Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2421 (ALL)

Suresh v. State of U. P.

2014-08-08

ADITYA NATH MITTAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1992 passed by learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304B , I.P.C. read with Section 34 , I.P.C. and Section 498A , read with Section 34 , I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the daughter of the complainant Moti Lal was married to the appellant Suresh Jaiswal in the year 1985 and the 'gauna' Ceremony was performed in the year 1986. In the marriage, ornaments and dowry were given but after the 'gauna', accused Suresh used to tease and torture his wife for bringing motorcycle in the dowry. On the day of Holi festival, at the time of Vidai, the deceased had told that her husband and his family members will definitely kill her for want of motorcycle. The complainant had told his son-in-law that he has no money to give the motorcycle, upon which the accused Suresh made a promise that he will not torture Gayatri Devi. On 5.4.1988, the complainant received the information regarding the death of his daughter due to the burn injuries and he came to the village Jaitpur, where he came to know that the accused persons have killed his daughter and have played drama of burning. The matter was reported to the Police Station on 5.4.1988. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and the appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 , I.P.C. and Section 498A read with Section 34 , I.P.C. In the alternate, the accused persons were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 , I.P.C. The accused persons had denied the charges and claimed for trial. 4. The prosecution had examined Moti Lal-Complainant as P.W. 1; Ram Milan as P.W. 2; Nand Lal as P.W. 3; Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh as P.W. 4; Sub-Inspector Lal Ji Saroj as P.W. 5; Constable Khunkhunram Saroj as P.W. 6; Dr. Vinay Kumar Dwivedi as P.W. 7 and Om Prakash Kakkar as P.W. 8. 5. 4. The prosecution had examined Moti Lal-Complainant as P.W. 1; Ram Milan as P.W. 2; Nand Lal as P.W. 3; Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh as P.W. 4; Sub-Inspector Lal Ji Saroj as P.W. 5; Constable Khunkhunram Saroj as P.W. 6; Dr. Vinay Kumar Dwivedi as P.W. 7 and Om Prakash Kakkar as P.W. 8. 5. After the evidence of prosecution, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 , Cr.P.C. No evidence in defence was adduced by the accused persons. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned court below came to the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 498Aand 304B read with Section 34 , I.P.C. are proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them with an imprisonment of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B , I.P.C. as well as the with an imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A alongwith a fine of  Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by Suresh, Raja Ram and Smt. Sushila Devi. Another accused Moti Lal had died during the course of trial and the case against him has been abated. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has also not proved that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty. It has also been submitted that in the evidence, it has come that she was beaten for half an hour but there is no such injury in the post-mortem report. It has also been submitted that the victim had got fire while cooking food and the appellants have been falsely implicated. Whether the death was accidental or mysterious, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Raja Ram had tried to save the life of the victim and had there been any intention to kill her, he would not have saved him. The alleged ill treatment has not been proved and no question regarding the ill treatment has been asked in the statement under Section 313 , Cr.P.C. 7. The complainant, who is the father of the deceased, has been examined as P.W. 1, who has proved that his daughter was married with Suresh in the year 1985. The alleged ill treatment has not been proved and no question regarding the ill treatment has been asked in the statement under Section 313 , Cr.P.C. 7. The complainant, who is the father of the deceased, has been examined as P.W. 1, who has proved that his daughter was married with Suresh in the year 1985. In the marriage, his son-in-law has demanded motorcycle in the dowry in the presence of Rama Shanker, Pandit Ram Milan, Jiya Ram and other villagers but due to financial crises, he could not give the motorcycle. The gauna ceremony was performed in the year 1986 and at that time also, the demand of motorcycle was made in the dowry. After the gauna, when the deceased returned to his home, she had told that she was tortured for the motorcycle. On the last occasion, the son-in-law came for vidai at the Holi festival but his daughter was not ready to go with him and she was repeatedly saying that till the motorcycle is not given, she will not go because her in-laws shall kill him, but the daughter was sent alongwith her husband. After a month, he received information that his daughter had died, upon which he went to the spot and found that his daughter was lying dead. The inquest report was conducted in his presence, which has been proved as Ext. Ka-1. He has further stated that after the inquest report, he had gone in the kitchen and had seen that there were no signs of cooking the food. He had enquired from the villagers namely Sita Ram and Nand Lal, who told that in the night they had heard the cries of Gayatri Devi regarding maar-peet and in the morning, she was died. He has further stated that he had lodged the report on the next day, which has been proved as Ext. Ka-2. 