JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Rukhsana deceased and her younger sister Khamosh (P.W.3) both daughters of Yusuf (P.W.2) were married with two brothers namely Rajjak Khan accused appellant and Ishaq both sons of Chhuttan Khan, resident of Village Aandhi, P.S. Aandhi, District Jaipur. On 19.6.2007 at 6.30 PM Rukhsana in her matrimonial home at Aandhi was subjected to burn injuries after kerosene oil was poured upon her and fire was ignited. 2. Yusuf Khan (P.W.2) presented a written report (Ex.P.3) on 20.6.2007 at 7.15 PM and on the basis thereof, formal FIR was registered at 9.30 PM. During investigation, ASI Shyamlal after obtaining opinion on 20.6.2007 at 11.40 AM had recorded statement (Ex.P.2) of Rukhsana under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 20.6.2007 at 11.50 AM. On the said date on 20.6.2007 at 3.00 PM, Rukhsana died at SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur and due to her death, her statement (Ex.P.2) now has been termed as dying declaration. 3. Case of the prosecution rests on dying declaration (Ex.P.2) and eye-witness account given by Khamosh (P.W.3) sister of Rukhsana deceased. 4. In dying declaration (Ex.P.2), four persons husband Rajjak Khan, mother-in-law Smt. Gulshan, Reshma Bano married sister of Rajjak Khan and her husband Bundu Khan were named as accused. Reshma Bano on the day of occurrence was held to be delinquent juvenile in conflict with law and her case was segregated and was sent for trial before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. Investigation was kept pending qua Bundu Khan, husband of Reshma Bano. Rajjak Khan, husband of Rukhsana deceased, Smt. Gulshan mother-in-law of the deceased, were sent for trial after charge-sheet was presented against them under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Accused alongwith the charge-sheet were committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 13.8.2008, held both Rajjak Khan and Smt. Gulshan, accused-appellants, guilty of offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- "U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 498A IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 498A IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 304B IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently." 5. The present appeal has been filed by both the accused-appellants to assail conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the trial court. 6. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Choudhary had made twofold submissions before this court: firstly, the learned counsel has contended that the dying declaration (Ex.P.2) recorded by the ASI, Shyamlal is accompanied by various suspicious circumstances and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon dying declaration (Ex.P.2). 7. Secondly, Gona ceremony of Khamosh was not performed, therefore, she was not present in the matrimonial home. She was just procured and introduced as an eye-witness. It is further alleged that she has improved the case of the prosecution from her previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, her deposition in court should be discarded being not reliable. 8. Shri Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, has defended the judgment of the trial court and stated that presence of Khamosh who was married in the same house is natural, probable. Therefore, her testimony has rightly been believed by the trial court and furthermore, investigating officer had no animus against the accused and therefore, dying declaration (Ex.P.2) can be acted upon as same is corroborated by the medical evidence and inspires confidence. 9. Before we appreciate the rival submissions advanced before us, we shall briefly notice the prosecution case. 10. Yusuf (P.W.2) presented written report (Ex.P.3) before the Head Constable Ramavtar, not examined. Ramavtar had presented the said written report (Ex.P.3) before the SHO, P.S. Aandhi, District Jaipur who on the basis of written report had registered a formal FIR (Ex.P.11) bearing FIR No.61/2007. In written report (Ex.P.3), Yusuf (P.W.2) stated in the written report (Ex.P.3) that he is resident of Toda (Dariba), Sikar. His two daughters i.e. eldest Rukhsana was married at village Aandhi with Rajjak Khan and younger daughter Khamosh was married to Ishaq Khan younger brother of Rajjak Khan 2-3 years ago. Eldest daughter for last two years was visiting the house of her in-laws. His two daughters i.e. eldest Rukhsana was married at village Aandhi with Rajjak Khan and younger daughter Khamosh was married to Ishaq Khan younger brother of Rajjak Khan 2-3 years ago. Eldest daughter for last two years was visiting the house of her in-laws. Her in-laws, husband Rajjak Khan, mother-in-law Gulshan, Bundu Khan used to harass her on account of demand of dowry. 