Judgment : 1. The present crl. appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 979 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2006 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C. for three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment and under Section 306 I.P.C. for seven years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, six months additional R.I. 2. In Parole Application No. 406894 of 2015 which has been filed on behalf of appellant no. 1 Manoj and has been dismissed by this Court on 4.12.2015, it was stated that appellant no. 2 Charan Singh has died and his death certificate has been annexed with the said parole application, this Court does not feel necessary to call for a report regarding the death of appellant no. 2 Charan Singh, hence the appeal on his behalf stands abated. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that an F.I.R. was lodged by one Veerpal (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant) stating that his daughter, namely, Sushma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased) was married with appellant no. 1 Manoj son of Charan Singh, appellant no. 2 (since deceased), on 3.3.1999 according to Hindu rites and tradition. The informant according to his means has given sufficient dowry to his daughter and spent Rs. 3 lacs in the marriage. His daughter after being married went to his in-laws house and has performed the matrimonial obligation and from the wedlock of the deceased and appellant Manoj one male child was born, who was aged about one and half year at the time of incident. After the birth of the child, the appellant Manoj, his father Charan Singh (since deceased), mother Urmila, Deepak, sister Kavita and brother-in-law Yogendra started demand of a motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand as more dowry and used to assault and abuse the deceased for the same and threatened her for life. The deceased two months prior to the incident had gone to her parents house had informed her parents about the demand being made by her in-laws on which they pacified that they would talk to her in-laws. 4. The deceased two months prior to the incident had gone to her parents house had informed her parents about the demand being made by her in-laws on which they pacified that they would talk to her in-laws. 4. On 18.1.2006, the parents of the deceased along with other family members had made efforts to settle the issue with appellant Manoj on which he took the deceased along with him and after eight days, the deceased informed her parents on phone that her in-laws are again making demand for motorcycle and Rs. fifty thousand and threatened for life if the said demand is not fulfilled. On receiving the said information, the informant along with his nephew Jagdish, brother Dr. Brij Pal and his wife Smt. Sushila went to her in-laws house and all of them tried to pacify and console the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other his other family members for not treating the deceased with cruelty for demand of dowry but they continued with their demand. Thereafter, the informant along with other family members returned to their house after pacifying the in-laws of the deceased. 5. On 21.2.2006 at about 8 p.m. an unknown person from village Saulana had made a call to the informant on phone informing him that his daughter Sushma has been burnt to death by her husband Manoj, mother-in-law Urmila, father-in-law Charan Singh (since deceased), devar Deepak and Nand Kavitata by sprinkling kerosene oil and the villagers had taken the deceased to Jeevan hospital Modi Nagar on which the informant along with his family members and village Pradhan Kuldeep Singh, Dharmpal and Budh Prakash reached at Jeevan hospital Modinagar and saw that the deceased was lying in a burnt condition and none of family of her in-laws is present there. Thereafter he got a written report prepared and gave the same at police station Bhojpur for taking appropriate action. The said report has been marked as Ex. Ka. 1. 6. On 22.2.2006 at about 3:30 p.m., the F.I.R. was lodged at police station Bhojpur against accused Manoj, Smt. Urmila, Charan Singh, Deepak, Kavita and Yogendra which was registered as Case Crime No. 24 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The chik F.I.R. has been marked as Ex. Ka. Ka. 1. 6. On 22.2.2006 at about 3:30 p.m., the F.I.R. was lodged at police station Bhojpur against accused Manoj, Smt. Urmila, Charan Singh, Deepak, Kavita and Yogendra which was registered as Case Crime No. 24 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The chik F.I.R. has been marked as Ex. Ka. 3 and the information of F.I.R. has been endorsed in the G.D. of the concerned police station on 22.2.2006 at 9:30 a.m. marked as Ex. Ka. 3. The investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared and marked as Ex. Ka. 5, Challan Nash has been marked as Ex. Ka. 6, Photo Nash has been marked as Rs. Ka. 7, letter of C.M.O. has been marked as Ex. Ka. 8 and letter of R.I. has been marked as Ex. Ka. 9 and letter informing about the post mortem of the deceased to the C.M.O. has been marked as Ex. Ka. 10. 7. Dr. R.N.P. Mishra had conducted the post mortem of the deceased which was marked as Ex. Ka. 2. The investigating officer prepared the site plan marked as Ex. Ka. 6 and also recovered half burnt Saree of the deceased from the place of occurrence which has been marked as Ex. Ka. 13. The C.D. regarding marriage of the deceased was marked as Ex. Ka. 15 Namoona Mohar regarding the dead body of the deceased has been marked as Ex. Ka. 19 and other police papers as Ex. Ka. 20. During the course of investigation, involvement of co-accused Jogendra was found to be false and charge-sheet was filed against accused Manoj, Deepak, Charan Singh, Urmila and Kavitata under Section 306, 498-A I.P.C. which has been marked as Ex. Ka. 18. The case was committed to the Court of Session by the Magistrate and charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. 