JUDGMENT Hon’ble Akhtar Husain Khan, J.—Present appeal has been filed by accused appellant Mehmood Ali under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 7.3.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 1393 of 1999 (State v. Mehmood Ali) under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 307, 323, 506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted accused appellant Mehmood Ali for offences punishable under Section 498-A and 506 IPC as well as offence punishable under Section ¾ D.P. Act and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 498A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 506 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad has further directed that in default of payment of fine accused appellant shall further undergo six months simple imprisonment. He has further ordered that all sentences of accused appellant shall run concurrently. Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for accused appellant appeared. Learned A.G.A. appeared for respondent State of U.P.. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through records of the case. In brief relevant fact for determination of this appeal is that Crime No. 01 of 1998 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered in P.S. Mahila Thana, Moradabad on 5.1.1998 at 9.30 p.m. against accused appellant and four others on the basis of First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 presented by complainant Abdul Gani. According to First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 prosecution version is that the marriage of Seema Naz alias Guddi daughter of complainant was solemnized with accused Maqsood about two and half year before occurrence. Complainant had given dowry according to his status but father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and Jethani of complainant’s daughter were complaining for insufficient dowry and they were asking complainant’s daughter Seema Naz alias Guddi to bring Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- from her father. Seema Naz daughter of complainant told the complainant about their demand of dowry and told him that if he does not fulfill their demand of dowry, they shall kill her. Thereafter, complainant himself went with his brother Mohd. 10,000/- from her father. Seema Naz daughter of complainant told the complainant about their demand of dowry and told him that if he does not fulfill their demand of dowry, they shall kill her. Thereafter, complainant himself went with his brother Mohd. Hasan to the house of husband of his daughter Seema Naz about three months before occurrence and tried to convince them, whereupon they asked to pay Rs. 5,000/-.Thereafter complainant made arrangement and paid Rs. 5,000/- before Mohd. Hasan and Jakir but again after one month they started harassment of his daughter Seema Naz alias Guddi. Her daughter’s husband Maqsood, father-in-law Ahmad Ali and Jethani Shimmi started beating her and subjecting her to cruelty. Elder brother of husband of complainant’s daughter accused appellant Mehmood Ali, who was doing service in Railway also threatened daughter of complainant to kill and one day he assaulted her badly. All of them were not sending daughter of complainant to complainant’s house inspite of request of complainant. 3. According to FIR Ext.Ka-1 on 5.1.1998 at about 4.00 p.m. husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jethani of complainant’s daughter set fire to complainant’s daughter after pouring kerosene oil on her and closed room from outside. After hearing noise neighbours went in the room and saw the daughter of complainant with burn injury. All the family members of complainant’s daughter’s husband family had fled away from the house. Neighbours informed complainant, whereupon complainant went to the house of her daughter and took her daughter to District Hospital and admitted her there. In FIR Ext.Ka-1 complainant has alleged that the husband, mother-in-law and Jethani of his daughter have burnt his daughter for demand of dowry. After registration of aforesaid crime in police station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad on the basis of First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 presented by complainant Abdul Gani, police started investigation. On 5.1.1998 at 6.35 p.m. medical examination of complainant’s daughter Seema Naz was conducted in District Hospital Moradabad. Thereafter at 8.10 p.m. dying declaration of Seema Naz daughter of complainant was recorded by Dy. Collector, Moradabad. Later on, daughter of complainant Seema Naz died on 11.2.1998. After death of Seema Naz daughter of complainant, her inquest report was prepared and after having completed necessary formalities, dead body was sent for post mortem in sealed cover. Post Mortem of her dead body was conducted on 11.2.1998 at 2.00 p.m.. Collector, Moradabad. Later on, daughter of complainant Seema Naz died on 11.2.1998. After death of Seema Naz daughter of complainant, her inquest report was prepared and after having completed necessary formalities, dead body was sent for post mortem in sealed cover. Post Mortem of her dead body was