4-5 days ago both the daughters had gone to their in-law's house at Village Aandhi. Deceased Rukhsana before her death had disclosed about the maltreatment extended by her in-laws. Yesterday on 19.6.2007 Rukhsana by her in-laws, namely Rajjak Khan, Gulshan, Bundu Khan was set on fire and she had received burn injuries. Today, she has died in the hospital. For the death of Rukhsana, her in-laws are responsible. They had murdered her on account of demand of dowry, therefore legal action be taken against him. 11. Prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and has proved on record documents, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. In defence, accused-appellants had examined five witnesses and have relied on documents, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10. 12. ASI Shyamlal (P.W.1) had recorded dying declaration. 13. Yusuf (P.W.2), father of deceased, his wife Shahida (P.W.6) have deposed regarding marriage of Rukhsana and Khamosh with two brothers and stated that the deceased was harassed by her in-laws which included Rajjak Khan husband, Smt. Gulshan motherin- law, sister-in-law Reshma Bano and her husband Bundu Khan. 14. Lukman (P.W.5) cousin of the deceased and Shayara Bano (P.W.9) aunt of the deceased both had turned hostile to the prosecution and had not supported the prosecution case. 15. Abdul Kadir (P.W.4) god brother (Dharam Bhai) has corroborated the testimony of Yusuf (P.W.2), father, and Shahida (p.W.6), mother, regarding, demand of dowry by in-laws of Rukhsana. Abdul Kadir had also attested site plan of the spot (Ex.P.4), inquest (Ex.P.5) and supurdagi of dead body (Ex.P.6). 16. Babuddin (P.W.7) and Nathulal (P.W.8) are neighbours of the accused. Babuddin (P.W.7) stated that 6-7 months ago he had seen smoke coming out from the house of Rajjak. He went there and found that a woman was burning and he had poured cold water on her. Nathulal (PW.8) stated that wife of Rajjak had died on account of burn injuries. Babuddin (P.W.7) and Nathulal (P.W.8) are neighbours of the accused. Babuddin (P.W.7) stated that 6-7 months ago he had seen smoke coming out from the house of Rajjak. He went there and found that a woman was burning and he had poured cold water on her. Nathulal (PW.8) stated that wife of Rajjak had died on account of burn injuries. After hearing noise he went to the house of Rajjak and also poured water on Rukhsana. 17. Constable Ramroop (P.W.10) had taken sealed samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 18. Bhoop Singh (P.W.11) was in-charge of Malkhana. He has proved the link evidence. 19. Dr. R.S. Meena (P.W.13) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Rukhsana and has proved on record post-mortem report (Ex.P.19). As per postmortem report (Ex.P.19), Rukhsana had suffered 3rd degree burns all over the body except the head and cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem flame burns which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 20. Santosh Chalka (P.W.12), Superintendent of Police, who at the relevant time was posted as Circle Officer (South), Jaipur Rural being Dy. S.P. has proved various facets of investigation. 21. Accused in defence had examined five witnesses. 22. Kazi Raufurrehman (D.W.1) has stated that on 17.5.2004 he had performed Nikah of Rukhsana with Abdul Rajjak son of Chhuttan. 23. Mangi Lal (D.W.2) stated that he is former Sarpanch of Village Aandhi. This witness stated that on the day of occurrence, he learnt that wife of Rajjak had suffered burn injuries and Bundu Quazi had informed father of Rukhsana. The witness further stated that in presence of number of persons he had asked the deceased as to how she suffered burn injuries and she had replied that she has put herself on fire. 24. Fakhruddin (D.W.3) stated that house of Rajjak is at a distance of 50 ft. of his house. On the day of occurrence he had seen that Rukhsana was burning. At that time, Rajjak and Gulshan were not present at their the house. 