8. Ram Milan, P.W. 2 has stated that the daughter of the complainant was married with Suresh in the year 1985 and he was the Pandit' in that marriage and had performed the said marriage. He has further stated that the accused Suresh had demanded motorcycle at the time of 'khichri' for which the father of Gayatri Devi (deceased) had sought time. The gauna of Gayatri Devi was performed in the year 1986. He has further stated that the accused Suresh had demanded motorcycle at the time of 'khichri' for which the father of Gayatri Devi (deceased) had sought time. The gauna of Gayatri Devi was performed in the year 1986. He has further stated that on the day of Holi festival, Suresh had come for 'vidai' of Gayatri and at that time, he was also present there but Gayatri Devi (deceased) was not ready to go with Suresh and was saying that her in-laws used to torture him for the motorcycle and if she will go, they will kill him. Upon some mediation, the 'vidai' was done and after some time, he received the information that Gayatri had died. 9. Nand Lal, P.W. 3 has stated that his house is at the distance of 100 ft. from the house of Suresh (accused). The marriage of Suresh was solemnised in the year 1985 and he had attended the marriage party. At the time of 'khichri', Suresh was demanding motorcycle and he was present at that time. Due to not giving of motorcycle, the behaviour of the family members of Suresh was not good with Gayatri Devi and they used to beat him. He has further stated that on the earlier evening, i.e., the day when the deceased had died, at about 8-9 p.m. he had heard cries of the deceased and upon this noise, he had reached on the spot and saw that the accused persons were beating the deceased. Sita Ram was also alongwith him and they tried to pacify the matter. On the same night, at about 2.30 a.m. Smt. Gayatri Devi had expired. 10. Dr. B.P. Singh, P.W. 4 who is the private practitioner has stated that he had gone to the house of Raja Ram in April, 1988 for the treatment of Gayatri Devi, who was lying on earth and she was wearing only Petticoat and Blouse. The vomiting and latrine were also there. He checked up Gayatri Devi (deceased) whose body was cold and was taking long breath. There was some mark of ink in the leg of Gayatri Devi and there were no burn injuries. Raja Ram had told him that Gayatri Devi has received burn injuries, upon which he had said that such position cannot be by the burning but it appears that this position is due to the poisoning. There was some mark of ink in the leg of Gayatri Devi and there were no burn injuries. Raja Ram had told him that Gayatri Devi has received burn injuries, upon which he had said that such position cannot be by the burning but it appears that this position is due to the poisoning. He also tried to talk with Gayatri but she could not speak. He had advised for the treatment in the hospital but Gayatri Devi said that she will survive and there is no need to make any expenditure. Raja Ram has told that she will be all right of her own. 11. Lal Ji Saroj, P.W. 5 has stated that upon the information of death, he has appointed panch and had prepared the inquest report, which is Ext. Ka-1. After the inquest report, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. 12. Constable Khunkhun Ram, P.W. 6 is the formal witness, who has proved the Chick F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-3 and the copy of the G.D. as Ext. Ka-4 and Ext. Ka-5. 13. Dr. Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, P.W. 7 has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and in the post-mortem injuries, he had found superficial burn injuries on the below right thigh and upon the upper portion of right leg in an area of 30 cm. x 10 cm. Upon that area, the medicine was there. Since the cause of death was not clear, therefore, the viscera was preserved. The post-mortem report has been proved as Exts. Ka-6 and Ka-7 to Ka-16. He has further stated that there were no ante-mortem injuries and burn injuries were caused after the death. 14. Circle Officer Om Prakash Kakkar, P.W. 8 has proved the investigation of the case and has stated that he had made the inspection of the place of occurrence and had prepared the site plan, which has been proved as Ext. Ka-17. The ashes (rakh) and plain mud was taken from the spot. The memo has been proved as Ext. Ka-18. He has recorded the statement of the witnesses and has arrested the accused persons. After the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet, which has been proved as Ext. Ka-19. 15. The report of the Forensic Laboratory is on record, which is paper No. 18-Ka and in the viscera, no chemical poison was found. 16. Ka-18. He has recorded the statement of the witnesses and has arrested the accused persons. After the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet, which has been proved as Ext. Ka-19. 15. The report of the Forensic Laboratory is on record, which is paper No. 18-Ka and in the viscera, no chemical poison was found. 16. In support of the arguments regarding statement under Section 313 , Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ghulam Din Buch and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1996) 9 SCC 239 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "The aforesaid does show that Hafeezullah was not asked, in any form, about his having entered into conspiracy with anybody. He was not even asked that the rates at which poles were carried by him were unreasonable or high. As these allegations/circumstances are the crux of the prosecution case insofar as he is concerned, the non-providing of opportunity to him to explain the same has rendered his conviction unsustainable. We, therefore, accept his appeal and order for his acquittal." 