conducted on 11.2.1998 at 2.00 p.m.. Thereafter Section 304-B IPC was added in Crime No. 01 of 1998 by I.O. and after having completed investigation in accordance with law police submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant Mehmood Ali alongwith other co-accused for offences under Section 498-A, 323,506, 304-B, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, whereupon Magistrate took cognizance and summoned all accused but accused appellant Mehmood Ali did not turn out, whereupon Magistrate separated the case of accused appellant Mehmood Ali. Later on after appearance of accused appellant Mehmood Ali, learned Magistrate concerned committed the case of accused appellant Mehmood Ali to the Court of session separately, therefore, Session Trial No. 1393 of 1999 (State v. Mehmood Ali) under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 304-B, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad was registered and accused appellant was tried separately. Said Session Trial No. 1393 of 1999 was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. IX, Moradabad, who framed charges against accused appellant for offences under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 304-B/34 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. 4. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani, P.W.-2 Afsar, P.W.-3 Mohd. Ayoob Retired S.D.M., P.W.-4 Dy. S.P. Dr. Shakuntala Singh, P.W.-5 Head Moharrir Anek Singh, P.W.-6 Dr. S.K. Rastogi, P.W.-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, P.W.-8 Dr. R.P. Bhardwaj and P.W.-9 Dy. S.P. Sripal Mishra. After evidence of prosecution, statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Accused appellant examined himself as D.W.-1, Akbar Hussain as D.W.-2, Sahabzade as D.W.-3 and Mohd. Ahmad as D.W.-4 in defence. 5. Out of nine witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani and P.W.-2 Afsar son of Abdul Gani are witnesses of fact and occurrence. Both have supported version of FIR in their statements on oath. P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani has proved First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 also in his statement. 6. P.W.-3 Mohd. Ayoob, retired S.D.M., has stated that on 5.1.1998 he was posted in District Moradabad as S.D.M. (Sadar). Both have supported version of FIR in their statements on oath. P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani has proved First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 also in his statement. 6. P.W.-3 Mohd. Ayoob, retired S.D.M., has stated that on 5.1.1998 he was posted in District Moradabad as S.D.M. (Sadar). On that day at about 8.00 p.m. he went to Emergency Ward of District Hospital, Moradabad for recording dying declaration of Seema Naz. He has stated that the doctor had identified Seema Naz and had given certificate that she is in a position to make statement. He has proved certificate of doctor Ext.Ka-4 in his statement and has further stated that Seema Naz was in sense. He has stated that he has recorded statement of Seema Naz, which is Ext.Ka-10. He has further stated that he had got thumb impression of Seema Naz on it and Dr. Rakesh Kumar had endorsed certificate on it. 7. P.W.-4 Dr. Shakuntala Singh has stated that on 5.1.1998 she was posted as Station Officer of Mahila Thana. On that day Crime No. 01/1998 under Section 498A, 323, 506, 307 IPC as well as Section 3/4 D.P. Act was registered in her presence. She has stated that she took investigation in her hands and after receiving copy of Chik FIR and G.D. she copied Chik FIR and G.D. in C.D., and recorded statement of complainant Abdul Gani, Head Moharrir Dilshad and witness Aftar Husain. Thereafter, she went to District Hospital. Seema Naz was able to depose, she recorded statement of Seema Naz and Nafeesha Jahan mother of Seema Naz and went to place of occurrence. She has stated that she has prepared site plan of place of occurrence Ext.Ka-19 at the time of inspection. She has stated that she took burnt cloths of Seema Naz from place of occurrence and prepared Memo of it Ext.Ka-20. P.W.-4 Dr. Shakuntala Singh has stated that on 6.1.1998 she recorded statement of Jakir and received injury report of Seema Naz. She has further stated that after having completed investigation she submitted charge-sheet Ext.Ka-21. ‘ 8. P.W.-5 Anek Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 5.1.1998 he was posted as Head Moharrir in police station Mahila Thana. He has stated that complainant Abdul Gani came to police station at 7.30 p.m. and presented written First Information Report on the basis of which he wrote Chik FIR. ‘ 8. P.W.-5 Anek Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 5.1.1998 he was posted as Head Moharrir in police station Mahila Thana. He has stated that complainant Abdul Gani came to police station at 7.30 p.m. and presented written First Information Report on the basis of which he wrote Chik FIR. He has proved in his statement Chik FIR Ext.Ka-17 as well as G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.Ka-18. 9. P.W.