Judgment : Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. The present criminal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.12.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Case Crime No. 362 of 2007, S.T. No.224 of 2007, State Vs. Arun Kumar and others, police station Kurara, District Hamirpur, by which appellants are convicted under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act and awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B and also coupled fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 304-B I.P.C. and also awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and also awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section ¾ D.P. Act coupled with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, appellants to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, namely, Munni Lal, son of Bhura, resident of village Kapil, police station Jahanabad, District Fatehpur lodged an FIR on 3.6.2007 at police station Kurara, District Hamirpur stating therein that he has solemnized the marriage of his daughter, namely, Arti on 17.5.2006 according to Hindu rites and tradition with Arun Kumar, son of Daya Ram, resident of Shankarpur, police station Kurara, District Hamirpur. After four days of the marriage, an additional demand of Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle was being from his daughter by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and devar, for which they started her treating cruelly and tortured her continuously. When the daughter of the informant had come to his house, she informed about her harassment and torture by her in-laws and asking her to bring Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle to them, otherwise she would be done to death. When the daughter of the informant had come to his house, she informed about her harassment and torture by her in-laws and asking her to bring Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle to them, otherwise she would be done to death. When the said fact was told by the daughter of the informant to him, then he went to her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and devar at village Shankarpur and tried to pacify them along with one Manoj Kumar, son of Murli Prasad, resident of Mohalla Chandagali Jahanabad, police station Jahanabad, District Fatehpur and Rajesh, son of Heera Lal, resident of village and post Gujela, police station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar also went on 20.5.2007 and met his daughter in her in-laws house at village Shankarpur, where her daughter in the presence of Manoj Kumar and Rajesh reiterated the harassment made by her in-laws for a demand of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle from her parents, failing which she was threatened for dire consequences of her life. On the said date also, the informant tried to pacify the husband-Arun Kumar, mother-in-law Ramkali, father-in-law Dayaram, jeth Arvind Kumar and devar Ajay Kumar and their other relatives at their house, but they did not pay any heed on his request. When the informant returned to his house and failed to fulfill the additional demand of Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle, then the in-laws of her daughter in a pre-planned manner on 21.5.2007 had done the deceased to death for want of dowry. 3. The FIR was registered on the written report given by the informant on 3.6.2007 at 10.45 a.m., which was registered as Case Crime No.362 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act against the accused persons, i.e., husband-Arun Kumar, mother-in-law Ramkali, father-in-law Dayaram, jeth Arvind Kumar and Devar Ajay Kumar. Reference of the registration of the FIR was also endorsed in the G.D. No.15 at 10.45 a.m. The written report was also marked as Ex.Ka.-1. 4. After registration of the case, investigation of the case was carried out by the Circle Officer, Sadar who was entrusted with the investigation. 5. The Emergency Medical Officer Hamirpur sent an information through a letter dated 21.5.2007 to the Inspector, Kotwali, Hamirpur regarding death of Smt. Arti wife of Arun Kuamr at 6.50 p.m. in the evening, which was marked as Ex. Ka.-3. 5. The Emergency Medical Officer Hamirpur sent an information through a letter dated 21.5.2007 to the Inspector, Kotwali, Hamirpur regarding death of Smt. Arti wife of Arun Kuamr at 6.50 p.m. in the evening, which was marked as Ex. Ka.-3. On receiving the said information, police of the concerned police station conducted the inquest of the deceased on 22.5.2007 in the presence of Naib Tehsildar, namely, Salik Ram. The inquest report is marked as Ex. Ka.-4. After the inquest, the dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem along with a letter of R.I. to C.M.O., Hamirpur, which was marked as Ex. Ka.-7 & 8 respectively along with the other police documents, i.e., Ex. Ka.-5 & 6. 6. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to the Constable Chandrapal Singh and Home Guard Virendra Kumar for taking it to the mortuary for post mortem. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. G.Sahai along with Dr. V.C. Pal on 22.5.2007 at 4.30 p.m. in the evening, which was marked as Ex. Ka-2. 7. The cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained, hence, viscera of the deceased was preserved. 8. The Investigating Officer, namely, Jogenndra Lal, Circle Officer Sadar on 21.6.2007 made a spot inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan, which was marked as Ex. Ka.-9 and further recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter submitted charge sheet against the accused persons on 21.6.2007 which was marked as Ex. Ka.