8. The prosecution in support of its case has produced Veerpal Singh, the informant as P.W. 1, Jagdish Singh as P.W. 2, Dr. Brijpal Singh as P.W. 3, Dr. R.N.P. Mishra as P.W. 4, Constable 2375 Bhagwan Sahai as P.W. 5, Dr. The prosecution in support of its case has produced Veerpal Singh, the informant as P.W. 1, Jagdish Singh as P.W. 2, Dr. Brijpal Singh as P.W. 3, Dr. R.N.P. Mishra as P.W. 4, Constable 2375 Bhagwan Sahai as P.W. 5, Dr. K.N. Tiwari as P.W. 6, Naib Tehsildar Dheer Singh as P.W. 7, Pawan Kumar as P.W. 8, Sheesh Pal Singh as P.W. 9, Amar Singh Rathi as P.W. 10, Ummed Singh as P.W. 11, Bheem Singh as P.W. 12 and Constable 446 Ram Chandra as P.W. 13. 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case and stated that the witnesses have falsely deposed against them. Accused Charan Singh (since deceased) has stated that he has admitted the deceased in Jeeven hospital Modinagar and bear the expenses of her treatment and the deceased died on account of medical negligence. It is further stated that the marriage between the deceased and his son Manoj was solemnized on 3.2.1999 and not on 3.3.1999. 10. In defence, the accused persons has produced Rajendra Singh as D.W. 1 and Bhoop Singh as D.W. 2. 11. P.W. 1, the informant has reiterated the prosecution case before the trial court and has submitted that the marriage of the deceased with accused Manoj was performed on 3.3.1999 according to Hindu rites and tradition and the deceased was done to death by her in-laws, who were continuously demanding motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand for which the deceased informed him that if the demand of her in-laws is not fulfilled there is threatened of her life. He has stated that he has received the information from an unknown person that the deceased was set ablaze by her in-laws after sprinkling kerosene oil on her and after receiving the said information he along with his family members and other persons of the village reached at Jeevan hospital and saw that her daughter was lying in a burnt condition and her in-laws were not present. Thereafter he got registered the F.I.R. by his brother Jagdish Singh and the proved the same as Ex. Ka. 1. 12. Similarly, P.W. 2 and 3, who are nephew and brother of the informant repeated the same version as has been stated by P.W. 1. 13. P.W. 4 Dr. Thereafter he got registered the F.I.R. by his brother Jagdish Singh and the proved the same as Ex. Ka. 1. 12. Similarly, P.W. 2 and 3, who are nephew and brother of the informant repeated the same version as has been stated by P.W. 1. 13. P.W. 4 Dr. R.N.P. Mishra has deposed before the trial court that he has conducted the post mortem of the deceased along with Dr. K.N. Tiwari, who was examined as P.W. 6. 14. P.W. 5 Constable 2375 Bhagwan Sahai has proved the chik F.I.R. and G.D. entry as Ex. Ka. 3 and 4. 15. P.W. 6 has deposed before the trial court that the deceased was brought by Constable Krishna Kumar and also identified the dead body of the deceased and has stated that the deceased died on account of extensive burnt injuries. 16. P.W. 7 Dheer Singh has stated that in his presence the enquest report of the deceased was prepared and further stated that after the inquest report was prepared the dead body of the deceased was sealed in his presence and sent information of the same also to the C.M.O. The inquest was prepared by S.I. Amar Singh Rathi. 17. P.W. 8 Pawan Kumar has deposed that on the said date he was posted as Supervisor at Jeevan hospital Modinagar where the deceased was brought on 21/22.2.2006 in a burnt condition at 12:45 p.m. 18. P.W. 9 Sheeshpal Singh had deposed that he was also posted at Jeevan hospital and the deceased was brought in burnt condition to the said hospital by appellant no. 2 Charan Singh (since deceased). 19. P.W. 10 Amar Singh Rathi has deposed that he was posted as Sub Inspector at the concerned police station and he had prepared the inquest report of the deceased in the presence of Tehsildar and C.O. Umed Singh and the proved the inquest report as Ex. Ka. 11 and send information of the same along with two other police papers to the concerned authorities such as C.M.O. etc. 20. P.W. 11 Umed Singh has deposed that he was posted as Circle Officer and has recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared police papers during the course of investigation and he found that the marriage of the deceased with accused Manoj was performed beyond seven years of the incident, hence he submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. 21. P.W. 11 Umed Singh has deposed that he was posted as Circle Officer and has recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared police papers during the course of investigation and he found that the marriage of the deceased with accused Manoj was performed beyond seven years of the incident, hence he submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. 21. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the marriage of the deceased with appellant Manoj was solemnized on 3.2.1999 and not on 3.3.1999 and just in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 304-B I.P.C., the prosecution has mentioned the date of marriage as 3.3.1999. He submitted that the accused in defence has filed various documentary evidence to show that marriage of the deceased with appellant was solemnized on 3.2.1999 and the said fact was also found to be correct during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer, who submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. He submitted that the deceased committed suicide by setting her ablaze after locking room and her dead body was recovered after breaking the door. The informant in order to extract money from the appellant and his family members had lodged a false report against them. He submitted that the deceased soon after the incident was taken to the hospital by appellant no. 2 Charan Singh (since deceased) and admitted her