-6 Dr. Sandeep Kumar Rastogi has stated in his statement of oath that on 11.2.1998 he was posted in District Hospital. He has stated that he conducted post mortem of deceased Seema Naz on that day whose dead body was brought by Constable 381 Preetam Prasad and Constable 765 Omraja Singh of police station Mahila Thana in sealed cover. P.W.-6 Dr. Sandeep Kumar Rastogi has stated in his statement that the dead body was identified by aforesaid two constables. P.W.-6 Dr. Sandeep Kumar Rastogi has proved post mortem report of deceased Seema Naz Ext.Ka-9 and has stated that the death of deceased might have occurred on 11.2.1998 due to burn injury. 10. P.W.-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar has stated in his statement on oath that on 5.1.1998 he was posted as Emergency Medical Officer in District Hospital Moradabad. He has stated that on that day at 8.08 p.m. before statement of Seema Naz he has given certificate Ext.Ka-4 and has certified that Seema Naz was able to depose. P.W.-7 Dr. Rakesh Kumar has further stated in his statement that after recording of statement of Seema Naz by Magistrate, he has recorded certificate which is Ext.Ka-5. He has further stated that he has certified Right thumb impression of Smt. Seema Naz. 11. P.W.-8 Dr. R.P. Bhardwaj has stated in his statement on oath that on 5.1.1998 he was posted in Medical Hospital, Moradabad as Emergency Medical Officer and on that day at 6.35 p.m. he conducted medical examination of injured Seema Naz aged about 22 years wife of Maqsood resident of Peermail, P.S. Mugalpura, District Moradabad. He has stated that the injured was brought by her father. P.W.-8 Dr. R.P. Bhardwaj has stated on oath that the injured Seema Naz had burn injuries extending 90 to 95 percent all over face, whole of neck, front and back of chest and abdomen and thigh. P.W.-8 Dr. R.P. Bhardwaj has proved injury report of injured Seema Naz Ext.Ka-2. He has stated that the injured was brought by her father. P.W.-8 Dr. R.P. Bhardwaj has stated on oath that the injured Seema Naz had burn injuries extending 90 to 95 percent all over face, whole of neck, front and back of chest and abdomen and thigh. P.W.-8 Dr. R.P. Bhardwaj has proved injury report of injured Seema Naz Ext.Ka-2. He has further proved Bed Head Ticket of Seema Naz Ext.Ka-3. He has stated in his statement that the injuries of Seema Naz might have been caused on 5.1.1998 at 4.00 p.m.. 12. P.W.-9 Sripal Mishra has stated in his statement on oath that on 5.7.1998 he was posted as C.O. City-I. He has stated that after death of Seema Naz Section 304-B IPC was added by Rapat No. 10 on 11.2.1998 at 8.30 p.m.. He has proved copy of said G.D. Ext.Ka-6 in his statement. P.W.-9 Sripal Mishra has stated in his statement that after addition of Section 304-B IPC he took investigation into his hands and recorded statements of witnesses and after having completed investigation he submitted original charge-sheet Ext.Ka-7 and supplementary charge-sheet Ext.Ka-8. P.W.-9 Sripal Mishra has proved inquest report and papers connected with inquest report in his statement as a secondary witness by identifying hand writing of A.C.M.-II Sri V. S. Pundeer. Trial Court has marked Ext.Ka-11 to Ext.Ka-16 on said papers. 13. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused appellant Mehmood Ali has stated that he has been falsely implicated. He has stated that neither he demanded dowry nor subjected Seema Naz for demand of dowry. He has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of occurrence he was on duty and his family members had gone for Aftar at the house of Mohd. Ahmad. After duty hours when he came to his house, residents of his Mohalla told him that Seema Naz wife of his brother has herself set fire and residents of his mohalla have carried her to hospital. Accused appellant Mehmood Ali has further stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has never beaten Seema Naz. He has stated that his lodging and fooding was separate from husband of Seema Naz. 14. Accused appellant Mehmood Ali has further stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has never beaten Seema Naz. He has stated that his lodging and fooding was separate from husband of Seema Naz. 14. As D.W.-1 accused appellant Mehmood Ali has stated on oath that the marriage of his brother Maqsood was done on 16.12.1993 and after few days of marriage, he separated himself from D.W.-1 Mehmood Ali. In his statement on oath D.W.-1 has stated that on the day of occurrence he was on his duty from 6.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. and his family members had gone to Dawate Aftar. He has further stated that when at 7.00 p.m. he came from duty, there was none at his house. Residents of his mohalla told that his Bhabhi has been burnt, whereupon he rushed to the hospital. Seema Naz was out of sense. D.W.-1 Mehmood Ali has stated on oath that he has never demanded dowry from Seema Naz or her mother or father. 15. D.W.-2 Akbar Hussain and D.W.-3 Sahabzade both have stated that incident of burning of Seema Naz took place at 3.00 p.m. and after having heard noise they had gone into the house of Seema Naz, none of the family members of Seema Naz were present there. Only daughter of Seema Naz aged about three year was there. 16. D.W.