25. Mukesh Meena (D.W.4) has stated that on 19.6.2007 Rukhsana was brought to the Community Health Center, Aandhi and he had issued outdoor slip (Ex.D.7) in which he noted that she had suffered superficial injuries and on inquiry, Rukhsana had told him that she had received burn injuries due to bursting of stove. 26. 25. Mukesh Meena (D.W.4) has stated that on 19.6.2007 Rukhsana was brought to the Community Health Center, Aandhi and he had issued outdoor slip (Ex.D.7) in which he noted that she had suffered superficial injuries and on inquiry, Rukhsana had told him that she had received burn injuries due to bursting of stove. 26. Kamruddin (D.W.5) stated that he was go between for effecting matrimonial alliance of Rukhsana with the present appellant and Rajjak had never beaten Rukhsana and had never demanded any dowry. He further stated that Rajjak is very poor person and his economic condition is bad. However, this witness stated that in marriage some dowry is always given. 27. First we shall deal with the evidence of dying declaration. I-Dying Declaration 28. ASI Shyamlal (P.W.1) had recorded dying declaration (Ex.P.2). Before recording dying declaration, he had presented application (Ex.P.1) before the Duty Doctor, Burns Ward, SMS Hospital, Jaipur and had sought his opinion regarding the fitness of the deceased to make statement. On 20.6.2007 at 11.40 AM, Dr. Tarun Jain opined that the patient is conscious and is fit to give statement. Thereafter, ASI Shyamlal (P.W.1) recorded dying declaration (Ex.P.2). Dying declaration (Ex.P.2) when translated into English, reads as under:- "Statement Smt. Rukhsana W/o. Rajjak Musalman, aged 16 years, r/o. Aandhi, P.S. Aandhi, District Jaipur Rural, Rapat No. 1012 dated 20.6.2007, P.S. Aandhi, District Jaipur. Stated that two years ago I was married as per customs and rites with Rajjak resident of Aandhi. On 18.6.2007 at about 6.30 PM my husband Rajjak, mother-in-law Gulshan and my Nanad (sister-in-law) Reshma and one another person came from my back and poured kerosene oil and had put me on fire, due to which I was burnt. My younger sister Khamosh was there. He (husband) used to give beating to me on account of dowry and for this, I have been burnt. Sd/- Rukhsana Sd/- Shyam Lal ASI Sd/- Yusuf Khan" 29. We may notice here that the dying declaration (Ex.P.2) is not attested by the attending Doctor. No doctor has been examined by the prosecution to verify the fact that the dying declaration was recorded in his presence. Even Dr. Tarun Jain who had opined on application (Ex.P.1) that the deceased is fit to make statement has not been examined by the prosecution. Dr. No doctor has been examined by the prosecution to verify the fact that the dying declaration was recorded in his presence. Even Dr. Tarun Jain who had opined on application (Ex.P.1) that the deceased is fit to make statement has not been examined by the prosecution. Dr. Tarun Jain, had given his opinion on 20.6.2007 at 11.40 AM, dying declaration was recorded at 11.50 AM and on the said date at 3.00 PM Rukhsana had expired. She had received 3rd degree burns. We find merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel that defence was entitled to cross-examine the doctor regarding fitness of the deceased. It has been rightly submitted that since dying declaration has not been recorded by the Magistrate and same is also not witnessed or attested by the doctor, at least, the prosecution could do was to examine the doctor who gave an opinion that the deceased was fit to make a statement. To us, non-examination of Dr. Tarun Jain who gave opinion regarding the fitness of the deceased, causes serious dent in the case of the prosecution. 30. ASI Shyamlal (P.W.1) had stated that the dying declaration was attested by a gazetted police officer. In court he stated that the Dy. S.P. was present and he was present when Exhibit-P.2 was recorded. It will be apposite here to reproduce the exact words of the witness as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih&2 esa ;g dgha ugha fy[kk gS fd ;g e`R;q iwoZdkyhu c;ku gSA eSaus gh 11-50 ,0,e0 fy[kk gSA fMIVh lkgc mlh jkst ekStwn Fks ;g lgh gS fd fMIVh lkgc iqfyl vf/kdkjh 20-6-2007 dks cjoDr c;ku mifLFkr Fks c;ku izn'kZ ih&2 esa dksbZ mifLFkfr ntZ ugha gSA** 31. Dying declaration is signed by Yusuf (P.W.2) father of the deceased. Yusuf (P.W.2) had admitted that he alongwith his family members had reached the hospital at 9.30 AM. Thus, family members of the deceased were present when dying declaration (Ex.P.2) was recorded. 