17. In the aforesaid judgment, only few questions were asked that why he has been prosecuted and why the witnesses are deposing against him. 18. In the present case, a detailed statement under Section 313 , Cr.P.C. has been recorded in three pages, in which all the allegations as well as the prosecution case has been explained to the accused persons. A specific question No. 6 has also been asked about the ill-treatment by the accused persons. In question No. 16, the statements of the witnesses have been read over and it has been asked as to why they are deposing against them. In these circumstances, the crux of the prosecution case has been explained to the accused persons. 19. In the order-sheet dated 22.8.1992, it has been specifically mentioned that the accused persons do not want to adduce any evidence in defence and the case was fixed for 26.8.1992 and then again for 1.9.1992 on which date, the arguments were heard. The accused persons have not adduced any evidence in defence. In view of these facts, the decision in the case of Ghulam Din Buch (supra) is not helpful to the appellants. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon Marudanal Aagusti v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 . The accused persons have not adduced any evidence in defence. In view of these facts, the decision in the case of Ghulam Din Buch (supra) is not helpful to the appellants. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon Marudanal Aagusti v. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 . in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the F.I.R. is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence, then the prosecution case would collapse. 21. In the present case, the complainant received the information regarding the death of his daughter on 5.4.1988 and the report has been lodged on 6.4.1988. Therefore, there is no delay in lodging the first information report. Certainly, when a father gets the information regarding the death of his daughter, he becomes disturbed and tries to enquire the matter before lodging the first information report in haste. 22. In the present matter, the report has been lodged on 6.4.1988 and the complainant has received the information of death of his daughter on 5.4.1988. The F.I.R. do not appear to have been fabricated. Therefore, there is no inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. Thus, the decision in the case of Marudanal Augusti (supra) is also not helpful to the appellants. 23. For finding guilty of a person for the offence punishable under Section 304B , I.P.C., it should be proved that the death has occurred under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry. 24. In the present case, it is not disputed that the marriage was solemnised in the year 1985 and the gauna ceremony was performed in the year 1986. The death has occurred in the month of April, 1988, i.e., within two years of the said gauna ceremony. Undisputedly, it is also not a death in natural course or death due to any disease to the victim. 25. The death has occurred in the month of April, 1988, i.e., within two years of the said gauna ceremony. Undisputedly, it is also not a death in natural course or death due to any disease to the victim. 25. In the case of Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2001) 8 SCC 633 : 2001 (3) ACR 2667 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "The essential components of Section 304B are : (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstance, within 7 years of marriage, (ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. When the above ingredients are fulfilled, the husband or his relative, who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment, can be presumed to be guilty of offence under Section 304B . To be within the province of the first ingredient the provision stipulates that "where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstance". It may appear that the former limb which is described by the words "death caused by burns or bodily injury" is a redundancy because such death would also fall within the wider province of "death caused otherwise than under normal circumstances". The former limb was inserted for highlighting that by no means death caused by burns or bodily injury should be treated as falling outside the ambit of the offence." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal and others v. State (Govt. N.C.T.) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80 , has held as under: "A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B Indian Penal Code are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution." The learned Judge, while proceeding further and interpreting the expression "soon before", opined thus: "The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." 26. It is relevant to refer here the provision of Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, which read as under: "113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married woman.