-4 Mohd. Ahmad has stated in his statement on oath that on 5.1.1998 he had invited Mehmood Ali and his family members in Roza Aftar party of his son Irfan. On that day his aunt Smt. Aisha Begam, Khaloo Ahmad Ali, Maqsood and Smt. Shimmi came to his house at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. and told him that Seema Naz will come late. D.W.-4 Mohd. Ahmad has further stated in his statement that accused appellant Mehmood Ali was on duty. He has stated that at the time of Aftar he came to know that Seema Naz has been burnt. He went to mohalla Peergav where he came to know that Seema Naz had been carried to hospital by resident of mohalla. D.W.-4 Mohd. Ahmad has stated in his statement that demand of dowry or cruelty was never done with Seema Naz before him. 17. He went to mohalla Peergav where he came to know that Seema Naz had been carried to hospital by resident of mohalla. D.W.-4 Mohd. Ahmad has stated in his statement that demand of dowry or cruelty was never done with Seema Naz before him. 17. After hearing the parties learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. IX, Moradabad passed impugned judgement and order, whereby he has convicted accused appellant for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and has sentenced him thereunder as mentioned above. But learned trial Court has acquitted accused appellant from the charge under Section 304-B/34 and 323 IPC levelled against him. 18. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that it is apparent from FIR Ext.Ka-1 as well as statements of P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani and P.W.-2 Afsar and dying declaration Ext.Ka-10 of deceased Seema Naz that no allegation for demand of dowry has been made against accused appellant. In dying declaration Ext.Ka-4 only deceased Seema Naz has stated that his Jeth who is doing service in Railway also used to beat her often. 19. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that the statement made by deceased in dying declaration does not indicate that accused appellant who is jeth of deceased Seema Naz used to beat her in pursuance of demand of dowry. 20. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that neither in FIR Ext.Ka-1 nor in statements of P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani and P.W.-2 Afsar nor in dying declaration of deceased Seema Naz Ext.Ka-4 date, time and place has been mentioned when accused appellant is alleged to have beaten Seema Naz. 21. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that evidence on record is not sufficient to convict accused appellant for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. 22. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that conviction recorded by trial Court against accused appellant for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act is against law and evidence on record. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that appeal should be allowed and accused appellant should be acquitted from all charges levelled against him. 23. 22. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that conviction recorded by trial Court against accused appellant for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act is against law and evidence on record. Learned counsel for accused appellant contended that appeal should be allowed and accused appellant should be acquitted from all charges levelled against him. 23. Learned A.G.A. contended that prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act and acquittal of accused appellant from the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B is against law. State has preferred appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against acquittal of accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.. Learned A.G.A. contended that the appeal filed by accused appellant has no merit and should be dismissed. 24. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. Against acquittal of accused appellant from offences under Section 304-B/34 and 323 IPC State has preferred an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. and application for leave to appeal has been moved on behalf of State. Said application moved for leave to appeal by State is being rejected vide order passed by this Court today for reasons recorded therein. In this appeal, point for determination is as to whether conviction of accused appellant recorded by trial Court for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC as well as Section ¾ D.P. Act is against law and evidence on record. 25. In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 it has been stated by complainant P.W.-1 Abdul Gani that after marriage of his daughter Seema Naz her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and Jethani were complaining for insufficient dowry and they were asking her to bring Motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/- from her father. Her daughter told him that if he does not fulfill their demand they shall kill her. Thereafter complainant himself went alongwith his brother Mohd. Hasan to her husband’s house about three months earlier to the occurrence and tried to convince them, whereupon they asked to pay Rs. 5,000/-.Thereafter, complainant made arrangement and paid Rs. 5,000/- before Mohd. Hasan and Jakir but again after one month they started harassing her daughter. Her daughter’s husband Maqsood, father-in-law Ahmad Ali and Jethani Shimmi started beating her and subjecting her to cruelty. 