22.5.2001. She was discharged from the hospital on the selfsame day. Ac­cording to the Medical Officer, all the burn injuries were possible to have been sustained on 1.5.2001, at 07:00 A.M. 10. The incident took place on 1,5.2001 in the morning. Victim's mother was informed about the incident on the same day. Victim's father was away at Jaipur. He came to Almora, no sooner he received the news regarding the critical condition of his daughter. He could come to Almora on 4.5.2001, and immediately thereafter, he set the criminal law into motion by lodging FIR. Delay in lodging FIR is, therefore, properly explained. 11. Victim's father was away at Jaipur. He came to Almora, no sooner he received the news regarding the critical condition of his daughter. He could come to Almora on 4.5.2001, and immediately thereafter, he set the criminal law into motion by lodging FIR. Delay in lodging FIR is, therefore, properly explained. 11. There is a minor contradiction in the testimony of PW1, wherein he stated that his daughter 'told him that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and her husband ignited the matchstick. When PW2 herself entered into the witness box, she stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and also ignited the matchstick. Her husband was standing nearby. In any case, the role assigned to victim's mother-in-law (present appellant) was common in the statement of PW1 as well as in the statement of PW2. Au­thenticity should, therefore, be attached to the statement of the victim (PW2), who said that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. The role assigned to the mother-in-law is, there­fore, not under cloud of suspicion. 12. PW2 (victim) stated on oath that her mother-in-law used to assault her, PW2 was specific, when she said that on 30X2001 also, she was assaulted by her mother-in-law. The fact that PVV2 was set on fire was corroborated by PW5, who stated that PW2 sustained burn injuries. Ext. Ka-8 bears testimony to the said fact. The injured was examined by PW5 on 1.5.2001, at 12:20 P.M. The date and time of injury report coincides with, the statement of PW2, wherein the vic­tim said that she was set on fire on the selfsame day in the morning. A reading of the oral testimony of PW2 coupled with the medial evidence of PW5 makes it clear that offence under section 307 of IPC was committed by the accused-appellant, who happened to be the mother-in-law of the victim. So far as the plea of separate living is concerned, the same does not carry any weight, in­asmuch as, there were no two separate establishments of her in-laws. Had there been two separate houses or had they been living in separate villages, the matter would have been different. In the instant case, PW2's in-laws lived in one unit (i.e. one house). Even if the rooms of husband & wife and mother-in-law & father-in-law were different, the same makes no difference, inasmuch as, the house was one. Had there been two separate houses or had they been living in separate villages, the matter would have been different. In the instant case, PW2's in-laws lived in one unit (i.e. one house). Even if the rooms of husband & wife and mother-in-law & father-in-law were different, the same makes no difference, inasmuch as, the house was one. In the cross-examination, PW2 said that her parental home was very near to her matrimonial home. When the incident took place, PW2's husband was with her. The inci­dent took place in a room, where PW2 used to reside. In all, there were three rooms in her matrimonial home. PW2 disclosed the fact to her mother that her mother-in-law and husband attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire. In reply to a question, posed by the Trial Court, PW2 said that she did not know as to what was dis­closed by her to her mother because she was in unconscious state. PW2's jeth (brother-in-law) was in New Delhi when the incident took place. The dis­tance between her parental home and matrimonial home was 2-3 miles. PW2 regained some consciousness when her mother came to see her. PW2 was taken to the hospital by her husband and fa­ther-in-law. The expenditure of hospital was borne initially by her husband and father-in-law and thereafter by her par­ents. PW2 clarified that her mother died about 2-3 months-ago (from the date of her deposition). That was preciously the reason as to why victim's mother did not enter into the witness box. Thus, nothing came in the cross-examination of PW2, as also of other witnesses, to suggest that the prosecution witnesses spoke anything other than the truth. 13. Prosecution was able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned Trial Court discussed and appreciated the prosecution evidence cor­rectly to arrive at a conclusion that of­fence punishable under section 307 of IPC was proved against the accused-appellant to the hilt. This Court has also assessed the prosecution evidence inde­pendently to come to the same conclu­sion, which was arrived at by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital. No interfer­ence is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 14. Criminal appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Smt. Kunti Devi by the Court below is affirmed. Accused-appellant is on bail. No interfer­ence is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 14. Criminal appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Smt. Kunti Devi by the Court below is affirmed. Accused-appellant is on bail. Her bail is cancelled. She is di­rected to surrender forthwith before the Court below to serve but the sentence as was awarded to her. 15. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower Court records be sent to the Court below for compliance. Appeal Dismissed. ____________