-10 for the offence under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C and ¾ D.P. Act. The report of the Chemical Analyst, Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala which is on record, has been marked as Ex.Ka.-13. 9. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate and the trial Court framed charges against the accused persons, namely, Arun Kumar (husband), Ramkali (mother-in-law), Dayaram (father-in-law), Arvind (jeth) & Ajay Kumar (devar) on 3.10.2007. The accused denied the charges and claimed their trial. 10. PW1-Munni Lal, the informant of the case is the father of the deceased. He has re-affirmed the version given in the FIR before the trial Court and has submitted that his daughter was done to death for want of dowry by the accused persons by administering her dye, due to which she died. 10. PW1-Munni Lal, the informant of the case is the father of the deceased. He has re-affirmed the version given in the FIR before the trial Court and has submitted that his daughter was done to death for want of dowry by the accused persons by administering her dye, due to which she died. He further stated that when he reached the hospital, he found his daughter in a dead condition. He further stated that on receiving an information on 21.5.2007 from a villager Chhotey Lal who was running a PCO where a call was made informing about the death of his daughter which was conveyed to him by the son of Chhotey Lal, namely, Awadhesh as his house, who informed that his daughter is lying in a dead condition at the gate of District Hospital, Hamirpur. On the information, he along with his wife-Manorama, brother-Chunni Lal and other persons of the village went to Hamirpur by Bolero vehicle and found that his daughter was lying in a dead condition outside the District Hospital, Hamirpur and there was none present from the side of her in-laws. The panchayatnama of her dead body was conducted on the next day i.e., 22.7.2005 and he along with her other family members were made as witnesses of panchayatnama. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted and thereafter the dead body was handed over to him and last rites were performed by him in river Yamuna. He further stated that his daughter was administered dye by the accused persons who was done to death. He went to lodge the FIR of the incident on the first day but his report was not lodged and it was informed that after the post mortem was conducted, the same would be registered. He went to lodge the FIR 2 to 3 times on the day but it was not lodged. On 3.6.2007, when he had gone to police station Kurara along with his family members and other relatives then on written report submitted by him to the concerned police station, i.e., Ex. Ka.-1 which was proved by him, the same was lodged. 11. On 3.6.2007, when he had gone to police station Kurara along with his family members and other relatives then on written report submitted by him to the concerned police station, i.e., Ex. Ka.-1 which was proved by him, the same was lodged. 11. PW3-Manoj Kumar who is a friend of PW1-Munni Lal had accompanied him to the in-laws' house of his daughter at Shankarpur on 21.5.2007 and previously also and he reiterated the version given by PW1 and also stated that deceased in his presence had made complaint about the torture and harassment for additional demand of Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle from her parents. He also stated that the in-laws of the deceased had administered dye to her, on account of which she died. Her in-laws due to greed of dowry had done to her death. The Circle Officer who was investigating Officer of the case has recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 12. PW2- Dr. G. Sahai,, Senior Medico Legal Expert has stated that on 22.5.2007, he was posted in the District Hospital, Hamirpur, on which date on a written information dated 21.5.2007 received from the C.M.O., Hamirpur, he had conducted the post mortem of the deceased namely, Arti wife of Arun Kumar on 22.5.2007 at 4.30 p.m., of deceased, which was brought by Constable Chandrapal Singh and Homeguard Virendra Kumar of police station Kotwali, District Hamirpur. He stated that the deceased was having a child of 7 months in her womb. The cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, viscera was preserved. The duration of death was one day old. He further stated that Dr. V.C. Pal was along with him at the time of post mortem. He proved the post mortem report of the deceased as Ex. Ka.-2 under his seal and signature. And the information of the C.M.O., dated 21.5.2007 as Ex. Ka.-3. 13. PW4-Salig Ram who was posted as Naib Tehsildarl Sadar, District Hamirpur has stated that under the orders of the District Magistrate, Magistrate, Hamirpur on 22.5.2007, he went to District Hospital, Hamirpur and prepared the inquest of the deceased in the presence of the police and family members of the deceased. He proved the panchayatnama as Ex.Ka..4. He also proved the photolash, chalan Lash, R.I.'s letter , letter of C.M.O., Hamirpur as Ex. Ka.-5 to Ka-8. 14. He proved the panchayatnama as Ex.Ka..4. He also proved the photolash, chalan Lash, R.I.'s letter , letter of C.M.O., Hamirpur as Ex. Ka.-5 to Ka-8. 