5,000/-.Thereafter, complainant made arrangement and paid Rs. 5,000/- before Mohd. Hasan and Jakir but again after one month they started harassing her daughter. Her daughter’s husband Maqsood, father-in-law Ahmad Ali and Jethani Shimmi started beating her and subjecting her to cruelty. Elder brother of husband of complainant’s daughter accused appellant Mehmood Ali, who was doing service in Railway also threatened his daughter (now deceased) to kill and one day he assaulted her badly. All of them were not sending his daughter to his house in spite of his request. 26. P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani has supported above version of FIR Ext.Ka-1 on oath before trial Court. He has stated that mother-in-law Aisha Begam, father-in-law Ahmad Ali, Jethani Smt. Simmi and Jeth Mehmood Ali were behind demand of Rs. 10,000/- and a Motorcycle in dowry. Her daughter told him that if he does not fulfill their demand of Rs. 10,000/- and Motorcycle they shall kill her. P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani has stated in his statement that about three months earlier to this occurrence he alongwith his brother Mohd. Hasan went to her daughter’s husband’s house and tried to convince them, whereupon they asked to pay Rs. 5,000/-, then he arranged Rs. 5,000/- and paid to accused appellant Mehmood Ali but later on they again started harassing of his daughter. Her daughter’s husband Maqsood, mother-in-law Aisha, father-in-law Ahmad Ali and jethani Simmi started beating his daughter and accused appellant Mehmood Ali was also supporting them. P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani has further stated in his statement that Mehmood Ali was doing service in Railway, had also beaten his daughter and was threatening to kill her. 27. P.W.-2 Afsar is son of P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani. He has also supported the statement of complainant P.W.-1 Abdul Gani. 28. It is apparent from facts mentioned above that in FIR Ext.Ka-1 complainant P.W.-1 Abdul Gani has mentioned specifically that three months earlier to occurrence, he alongwith his brother Mohd. Hasan went to her daughter’s house and tried to convince her family members, whereupon they demanded Rs. 5,000/- then after making arrangement he paid Rs. 5,000/- to them. In FIR it has not been specifically mentioned as to whom he has paid said amount of Rs. 5,000/- in pursuance of demand made by his daughter’s husband and family members. But in statement on oath he has specifically mentioned that after having made arrangement of Rs. 5,000/- then after making arrangement he paid Rs. 5,000/- to them. In FIR it has not been specifically mentioned as to whom he has paid said amount of Rs. 5,000/- in pursuance of demand made by his daughter’s husband and family members. But in statement on oath he has specifically mentioned that after having made arrangement of Rs. 5,000/- he paid it to accused appellant Mehmood Ali. Admittedly accused appellant Mehmood Ali is (Jeth) elder brother of husband of complainant’s daughter Seema Naz. 29. In the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “ FIR is not an encyclopaedia of entire case. Naming of accused in FIR may be important but not naming of accused in FIR may not be a ground to doubt contents thereof in case statement of witness is found to be trustworthy.” In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Apex Court has held,” High Court fel into error in giving significance to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of morning incident all accused had not been named in complaint.” 30. As mentioned above payment of Rs. 5000/- has been mentioned in FIR but it has not been mentioned as to whom it had been paid. P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani has clarified this situation in his statement on oath that said Rs. 5000/- has been paid to accused appellant Mehmood Ali in pursuance of demand of dowry made by his daughter’s husband and family members. This statement of P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani is not against version of FIR Ext.Ka-1. In FIR Ext.Ka-1 specific mention has been made that accused appellant was also threatening complainant’s daughter to kill her and one day he had beaten her also. This statement of FIR has been fully supported by P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani in his statement on oath. In dying declaration Ext.Ka-10 Seema Naz daughter of complainant (now deceased) has also stated that her jeth who was doing service in Railway, often used to beat her. In her dying declaration Ext.Ka-10 deceased Seema Naz has made statement regarding demand of dowry as well as cruelty and harassment made in pursuance thereof and in this context she has stated that her jeth also often used to beat her. 31. In her dying declaration Ext.Ka-10 deceased