--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Section 113B. which provides for presumption as to dowry death, was inserted with a view to fight against the plague of dowry death. The said provision is as follows: 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code." 27. The father of the deceased Gayatri Devi has specifically stated in his statement that at the time of 'khichri ceremony' the motorcycle was demanded as dowry but due to financial harness, that demand could not be fulfilled. It has also come in his statement that at the time of last 'vidai', on the occasion of Holi, the deceased was not willing to go with her husband and she had clearly stated that her in-laws shall kill him, if the demand of motorcycle is not fulfilled. P.W. 2, Ram Milan who was the Pandit in the marriage ceremony, has also supported the statement of Moti Lal (P.W. 1) that there was demand of motorcycle in the dowry and he has further supported the statement of Moti Lal (P.W. 1) that on Holi festival, Gayatri Devi was not ready to go with her husband and was telling that her husband and family members shall torture her for not giving the motorcycle and she shall be killed. Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length and nothing adverse has come in their statement so as to disbelieve their statement regarding the demand of motorcycle in the dowry. 28. As far as the question of cruelty and harassment is concerned, Moti Lal (P.W. 1) and Ram Milan (P.W. 2) have stated in their statement that on the occasion of Holi, Gayatri was not willing to go with her husband and she has specifically stated that if motorcycle is not given in the dowry, she will be tortured and she will be killed. This statement was given in the presence of Ram Milan (P.W. 2). 29. Now the question arise that whether the deceased was tortured soon before her death or not? This statement was given in the presence of Ram Milan (P.W. 2). 29. Now the question arise that whether the deceased was tortured soon before her death or not? In this connection, the statement of Nand Lal (P.W. 3), who is the resident of the same village, where the death has occurred and his house is at the distance of only 100 ft. from the house of the appellant-Suresh is relevant. Nand Lal (P.W. 3) has specifically stated in his statement that upon the cries of Gayatri Devi, he had gone to the house of the accused and saw that all the four accused persons were beating Gayatri Devi. He tried to intervene in the matter but Suresh said that he is beating his wife, therefore, villagers have no concern in the matter. In the cross-examination of Nand Lal (P.W. 3), it has come clearly that all the accused persons were beating Smt. Gayatri Devi by catching her hair and they had beaten for about half an hour. It has also come in the statement that she was beaten by hand and fist and also by 'Pirha'. He had further stated that he had seen two signs of beating in stomach and two signs of beating on her body. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased had not died due to burn injuries but the said burn injuries were post-mortem. The viscera of Smt. Gayatri Devi was preserved and in that viscera, no chemical poison was found. 30. Dr. B.P. Singh (P.W. 4) who is the private medical practitioner had gone to attend the deceased and he has also stated about the critical condition of the deceased. He has stated in his statement that the said position of Gayatri Devi was not due to burning but it could be due to poisoning. The accused persons had told to the doctor that she performs such drama every time, upon which, he came back to his home. Both these witnesses i.e., Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and Dr. B.P. Singh (P.W. 4) are the residents of the same village, where this occurrence took place. In the cross-examination, nothing has adversely come so as to believe that these witnesses have any enmity with the appellants or they are interested in any way with the complainant. Both these witnesses i.e., Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and Dr. B.P. Singh (P.W. 4) are the residents of the same village, where this occurrence took place. In the cross-examination, nothing has adversely come so as to believe that these witnesses have any enmity with the appellants or they are interested in any way with the complainant. In this regard, the statement of Nand Lal (P.W. 3) carries much weight, who has specifically stated in his statement that upon hearing the cry of Gayatri Devi, he had reached at the place of occurrence and he had seen that all the four accused persons were beating Smt. Gayatri Devi, who was lying on the earth. In the post-mortem report also, her hairs have been found uncombed and she was wearing only Blouse and Petticoat. The demand of dowry is established by the statements of Moti Lal (P.W. 1) and Ram Milan (P.W. 2). The critical condition of Gayatri Devi is proved by the statement of Dr. B.P. Singh. The cause of such critical condition has been narrated and explained by Nand Lal (P.W. 3), who is the neighbour of the accused persons. The burn injuries have been found to be postmortem. Therefore, there is no room to believe that she had died due to burn injuries. 31. As far as the other injuries as narrated by Nand Lal (P.W. 3) are concerned, because the brawl (maar-peet) was being done by hands and fist, therefore, it may be possible that there may not be open injury. The statement of P.W. 3 is very much natural and it does not appear that he is a tutored or interested witness. The presence of Nand Lal (P.W. 3), soon before her death, is also not doubtful because he has answered every question in the cross-examination in a very natural way. Nand Lal (P.W. 3) had also attended the marriage ceremony and he has also supported the statement of Moti Lal (P.W. 1) and Ram Milan (P.W. 2) that the motorcycle was demanded at the time of marriage and at the time of gauna also. The said demand could not be fulfilled due to financial crises. 32. During trial, the reliance was placed on suicide note written by Gayatri Devi but the said suicide note was not proved. The learned court below has categorically dealt with the said suicide note. The said demand could not be fulfilled due to financial crises. 