14. PW5-Jogendra Lal Singh has stated that he was posted as C.O.,Sadar, Hamirpur and he is Investigating Officer of the present case. He has made an endorsement of Chick FIR and G.D. in the case diary and recorded the statement of the informant Munni Lal, Manoj, Rajesh, Kanda Prasad, Chunni Lal, also made endorsement of panchayatnama and post mortem in the C.D. The accused were not found at their house. On 4.6.2007 he has summoned the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He tried to arrest the accused by visiting the house but he could arrest them as they were absconding. On 14.6.2007, he got NBW issued from the Court of C.J.M., Hamirpur and obtained the same for arresting of the accused. On 18.6.2007, all the accused surrendered before the Court in the Court of C.J.M. and on 20.6.2007 after seeking permission from the Court they were sent to District Jail, Hamirpur. He went to the place of occurrence and made spot inspection at the pointing out of the neighbour Mukesh Kumar, which was marked as Ex. Ka-9. After investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act and proved the same as Ex. Ka.10. 15. PW6-Constable 61 Rajaram was examined by the trial Court and he stated that on 3.6.2007 he was posted as Constable Moharrir at police station Kurara, on which the date on the written report given by Munni Lal he registered FIR as Case Crime no. 362 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act against the accused persons. He prepared Chik FIR under his signature and he proved the same as Ex. Ka.-11. He also made a reference of the FIR in the G.D. Of the said police station and carbon copy is marked as Ex. Ka.12 and proved the same. 16. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who have denied the prosecution case and submitted that a wrong FIR has been registered against them. All the accused have stated that they had gone to attend the marriage of their Bhanja at village Bairol and were present there on the date and time of the incident. 17. All the accused have stated that they had gone to attend the marriage of their Bhanja at village Bairol and were present there on the date and time of the incident. 17. Accused Arun Kumar has further stated that in the night of 20/21.5.2007, he was also present at Bairol in the marriage of son of his brother-in-law and he received a information about the deceased being not feeling well and he rushed to his house and took his wife to the District Hospital Hamirpur and his parents and two brothers because of marriage stayed back. He further stated that his wife was having a pregnancy of 6-7 months, hence, she was not taken by him in marriage of his Bhanja, on account of which she was unhappy. He submitted that village Bairol was 40 Kms. away from his village. 18. In defence, the accused examined DW1- Harish Chandra, DW-2 Ram Chandra, DW-3 Smt. Santosh Kumar and in the documentary evidence filed by the accused was the marriage card of their Bhanja which has taken place on 21.5.2007 which was proved by them as Ex. Kha.-1 along with Ex. Kha.-2. 19. DW1-Harish Chandra who is relative of accused Dayaram where he along with his other family members had gone to attend the marriage of his Bhanja on 21.5.2007. He stated that all the accused were present on 21.5.2007 and they received an information from their village at 11-12 P.M. that the wife of the accused Arun Kumar was unwell and on receiving the said information accused Arun Kumar had immediately left for Shankarpur and other accused, namely, Dayaram, Ram Kali, Ajay Kumar, and Arvind Kumar were stayed back in his house for marriage. The Barat of his son Manoj after Vidai had returned on 22.5.2007 and thereafter the other accused persons went to Shankarpur on 23.5.2007. On 22.5.2007, there was no transport due to which they could not returned and they further performed the all rituals which are to be performed by the maternal uncle. 20. DW2-Ram Chandra is also Samdhi of DW1 with whose son his daughter was married and he also reiterated the version given by DW1-Harish Chandra. 21. DW3- Smt. Santosh Kumar has stated that she knew the accused Daya Ram who is resident of her village and further she knew the deceased Arti who was the wife of Arun Kumar. 20. DW2-Ram Chandra is also Samdhi of DW1 with whose son his daughter was married and he also reiterated the version given by DW1-Harish Chandra. 21. DW3- Smt. Santosh Kumar has stated that she knew the accused Daya Ram who is resident of her village and further she knew the deceased Arti who was the wife of Arun Kumar. On the date of the incident at about 10 a.m., the deceased Arti had come to her house and informed that she was suffering severe colic pain, on account of which she came to her house and laid down on the ground and informed that her husband had gone to village Baihrol to attend the marriage ceremony of son of accused Dayaram. The in-laws of the deceased had also gone in the said marriage. The deceased was having a child in her womb. As the deceased was having severe pain in her abdomen and she was unable to treat her, she got a phone call made through a neighbour, namely, Guru Prasad to the accused Arvind and on receiving the information, accused Arun Kumar had arrived the village at 4 a.m. in the morning. At that time, the deceased was in her sense and she was weeping. The accused Arun Kumar had taken her to the hospital and her in-laws had returned two days thereafter. 22. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 23. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the marriage between the appellant no.1-Arun Kumar and deceased was solemnized on 7.5.2006, whereas the incident had taken place on 21.6.2007. He further submits that there was no cogent evidence against the appellants that the deceased was being tortured for demand of dowry, i.e., Rs. 50,000/- and one motorcycle, as has been alleged by the prosecution and she was done to death by the appellants. He further argued that the appellant no.1 along with other family members who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and devar of the deceased, who are accused in the present case, had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of Bhanja of appellant No.1 at village Baihrol. He further argued that the appellant no.1 along with other family members who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and devar of the deceased, who are accused in the present case, had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of Bhanja of appellant No.1 at village Baihrol. The deceased was having pregnancy of 6-7 months and because of which she was not taken in the marriage ceremony by her husband and in-laws, on account of which she was unhappy and committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. 24. He next argued that as soon as the appellant no.1-Arun Kumar received the information about the deceased being unwell at village Bairol where he had gone to attend the marriage along with his family members, he immediately rushed to his house and admitted the deceased to the District Hospital, Hamirpur where she died. 25. He further contended that a day prior to the incident, i.e., 20.5.2006, father of the deceased PW1 along with Manoj Kumar had come to the house of the accused to meet his daughter and it has been alleged that a demand of Rs.50,000/.- and one motorcycle was made on the said date and without waiting the fulfillment of the said demand it is highly improbable that the deceased would be done to death on the very next day i.e., 21.5.2006 by the accused persons, hence, the allegation for demand of dowry appears to be an afterthought. 26. He urged that the FIR of the incident was lodged after a great delay i.e. after 12 days of the incident, for which no explanation has been by the prosecution and in order to harass the accused persons, the present FIR has been lodged against the appellants levelling false allegation against them. 27. He submitted that in the FIR and in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there was no mention by the informant or any of the witnesses that the deceased was done to death by administering dye and the same has come up in their evidence before the trial Court for the first time, which shows that the witnesses have falsely deposed about the said fact against the appellants to give serious colour to the incident, whereas in the viscera report the deceased is said to have consumed insecticide which has been found in her viscera as per the chemical report dated 8.1.2008 28. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Harish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2015(2) SCC 601 , Vipin Jaiswal (A-I) Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor, 2013 (3) SCC 684 , M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2011 (3) SCC 626 , Govind Hari Swamy & Others Vs. State of U.P., 2011(6) ADJ 563 , Ravendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2010(70) ACC 903, Akhilesh Rai and Another Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (9) ADJ 10 , & State of Haryana Vs. Ashok Kumar alias Billu, 2002 (9) SCC 658. 29. Learned AGA on the other hand, has opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the deceased was left by her husband and in-laws in a condition when she was pregnant and having a child of 6-7 months in her womb and further she was being harassed by them for an additional demand of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle from her parents, for which her father PW1 had visited the house of the accused to pacify them and requesting not to harass the deceased for fulfillment of the said demand, but no heed was paid to his request. The deceased was done to death within one year in her matrimonial home. 30. He argued that there is a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the appellants which has not been discharged by them. Hence, their conviction and sentence by the trial Court is correct. The appeal is devoid of merit and be dismissed. The case law which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 31. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 32. The marriage between the deceased and appellant no.1, Arun Kumar was solemnized on 17.5.2006 and in the incident had taken place on 21.5.2007, i.e., within one year of marriage. The deceased died unnatural death in her matrimonial home. 31. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 32. The marriage between the deceased and appellant no.1, Arun Kumar was solemnized on 17.5.2006 and in the incident had taken place on 21.5.2007, i.e., within one year of marriage. The deceased died unnatural death in her matrimonial home. It appears from the evidence on record that soon after the marriage the deceased being tortured for additional demand of dowry i.e., Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle by the accused persons, for which she also made complaint when she went to her parents' house informing them that if the said demand would not be fulfilled, she would be done to death. Father of the deceased along with his friend PW3 also visited the house of the in-laws of the deceased and tried to console and pacify the in-laws for not harassing the deceased for the demand for Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle, but his request was also turned down. 33. The deceased at the time of incident was pregnant and was carrying pregnancy of seven months, as is evident from the evidence of PW3-Dr. G. Sahai, who found a seven months child in her worm at the time of post mortem examination. 34. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have categorically pleaded that they had gone to attend the marriage of their relative on the date and time of the incident in village Bairol which was 40 Kms. away from their village and they were present in the marriage. They received an information about the deceased being unwel from one Chhotey Lal who is running a PCO who sent an information through his son, namely, Awadhesh Kumar. On receiving the said information, the husband of the deceased Arun Kumar, appellant no.1 rushed to his village and took the deceased to the District Hospital where she died. 35. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, which is available on record, Organo Calro Insecticide poison was found. 36. 35. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, which is available on record, Organo Calro Insecticide poison was found. 36. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was unhappy as she was not taken in the marriage ceremony by her husband and in-laws and left alone in the house in a condition when she was carrying pregnancy of seven months and account of which the deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substances which was found in her viscera, which shows that the deceased was not tortured for demand of dowry and she felt bad that she was left alone in the house by her husband and in-laws who had gone to attend the marriage, if taken to be true, then too the conduct of the husband of the deceased, namely, Arun Kumar, appellant no.1, cannot be ignored as it was the responsibility of the husband to take care of her wife who was in an advance stage of pregnancy. 37. Further, the repeated demand of additional dowry i.e., Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle, which has been made from the deceased and her parents by the appellant no.1 further shows that there was continuous harassment to her by her husband. 38. So far as allegations against the Ramkali (mother-in-law), Dayaram (father-in-law), Arvind (jeth) & Ajay Kumar (devar) are concerned, no doubt there appears to be allegation against them for torturing the deceased for fulfillment of the said demand, but it appears from the evidence that the allegation against them are only general and vague in nature. Moreover, admittedly they were not present on the date and time of the incident and had gone to the attend the marriage ceremony of their relative. Hence, it appears that the allegations which have been levelled against them has been exaggerated by the prosecution in order to implicate them along with the husband. 39. The finding recorded by the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of appellant nos. Hence, it appears that the allegations which have been levelled against them has been exaggerated by the prosecution in order to implicate them along with the husband. 39. The finding recorded by the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of appellant nos. 2 to 5, namely, Smt. Ramkali, Daya Ram, Arvind Kumar and Ajay Kumar who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, jeth and devar of the deceased for the offence in question, is against the evidence on record, hence, they cannot be held liable for the death of the deceased as it was the sole responsibility of the husband Arun Kumar, appellant no.1 who has left his wife in such a condition when she was at an advance stage of pregnancy, on account of which she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance as she was unhappy with the conduct of her husband Arun Kumar, appellant no.1 who had also left her along which prompted her to take such a drastic step to end her life along with her child in her womb. 40. The trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant no.1-Arun Kumar for the offence in question taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in 1991(1) SCC 191 and Rajalal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007(2) CCSC 901 (SC). 41. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act has also not been discharged by appellant no.1-Arun Kumar who is husband of the deceased. Thus, the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him is hereby upheld. 42. So far as appellants no.2 to 5, namely, Smt. Ramkali, Daya Ram, Arvind Kumar and Ajay Kumar who are mother-in-law, father-in-law, jeth and devar of the deceased are concerned, their conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act is not sustainable considering the evidence on record. 43. Thus, the judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the trial Court with respect to appellant nos. 2 to 4, namely, Smt. Ramkali (mother-in-law), Daya Ram (father-in-law), Arvind Kumar(jeth) & Ajay Kumar (devar) is hereby set aside. The appellant nos.2 to 4, Smt. Ramkali (mother-in-law), Daya Ram (father-in-law), Arvind Kumar (jeth) & Ajay Kumar (devar) are hereby acquitted and their appeal stands allowed. They are stated to be on bail. 2 to 4, namely, Smt. Ramkali (mother-in-law), Daya Ram (father-in-law), Arvind Kumar(jeth) & Ajay Kumar (devar) is hereby set aside. The appellant nos.2 to 4, Smt. Ramkali (mother-in-law), Daya Ram (father-in-law), Arvind Kumar (jeth) & Ajay Kumar (devar) are hereby acquitted and their appeal stands allowed. They are stated to be on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 44. So far as appellant no.1, namely, Arun Kumar (husband of the deceased) is concerned, his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld and his appeal is dismissed. He is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. 45. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. 46. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the C.J.M. concerned for necessary information. ——————