in the hospital as is evident from the statement of the doctor that appellant no. 2 Charan Singh (since deceased) had brought the deceased to the hospital. He argued that there has been material contradictions in the statements of three prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Moreover from the statements of D.W. 1 and 2 it is apparent that the appellants have not burnt the deceased by pouring kerosene oil and the deceased died on account of bursting of stove in the house. He further argued that neither the appellant no. 1 Manoj nor his family members have ever made any demand of dowry from the deceased or her parents and when the deceased committed suicide then just to harass them, the present F.I.R. was lodged as a pressure tactics for extracting money from them. 23. He further argued that neither the appellant no. 1 Manoj nor his family members have ever made any demand of dowry from the deceased or her parents and when the deceased committed suicide then just to harass them, the present F.I.R. was lodged as a pressure tactics for extracting money from them. 23. Learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that admittedly the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home and as per the prosecution evidence available on record, it is apparent that the deceased was continuously harassed for more dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle at regular interval for which the informant tried console the in-laws of the deceased but they were adamant with their demand on account of which it appears that the deceased was done to death in her in-laws house. He further argued that the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record has right convicted the appellants under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. He further informed the Court that no appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed by the State. 24. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 25. From the evidence on record that it appears that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case that the marriage between the deceased and appellant Manoj was performed on 3.3.1999 though it has been stated by P.W. 1 that the marriage between them was performed on 3.3.1999 but no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution. On the contrary, the accused have been able to demonstrate that the marriage between them was performed beyond seven years, i.e., 3.2.1999 and have filed documentary evidence in this regard. The investigating officer had also during the course of investigation found that the marriage of the deceased was performed beyond seven years, hence on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. The investigating officer had also during the course of investigation found that the marriage of the deceased was performed beyond seven years, hence on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A and 306 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W. 1, the informant, who is the father of the deceased as well as other witnesses that the deceased was continuously harassed for demand of dowry at regular intervals and further the parents of the deceased and other relatives tried and made all efforts to pacify and console the appellant Manoj and his family members not to harass the deceased for bringing Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle but all efforts made by them were in vain and ultimately the deceased was done to death in her matrimonial home. It further transpires from the statement of the investigating officer Amar Singh Rathi and Circle Officer Umed Singh that they have visited the place of occurrence and also found half burnt Saree from the place of occurrence. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased received burn injuries on account of bursting of stove was not found to be correct. 26. It is admitted fact that the deceased died on account of burnt injuries as it is apparent from the post mortem report that she has received superficial deep burn injuries all over the body and had received 96% burn injuries and there was smell of kerosene oil from her body. The trial court tried to dwell upon from various evidence available on record whether it is a case that the deceased was burnt to death or she committed suicide but after scanning of the evidence on record it has come to the conclusion that the deceased appears to have committed suicide as she was being tortured by the accused persons and prima facie the responsibility for taking care and protecting the deceased rest upon her father-in-law Charan Singh (since deceased) and appellant Manoj, who is the husband of the deceased. No doubt the trial court has acquitted four accused persons, i.e., mother-in-law Smt. Urmila Devi, dever Deepak, nand Kavitata and brother-in-law Yogendra and has convicted the appellants, i.e., father-in-law Charan Singh (since deceased) and Manoj husband holding them responsible for abetting the deceased to commit suicide but neither the complainant nor the State has filed any appeal against their acquittal nor any appeal for enhancement of sentence has been filed against the conviction and sentence of appellant no. 1 Manoj nor any alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed by the trial court. The finding recorded by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the appellants appears to be correct in view of the evidence available on record. The accused Manoj appellant has already been sentenced with maximum sentence of seven years F.I.R. under Section 306 I.P.C. along with Section 498-A I.P.C. for three years R.I. In my opinion, there appears to be no infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant Manoj for the offence for which he has been charged. The same is hereby affirmed. 27. The appellant Manoj is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court. 28. The appeal on behalf of appellant Manoj lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.