32. During trial, the reliance was placed on suicide note written by Gayatri Devi but the said suicide note was not proved. The learned court below has categorically dealt with the said suicide note. Since there was no case of the prosecution that Gayatri Devi had committed suicide nor there was any evidence adduced in the defence that the said suicide note was in the handwriting of Gayatri Devi, therefore, the said suicide note was not relied upon. 33. From the careful scrutiny of the statements of Moti Lal (P.W. 1); Ram Milan (P.W. 2); Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and Dr. B.P. Singh (P.W. 4), it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was demand of motorcycle since the marriage and the deceased had apprehension of her killing at the time of last 'vidai' on the Holi festival. It is also proved that she was tortured for motorcycle and soon before her death, i.e., in the night at about 2.30 am, she was badly beaten by the accused persons and she was subjected to cruelty for demand of motorcycle. It also appears that the accused persons have fabricated a false story of burning because Dr. B.P. Singh (P.W. 4) has also stated in his statement clearly that such condition could not be due to burning and at that time Gayatri Devi was also alive. In the post-mortem report also, the alleged burn injuries have been found to be post-mortem, which clearly proves that the said story of burning has been falsely fabricated. Moreover, in the statement of Moti Lal (P.W. 1), it clearly comes that he has visited the kitchen and there were no marks of cooking the food. The statement of Nand Lal (P.W. 3), who was present at the place of occurrence, makes the picture crystal clear that Gayatri Devi was beaten just before her death. The death of Gayatri Devi has occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances and within seven years of marriage. It is also proved that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. In the post-mortem, a five months' baby has been found in the uterus. 34. In all these circumstances, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the dowry death. It is also proved that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. In the post-mortem, a five months' baby has been found in the uterus. 34. In all these circumstances, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the dowry death. Now the burden lies upon the accused persons to disprove the fact that the said death was not a dowry death. Section 113B of the Evidence Act provides for presumption as to dowry death. It is proved that there was demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, it was the duty of the accused persons to have discharged that burden but the accused persons have not discharged their burden. The death of Gayatri Devi has occurred in the house of the accused persons and it was the duty of the accused persons to disclose the facts that how the death of Smt. Gayatri Devi was caused. The alleged story of burning, at the time of cooking the food, has been established as false and fabricated because the burn injuries were post-mortem. It appears that after beating the deceased brutally, she was caused burn injuries after her death just to take the defence that she had died while cooking the food. From the evidence on record, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention had caused cruelty to Gayatri Devi in connection with demand of dowry of motorcycle and thereby caused her death. 35. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur has also very categorically appreciated each and every aspect of the evidence and I am in full agreement with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in holding guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 , I.P.C. Thus, the conviction is accordingly upheld. 36. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the appellants have been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 , I.P.C.; and the rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of  Rs. 2,000 each under Section 498A read with Section34, I.P.C. The deceased was a young lady of 19 years. 2,000 each under Section 498A read with Section34, I.P.C. The deceased was a young lady of 19 years. The said death has occurred just within two years of the 'gauna'. There was subsisting demand of motorcycle at the time of gauna as well as at the time of last 'vidai' on the occasion of Holi. The said demand could not be fulfilled due to financial difficulty by the father of Gayatri Devi. A false and fabricated story of alleged burning has been unsuccessfully attempted by the accused persons, which goes to show their intention to conceal the real facts. The incident took place in the year 1988 for which about 26 years have passed. Considering all the circumstance and the respective age of the appellants, the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 498A , I.P.C. do not require any interference, but however, the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 304B , I.P.C. is modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period already undergone shall be set off. 37. The appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modifications. The bail granted to the appellants is hereby cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur within ten days from today to serve out the sentence. In case, the appellants do not surrender before the court concerned, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur shall be at liberty to take coercive steps against them. 38. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court record to the court concerned at an early date.