Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1857 (ALL)

QAMAR ALI v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-08-10

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh, J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal even though Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA is present. 2. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1988 and Qamar Ali, sole appellant in this appeal is on bail since 03.12.1990. 3. Record further shows that when this appeal was called out on 2.5.2014, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. We passed an order issuing non-bailable warrant against the appellant. But the non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant pursuant to our order dated 2.5.2014 through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar could not be executed against him as he was not found residing at the address mentioned in the memo of appeal. Consequently, on 8.7.2014, we passed an order directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to proceed against the sureties of the appellant Qamar Ali. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide his report dated 7.7.2014 has informed that he could not proceed against the sureties as bail bonds furnished by the sureties of the appellant at the time of his being released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 2.5.2014 could not be traced out. 4. In view of the above, it is apparent that neither the appellant nor his counsel are interested in the disposal of this appeal. Since, neither the address of the appellant is available nor the bonds furnished by his sureties are traceable, there is no likelihood of the accused being arrested and produced before this Court and no useful purpose will be served by directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to take further steps for tracing out the accused and producing him before us. It is obvious that the appellant has abused the liberty of bail. 5. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. 5. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 : 19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/ lawyer are absent; 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so; 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court; 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. 6. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (Supra), we do not find any good reason to adjourn the hearing of this appeal suo motu in the absence of the appellant or his counsel and we proceed to examine this appeal on merits with the aid of Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. for the State. 7. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Qamar Ali against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1988 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1987 (State vs. Qamar Ali) convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 304-B I.P.C. 8. 7. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Qamar Ali against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1988 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1987 (State vs. Qamar Ali) convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 304-B I.P.C. 8. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that marriage between the accused Qamar Ali and Momna Begum, daughter of PW2 Ramzano and sister of PW3 Sirajuddin was solemnized about six months before the occurrence. After the marriage the couple had started living in a one room apartment in 33/11, Ajitganj Colony, Kanpur Nagar opposite to the house of PW2 Ramzano, her mother and PW1 Sirajuddin, brother of the deceased with only a road intervening between the two houses. The accused used to ill-treat Momna Begum on account of her having brought inadequate dowry and cash from her parents' house. About 1 month before the occurrence a gold ring was presented to the accused by the parents of the deceased. About 4 days before the unfortunate incident the accused had demanded Rs. 1000/- from the deceased and her parents but his demand could not be fulfilled on account of financial constraints of the deceased's parents although they had assured him that they will make every possible endeavor to fulfill his demand soon. Whenever Smt. Momna Begum met her parents she complained about her torture and maltreatment by her husband and also about his threat of remarriage. On 3.9.1986 at about 4pm while Smt. Momna Begum was cooking food in her matrimonial home her husband in connivance with one Dukkhi closed the room from all sides and after sprinkling kerosene oil on her set her ablaze. Her screams and shrieks attracted the people in the neighborhood including PW4 Mohd. Shafi and her mother PW2 Ramzano who rushed to the house of the accused but found the main door of his house bolted/locked from inside and it was opened by the accused himself after persistent knocks at the door. After the door was opened Ramzano, Mohd. Sahfi and many other persons on entering into the house of the accused-appellant found Smt. Momna Begum lying in the courtyard with burn injuries of all over her body. After the door was opened Ramzano, Mohd. Sahfi and many other persons on entering into the house of the accused-appellant found Smt. Momna Begum lying in the courtyard with burn injuries of all over her body. On being quizzed by her mother she stated that her husband after pouring kerosene oil on her body had set her on fire as she had failed to bring Rs. 1000/- demanded by him from her and her parents. Thereafter, Ramzano took Momna Begum to LLR Hospital, Kanpur Nagar where she was examined by PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh at 5:30pm who was then on emergency duty and who after examining her injuries prepared her injury report. Following injuries were noted by him on her person as is evident from the injury report of Momna Begum Ext. Ka3. 