32. Santosh Chalka (P.W.12) who was then posted as Dy.S.P. and qua whom ASI Shyamlal (P.W.1) has stated that dying declaration (Ex.P.2) was recorded in his presence, has denied the fact that Exhibit-P.2 was recorded in his presence. Rather, he has taken a categorical stand that on the day when the dying declaration (Ex.P.2) was recorded he was not in Jaipur. Santosh Chalka (P.W.12) who was then posted as Dy.S.P. and qua whom ASI Shyamlal (P.W.1) has stated that dying declaration (Ex.P.2) was recorded in his presence, has denied the fact that Exhibit-P.2 was recorded in his presence. Rather, he has taken a categorical stand that on the day when the dying declaration (Ex.P.2) was recorded he was not in Jaipur. To be precise, Santosh Chalka (P.W.12) C.I. being Dy.S.P. in court has stated as under:- ^^izn'kZ ih&2 c;ku :dlkuk eq>s 22-6-2007 dks feyk Fkk eSa fnukad 20-6-2007 dks t;iqj esa gh ugha Fkk tc :dlkuk dk c;ku 20-6-2007 dks fy;k x;kA esjs lkeus ;g c;ku fy;k Hkh ugha x;kA tc eSa Fkk gh ugha rks esjs ls c;ku ysus dh vuqefr Hkh izkIr ugha dhA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih&2 uk gh esjs uk gh MkDVj }kjk lR;kfir gS eq>s irk ugha fd ';keyky ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks fdl iqfyl vf/kdkjh us c;ku ysus gsrq vkFkksjkbZt fd;k FkkA ';keyky ,0,l0vkbZ0 dks :dlkuk ds c;ku ysus gsrq fyf[kr esa fdlh mPp vf/kdkjh }kjk vkns'k fn;k Fkk ;k ugha ;g eSa dsl Mk;jh ns[kdj crk ldrk gwaA dsl Mk;jh esa Hkh ,slk vadu ugha gSA** 33. Thus, in the present case dying declaration has not been recorded by the Magistrate. It has not been witnessed or attested by any Doctor. Dr. Tarun Jain who had given opinion regarding fitness of the deceased, has not been examined by the prosecution and the gazetted officer in whose presence allegedly statement (Ex.P.2) of Rukhsana deceased was recorded has denied not only his presence but has stated that on the day it was purportedly recorded he was not at Jaipur, therefore he has falsified ASI Shyam Lal (PW.1). It is stated that within three hours of recording of the statement deceased had died. Taking all facts into consideration, we can safely say that the dying declaration is accompanied by numerous suspicious circumstances and hence, it is not safe to rely upon the dying declaration (Ex.P.2). II-Eye Witness Account 34. Khamosh (P.W.3) is younger sister of deceased Rukhsana. She and Rukhsana were both married with two brothers, namely Ishaq and Rajjak Khan, present accused-appellant, respectively. Yusuf Khan (P.W.2) has stated that 4-5 days ago both daughters had gone to their matrimonial home. Thus, presence of Khamosh (P.W.3) in her matrimonial home cannot be doubted. Her presence in her matrimonial home is natural. She and Rukhsana were both married with two brothers, namely Ishaq and Rajjak Khan, present accused-appellant, respectively. Yusuf Khan (P.W.2) has stated that 4-5 days ago both daughters had gone to their matrimonial home. Thus, presence of Khamosh (P.W.3) in her matrimonial home cannot be doubted. Her presence in her matrimonial home is natural. Khamosh (P.W.3) in court has stated that Rajjak used to beat Rukhsana and demand motorcycle and his mother used to say that marriage performed was not upto the mark. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence, both the sisters had gone to ease themselve and when they returned Rukhsana was with her in the room when four persons came. The said four persons poured kerosene oil and had put Rukhsana on fire. The said persons were Bundu, brother-in-law (Jija), Rajjak Khan, husband, Smt. Gulshan, mother-in-law, and Reshma Bano, sister-in-law (Nanad). She had raised noise. People of Mohallah had gathered. In cross-examination the witness stated that Rajjak was demanding motorcycle and on this count used to beat Rukhsana. The witness further stated that Rajjak and Gulshan in her presence had not demanded motorcycle. The witness has not stated anything against her husband (Ishaq Khan). 