Seema Naz has made statement regarding demand of dowry as well as cruelty and harassment made in pursuance thereof and in this context she has stated that her jeth also often used to beat her. 31. In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others, 2010 Cri LJ 3889 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,”the basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole.” 32. In view of principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is apparent that any inference should be drawn on the basis of whole evidence and not on a part of it and it is apparent from perusal of FIR Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-1 complainant Abdul Gani and dying declaration of deceased Seema Naz Ext.Ka-10 that accused appellant Mehmood Ali was also supporting demand of dowry made by his family members and he was also subjecting to cruelty to Seema Naz daughter of complainant. 33. Accused appellant has examined himself as D.W.-1. He has stated on oath as D.W.-1 that the marriage of his brother Maqsood was solemnized on 16th December, 1993 and after some days of marriage Maqsood separated himself from accused appellant Mehmood Ali and his family but this statement of D.W.-1 accused appellant Mehmood Ali has not been supported by D.W.-2 Akbar Hussain, D.W.-3 Sahabzade and D.W.-4 Mohd. Ahmad as they have not stated that accused appellant was living separately from deceased Seema Naz and her husband. 34. D.W.-2 Akbar Hussain and D.W.-3 Sahabzade are resident of mohalla of accused appellant and D.W.-4 Mohd Ahmad is relative of accused appellant. Therefore, considering whole statements of these witnesses, it is apparent that they have not supported the version of D.W.-1 accused appellant Mehmood Ali that Mehmood Ali was living separately. Accused appellant has not adduced any documentary evidence to show that he was living separately from family of deceased Seema Naz and her husband. 35. In view of discussion made above after having gone through whole evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly held accused appellant guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC. 35. In view of discussion made above after having gone through whole evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly held accused appellant guilty for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC. Trial Court has framed charge against accused appellant for demand of dowry as follows : “Lastly, that you, during the aforesaid period, made demand for dowry from Smt. Seema Naz and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and thin the cognizance of this Court of sessions.” Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act provides punishment for taking dowry while Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act provides punishment for demand of dowry. Charge framed against accused appellant by trial Court shows that charge has been framed against accused appellant for demanding dowry, therefore, Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been wrongly mentioned in charge framed against accused appellant. Trial Court has framed no charge against accused appellant for taking dowry, therefore, conviction of accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not sustainable but in view of discussion made above, evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, I am of the view that evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned trial Court has convicted accused appellant for demand of dowry under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act while this offence is punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, insertion of Section 3 of D.P. Act alongwith Section 4 of D.P. Act appears to be clerical or accidental mistake. Section 3 should be deleted and conviction of accused appellant should be read under Section 4 D.P. Act. The sentences awarded by trial Court for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be said to be excessive. I have perused impugned judgement and order passed by trial Court. Learned trial Court has gone through whole evidence on record and considered all relevant points for determination of the case. The conviction recorded by trial Court is based on judicious analysis of evidence available on record. I have perused impugned judgement and order passed by trial Court. Learned trial Court has gone through whole evidence on record and considered all relevant points for determination of the case. The conviction recorded by trial Court is based on judicious analysis of evidence available on record. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, I am of the view that no interference is justified in impugned judgement and order passed by trial Court. Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Accused appellant shall surrender before trial Court within 30 days from the date of this judgement to serve sentence awarded to him, failing which trial Court shall issue N.B.W. against him and shall send him to jail for serving sentence. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to trial Court for securing compliance. Send back records of trial Court immediately. ——————