9. Superficial and deep burn injuries were present all over the face and sides of head and peripheral part of sculp, all over neck, whole of the trunk except both gluteal region and perineum and lower part of abdomen, over front of both sides. 10. PW1 Sirajuddin who had gone to market for purchasing glasses for his tea stall on his returning to his house at about 6pm was informed by the residents of the locality that his sister had been set on fire by her husband Qamar Ali and his mother and other people of the locality had taken her to the LLR Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. Upon coming to know about the incident he rushed to the LLR Hospital, Kanpur Nagar and upon enquiry made by him from his sister Momna Begum about the cause of the burn injuries sustained by her she told him that Qamar Ali had beaten her and then set her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her. He got the written report Ext. Ka1 of the incident scribed by one unknown person on his dictation and gave it to Police Station Babupurwa on 3:15am on 4.9.1986. 11. On the basis of the written report Ext. Ka1, chek FIR Ext. Ka6 was prepared by PW6 Head Moharrir Ambika Prasad. A case under 498A IPC and 3/4 DP Act was registered against the accused Qamar Ali at serial no. 4 of the G.D. maintained at the police station. The extract of the G.D. entry was brought on record as Ext. Ka7. 12. Ka1, chek FIR Ext. Ka6 was prepared by PW6 Head Moharrir Ambika Prasad. A case under 498A IPC and 3/4 DP Act was registered against the accused Qamar Ali at serial no. 4 of the G.D. maintained at the police station. The extract of the G.D. entry was brought on record as Ext. Ka7. 12. The investigation of the case was entrusted to PW9 SSI Mahesh Pal Singh. On 4.9.1986 at about 11am the dying declaration of the deceased Momna Begum was recorded by PW8 Tanvir Jafar Ali, Magistrate/A.C.M.-III, Kanpur Nagar Ext. Ka14 after PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh had issued a certificate Ext. Ka4 upon examining Momna Begum that she was in a fit condition to give her statement. After the statement of Momna Begum was recorded by the Magistrate PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh gave another certificate Ext. Ka5 to the effect that Momna Begum had remained in a fit mental condition during recording of her statement. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence on the next date i.e. 4.9.1986 and after inspecting the same, prepared it's site plan Ext. Ka14. After recording the statement of Momna Begum in LLR Hospital, he got the case altered to one under Section 307 IPC on 4.9.1986 at 2:10pm and an entry in this regard was made at serial no. 65 of the G.D. Upon the death of Momna Begum on 22.9.1986 at 10:20am due to septicemia caused by the burn injuries, the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC and an entry in this regard was made at serial no. 24 of the G.D. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased Momna Begum was conducted by PW7 S.I. D.S. Chaube on 22.9.1986 at about 5:30pm who after completing the inquest prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka8 and other related documents including impression of specimen seal Ext. Ka9, letters addressed to CMO and R.I. Ext. Ka10 and Ext. Ka11, sketch plan of the dead body Ext. Ka12 and challan lash Ext. Ka13. Thereafter, he got the dead body of Momna Begum sealed and handed it over to Constable No. 1828 Narendra Singh and Constable No. 915 Zuben Ahmad for taking it to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem. The autopsy on the dead body of the Momna Begum was conducted by PW3 Dr. O.P. Agarwal on 23.9.1986 at 1pm. Ka13. Thereafter, he got the dead body of Momna Begum sealed and handed it over to Constable No. 1828 Narendra Singh and Constable No. 915 Zuben Ahmad for taking it to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem. The autopsy on the dead body of the Momna Begum was conducted by PW3 Dr. O.P. Agarwal on 23.9.1986 at 1pm. The following ante-mortem injuries were noted by him on the body of Momna begum: 13. On internal examination it was found that the rigor mortis was present, eyes and mouth were closed, abdomen was distended. One surgical cut-open 3 cm. having two stitches on the left side of upper arm, another surgical cut-open 2.5 m. having one stitch on left leg above medial malleolus and a surgical cut-open 2 cm. having one stitch on the right leg above medial malleolus were found present. As regards ante-mortem injuries it was found that there were Ist, IInd and IIIrd degree burns present on face, chest, abdomen, both upper limbs, both thighs and back of thighs. Puss was present at places. On internal examination the Autopsy Surgeon found that brain, lungs, lever, spleen and kidneys were congested. The Uterus was found not gravid. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon the death of the deceased had occurred due to Septicemia as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. 14. PW10 S.K. Sharma, C.O. Babupurwa himself assumed the investigation of the case on 23.9.1986 and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka18 against the accused under Section 498A and 302 IPC on 3.12.1986 before the CMM, Kanpur Nagar who vide his order dated 21.1.1987 committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar where it was registered as S.T. No. 42 of 1987, State Vs. Qamar Ali and made over for trial from there to the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar who on the basis of material on record and after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under Sections 302 and 304B IPC against the accused. The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial. 15. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 10 witness of whom PW1 informant and PW2 Ramzano, mother of the deceased were examined as witnesses of fact while the other witnesses PW3 Dr. The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial. 15. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 10 witness of whom PW1 informant and PW2 Ramzano, mother of the deceased were examined as witnesses of fact while the other witnesses PW3 Dr. O.P. Agarwal, PW4 Mohd. Shafi, PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh, PW6 Ambika Prasad, PW7 D.S. Chaubey, PW8 Tanveer Jafar Ali, PW9 Mahesh Pal Singh and PW10 S.K. Sharma were produced as formal witnesses. The accused-appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted his marriage to the deceased-Momna Begum and the fact that he was earning his livelihood by running a tempo. He further stated that since Momna Begum had solemnized marriage with him against the wishes of her parents and other family members they had become inimical towards him and it was on account of the aforesaid reason that they had given false evidence against him. He denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. The accused-appellant also filed his written statement under Section 233 Cr.P.C. in his defence stating therein that on 3.9.1986 he had gone to earn his livelihood and Momna Begum had gone to her parents' house. When he returned to his house after attending to his work at about 10pm he was informed by the residents of the locality that his wife had sustained burn injuries while cooking food and that she had been admitted in the hospital. On receiving the aforesaid information he reached the hospital but he was not allowed by Ramzano, Sirajuddin, Shamshuddin and Allauddin to meet his injured wife. He remained in the hospital till 4am and when he came to know that Sirajuddin and Ramzano and others were planning to implicate him in a false case and were going to lodge a report against him, he left the hospital and went to the house of Dukkhi, son of his father's sister and narrated to him the whole story on which Dukkhi went to the hospital in the morning and argued with the relatives of the deceased and objected to their plan of falsely implicating the accused-appellant which resulted in exchange of heated arguments between Dukkhi and the mother of the deceased. As regards the dying declaration made by Momna Begum in the presence of the Magistrate, the accused stated that the same was result of prompting and tutoring by Ramzano and her family members. As regards the dying declaration made by Momna Begum in the presence of the Magistrate, the accused stated that the same was result of prompting and tutoring by Ramzano and her family members. He also stated that neither Momna Begum received burn injuries in his house nor he had set her with ablaze. According to the accused-appellant, Momna Begum had sustained burn injuries in her parental home while cooking food and at the time of the incident Momna Begum was pregnant and since the foetus in her womb had died, she got infected which caused septicemia resulting in her death. In order to establish that his financial position was fairly sound he had filed a copy of his saving bank account in SBI, Transport Nagar showing a balance of Rs. 7797.94 and certificate dated 28.1.1988 of the Branch Manager, SBI, Transport Nagar to the effect that fixed deposit no. 359635 of Rs. 4000/- dated 22.3.1983 was encashed by him on 24.4.1986. He did not examine any witness in defence. Learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and awarded life sentence to him. Hence this appeal. We have very carefully perused the record of this case and heard Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State. 16. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts or not? 17. The accused-appellant Qamar Ali was tried and convicted by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar for having caused dowry as well as homicidal death of his wife Momna Begum by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her on 3.9.1986 at about 4pm in his house in Mohalla Khathi Thana. Record further shows that upon hearing the shrieks of Momna Begum her mother PW2 Ramzano who is residing resident in a house just opposite the matrimonial home of her daughter along with other residents of the locality rushed to the house of the accused-appellant and tried to open the door of his house but the same was bolted from inside. Record further shows that upon hearing the shrieks of Momna Begum her mother PW2 Ramzano who is residing resident in a house just opposite the matrimonial home of her daughter along with other residents of the locality rushed to the house of the accused-appellant and tried to open the door of his house but the same was bolted from inside. After persistent knocks for a considerably long period of time, accused-appellant Qamar Ali opened the front door of his house and when PW1 and other residents of the locality entered into his house they found Momna begum lying in the courtyard of her house with burn injuries all over of her body. On being quizzed by her mother-Ramzano, Momna begum told her that she had been set on fire by her husband-Qamar Ali after pouring kerosene oil by him on her body on account of her failure