35. However, so far role of mother-in-law Gulshan is concerned, in cross-examination the witness has stated that she had told the police that all the four persons had set Rukhsana on fire, but as to why this fact was not recorded in her police statement she is unable to give any explanation. In examination-in-chief she stated that Rukhsana was in a room with her when she was put to fire. In court she stated that she got recorded in the police statement that mother-in-law Gulshan, sister-in-law Reshma Bano and sister Rukhsana deceased were present in the chowk. She further stated that it is wrong that her sister was set on fire in chowk. In court she stated that she got recorded in the police statement that mother-in-law Gulshan, sister-in-law Reshma Bano and sister Rukhsana deceased were present in the chowk. She further stated that it is wrong that her sister was set on fire in chowk. To be precise, we will reproduce following portion of cross-examination of Khamosh (P.W.3) as under:- ^^esjs ikl ds dejs esa :dlkuk [kM+h Fkh og ihB nsdj [kM+h Fkh pkj vkneh vanj x;s rFkk 'kCn pkj vkneh] feV~Vh dk rsy pkj tuksa us Mkydj vkx yxk nhA fpYykbZ rks eksgYys okys ,df=r gks x;sA ;g lHkh ckrsa eSaus iqfyl dks crkbZ Fkh mUgksaus D;ksa ugha fy[kh irk ugha gSA iqfyl c;ku esa ;g fy[kk Fkk fd lkl] xqy'ku] uun js'kek ,oa cgu :dlkuk ckgj pkSd esa FksA ;g ckr xyr gS fd pkSd esa vkx yxkbZ gksA** 36. Thus, to us, role of mother-in-law Gulshan seems to be a blemish and motivated to inflate the number of accused. Statement of Khamosh (P.W.3) in the court and examination-in-chief in which she named four persons is a result of consultations and deliberations. Thus, there is over implication and an attempt has been made to rope in entire family. She has not even spared Bundu Khan (Jija) husband of sister-in-law of deceased. Our this view is fortified by the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. [ AIR 2000 SC 2324 ] as under:- "For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." 37. Even otherwise, it is definite case of the witness Khamosh (P.W.3) that it was the husband Rajjak who was demanding motorcycle and on this count he used to give beating to his wife Rukhsana. Demand of motorcycle predominantly is for the benefit of husband. Mother-in-law has nothing to gain from the said demand. 38. In Salamat Ali & Anr. v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1995 (SC) 1863 ], the Honble Apex Court has held as under:- "3. By the conviction of Salim Ahmed, it stands confirmed that the deceased met a suicidal death and that Salim Ahmed was responsible for it, whether by himself or conjointly with others. The only point to be examined is whether there is clear and cogent evidence to involve the parents in the demands of dowry made or were they otherwise responsible for inflicting any cruelty on the deceased. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence led by the prosecution. Uniformly every witness has said that the family members of the husband, i.e. Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in the form of television and scooter. The nature of the demand is some indication. The demand of scooter predominantly must have been raised by the husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-law would be demanding a scooter for himself or that the mother-in-law needed it for her use. Different considerations, however, could, in certain events, apply to the television demand, but here again, it predominant that the husband wanted it more than his parents. Evidence of P. W. 1 is clear on this point that there were frequent quarrels, but only between husband and wife. Different considerations, however, could, in certain events, apply to the television demand, but here again, it predominant that the husband wanted it more than his parents. Evidence of P. W. 1 is clear on this point that there were frequent quarrels, but only between husband and wife. In other words, the parents had no part to play in the quarrels between the spouses. P.W. 7, the father of the deceased also had said that his daughter had told him that the demand had been made by the husband, but he had then not taken it seriously. Thus, the allegations against the appellants are general in nature attributed to the husband's family. They have been identified because they were members of his family. It is not clear on the record as besides them who else were members of the family. It thus appears to us that in the absence of clear and pointed evidence it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the parents, on vague allegations that the demand of dowry was made by the husband's family members. In this view of the matter, we would record their acquittal. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court, visa- vis the two appellants stands set aside, but maintained insofar as Salim Ahmed, accused, is concerned but under Section 304B, I.P.C. simpliciter, without the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail-bonds.". 39. Khamosh (P.W.3) in court had stated that in her presence Rajjak and Gulshan had not stated that in case motorcycle is not given Rukhsana will be dealt to death. Main thrust of the witness in court is that Rajjak used to beat his wife to assert that Rukhsana should bring motorcycle from her parents as dowry. Therefore, taking admissions made by the witness that in police statement she had stated that mother-in-law was in the chowk of the house and was not in the room. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, following the spirit of Kans Raj's case (supra), we shall extend the benefit of doubt to Smt. Gulshan mother-in-law, appellant No.2. However, we find that the testimony of Khamosh (PW.3) qua Rajjak Khan, appellant No.1, husband of deceased Rukhsana cannot be doubted. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, following the spirit of Kans Raj's case (supra), we shall extend the benefit of doubt to Smt. Gulshan mother-in-law, appellant No.2. However, we find that the testimony of Khamosh (PW.3) qua Rajjak Khan, appellant No.1, husband of deceased Rukhsana cannot be doubted. Hence, we affirm the finding given by the trial court that Rajjak after pouring kerosene oil had sat her wife on fire. 40. So far as defence evidence is concerned, no credence can be granted to the defence witnesses. All the defence witnesses being residents of Village of the accused are convenient witnesses. 41. Dr. Mukesh Meena (D.W.4) has stated that Rukhsana disclosed she had received injuries due to bursting of stove, whereas another defence witness stated that he was informed by the deceased that she has put herself on fire. It is not safe to act upon the defence evidence who have taken contradictory stand and thus, we hereby discard their testimony. 42. As a parting note we find that the learned trial court has committed a grave error in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 304-B IPC both. Though it was valid for the trial court to frame alternative charge under Section 304-B alongwith charge under Section 302 IPC, but conviction on both the counts cannot be sustained. Hence, we set aside the conviction of the appellant Rajjak Khan for offence under Section 304- B IPC. However, we uphold his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. 43. Once we have come to conclusion that Rajjak Khan had poured kerosene oil and set Rukhsana deceased on fire and had committed murder, conviction of Gulshan under Section 304-B IPC also cannot be sustained. Thus, appellant Gulshan is acquitted of both the charges for offences under Section 302 and 304-B IPC. However, since it has come in evidence of Yusuf (P.W.2), father of the deceased, and Shahida (P.W.6) mother of the deceased that mother-in-law also used to harass the deceased, we uphold the conviction of Gulshan for offence under Section 498-A IPC. For offence under Section 498-A IPC, Gulshan has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 498-A IPC, Gulshan has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 2007, a period of eight years has already elapsed. Statement of Gulshan under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.6.2007 and in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. her age has been recorded as 60 years, therefore, as on today, Gulshan is aged about 67 years. She was granted bail by this court on 27.10.2007. Thus, she had undergone two and a half months after her conviction and couple of months during the trial. Thus, we reduce sentence of Gulshan accused for offence under Section 498A IPC to the period already undergone. 44. Consequently, the appeal of Rajjak Khan is dismissed and the appeal preferred by Smt. Gulshan is disposed of in above terms.