to bring Rs. 1000/- demanded by him from her and her parents as dowry. Momna Begum was immediately taken to the LLR hospital, Kanpur Nagar where her injuries were examined by PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh who was the doctor on emergency duty and who after examining her injuries prepared injury report which is on record as Ext. Ka3. Upon perusal of Ext. Ka3 it transpires that PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh had found superficial and deep burn injuries all over the face and sides of head and peripheral part of scalp, all over the neck, whole of the trunk except both gluteal region and perineum and lower part of abdomen, over front of both sides. Duration of all the injuries in his opinion was fresh, her burn was not pulpable, peeling of cutical skin was present at places and smell of kerosene oil was present. 18. Record further shows that the statement of Momna begum was recorded by PW8 Tanveer Jafar Ali ACM-3rd Kanpur Nagar on 4.6.1986 between 11:00 am and 11:15 am in LLR Hospital. Before recording the dying declaration, PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh had certified that Momna Begum was fully conscious and in a fit mental condition to give her dying declaration at about 11am on 4.9.1986. After recording the dying declaration, PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh issued another certificate Ext. Ka5 that Momna Begum was in a fit mental state throughout the period of recording her dying declaration with effect from 11am to 11:15am on 4.9.1986. After recording the dying declaration, PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh issued another certificate Ext. Ka5 that Momna Begum was in a fit mental state throughout the period of recording her dying declaration with effect from 11am to 11:15am on 4.9.1986. The dying declaration of the deceased Momna Begum is on record as Ext. Ka14. The certificates issued by PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh which are endorsed on the dying declaration itself are marked as Ext. Ka4 and Ext. Ka5. Before proceeding to examine whether the dying declaration of the deceased inspires confidence and does not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency, tutoring or embellishment it would be useful to reproduce the dying declaration of the deceased herein below: "My name is Momna, The name of my husband is Qamar Ali. One day my husband asked me to bring Rs. 1000/- and told that he would get a second wife if I did not bring money. Yesterday on 3.9.1986 at about 3 pm. I was cooking food, my husband and his brother Dukkhi closed the doors of the room from all sides and sprunkle kerosene oil on me from my back side and set fire to me. I raised alarm and a woman Qamarunnisa who resides in front of my house informed my family members who brought me here. All this was done by my husband on account of one thousand rupee." 19. Dying declaration of the deceased has been proved by PW8 Tanveer Jafar Ali who had recorded the same as Ext. Ka14. He testified before the Trial Court that the statement of Smt. Momna Begum was recorded by him in the emergency ward of LLR Hospital. He further deposed that he had obtained a fitness certificate from medical officer on duty before recording the statement of Momna Begum. Fitness certificate was again obtained by him from the same medical officer after completing the recording of her statement. He had reduced into writing only those facts which had been narrated to him by Momna Begum and he had taken all necessary precautions and complied with all requisite formalities while recording the dying declaration of the deceased Ext. Ka14. The certificates Ext. Ka4 and Ext. Ka5 issued by PW5 Dr. He had reduced into writing only those facts which had been narrated to him by Momna Begum and he had taken all necessary precautions and complied with all requisite formalities while recording the dying declaration of the deceased Ext. Ka14. The certificates Ext. Ka4 and Ext. Ka5 issued by PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh certifying that Momna Begum was fully conscious and in a fit mental state to give her statement before recording of the dying declaration and had remained as such during the recording of the dying declaration and even thereafter have been proved by him as Ext. Ka4 and Ext. Ka5. 20. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court as well as this Court that dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate stands on a much higher pedestal than oral dying declaration. The law is now settled that a conviction can be based on a dying declaration and it is not at all necessary to have corroboration provided the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful and not vitiated in any manner. 21. In one of the earliest case of the Apex Court Kushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SCC 22 it has been laid down that dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human, memory and human character and that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view the. circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it-; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. 22. Both PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh and PW8 Tanveer Jafar Ali were cross examined by the defence counsel in extenso but he failed to elicit anything from them which may discredit their testimonies or cause any shadow of doubt on the authenticity or reliability of the dying declaration. 23. The oral evidence of Ramzano PW2 and Sirajuddin PW1 lends assurance to the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate. There is no justification or cause as to why these two witnesses would falsely implicate the accused as the perpetrator of crime. If Smt. Momna Begum had sustained burn injuries by catching fire accidentally it would have been an event of common grief for everyone in the family. If there was no basis for the accusation against the accused, the two relations of Smt. Momna Begum would not have strained their relationship with the accused by making false accusation. Having marshaled the testimony of two witnesses Smt. Ramzano and Sirajuddin with the yardstick of probabilities and the animosity factor, with all meticulous care we have found that their testimonies to be within the realm of reality. The testimony of these two witnesses gives corroboration to the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate. The written as well as oral dying declaration do not run counter to each other. They are rather compatible and in conformity with each other. In addition to the dying declaration there appears to be motive for the commission of crime. Both the witnesses Smt. Ramzano and Sirajuddin PW2 and PW1 respectively have testified regarding the demands of dowry and the harassment and torture inflicted by the accused to extract more dowry. Smt. Ramzano has testified that she had given dowry in the marriage of her daughter in accordance with her financial capacity which was insufficient for Qamar Ali. Both the witnesses Smt. Ramzano and Sirajuddin PW2 and PW1 respectively have testified regarding the demands of dowry and the harassment and torture inflicted by the accused to extract more dowry. Smt. Ramzano has testified that she had given dowry in the marriage of her daughter in accordance with her financial capacity which was insufficient for Qamar Ali. The accused used to taunt and harass her daughter on account of demand of dowry. It is stated by her that her daughter was beaten by Qamar Ali on account of unfulfilled demand of dowry. It is deposed by her that on Eid festival she had given a gold ring weighing about half tola and a sum of Rs. 1000/- to Qamar Ali but he was not pleased with these presents. He made a demand for Rs. 1000/- more. It is stated by her that Qamar Ali had asked her daughter Smt. Momna Begum to bring Rs. 1000/- from her parents otherwise she would be divorced. To the same effect is the testimony of Sirajuddin PW1 the brother of the deceased. It is testified by him that Qamar Ali was not satisfied with the dowry. He tortured his sister on account of dowry. About one month before the incident a gold ring was presented to Qamar Ali. He demanded Rs. 1000/- more from his sister. Both the witnesses have been cross examined at length but nothing substantial has come out from his weary and searching cross examination. The testimony of these two witnesses finds further assurance from the dying declaration Ext. Ka14 wherein the deceased had disclosed in unequivocal terms that there was a demand of Rs. 1000/- by the accused and she was set on fire on account of non-fulfillment of his demand. The testimony of the two witnesses Smt. Ramzano and Sirajuddin coupled with the dying declaration clearly establish that there had been demand of dowry, harassment and torture of the deceased by the accused for more dowry and ultimately the deceased was sacrificed at the altar of dowry by the accused by burning her alive. 24. The medical evidence on record fully collates the prosecution version as is evident from the evidence of PW3 Dr. O.P. Agarwal and PW5 Dr. 24. The medical evidence on record fully collates the prosecution version as is evident from the evidence of PW3 Dr. O.P. Agarwal and PW5 Dr. R.K. Singh, who have in their evidence recorded during the trial fully corroborated the prosecution case that the deceased had died as a result of burn injuries sustained by her on her being set ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her. 25. Thus, upon a wholesome appraisal and critical analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving that the deceased Momna Begum who was maltreated and tortured by her husband Qamar Ali on account of non fulfillment of demands of dowry made by him from her and her parents, had received burn injuries on 03.09.1986 at about 4 PM in her house after her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and as a result of septicemia caused due to aforesaid burn injuries she had died on 22.9.1986 at about 10:20AM. We do not find that the learned Trial Judge committed any error, illegality, infirmity or perversity in convicting the appellant. From the evidence available on record all the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 304-B IPC stood proved against the accused-appellant and hence there was no necessity for the learned Trial Judge to have taken the aid of Section 302 IPC for convicting the accused-appellant under Section 304-B IPC. We accordingly modify the conviction of the appellant and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned Trial Judge under Section 302 read with Section 304-B IPC to one under Section 304-B IPC. 26. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 27. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar is directed to make every possible endeavor to trace out the accused-appellant Qamar Ali who is absconding and send him to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence and submit his report in this regard to the Registrar General of this Court within three months. 28. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment and order to Court concerned/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar for necessary follow up action.