JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. Both the above mentioned jail appeals, which arise out of same judgment and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Fatehpur were heard together and both are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Jail Appeal No.839 of 2008 has been preferred by appellant Smt. Pachauri and Jail Appeal No.176 of 2009 has been preferred by appellant Raghuraj against the same judgment and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No.706 of 2006 (State Versus Raghuraj and Others) convicting and sentencing appellants Smt. Pachauri and Raghuraj for offence under Section 498-A IPC to undergo imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/-each and in default of payment of fine, appellants have to further undergo one month additional imprisonment; for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, both appellants were awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo three months additional imprisonment and for offence under Section 201 IPC both appellants were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, both convicts have to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused Ram Khelawan (brother-in-law of deceased) was acquitted by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, as unfolded in written report (Ex.Ka.-1) moved by informant Dunna (P.W.1), father of deceased, is as follows : 4. Informant Dhunna son of Dularey is resident of Village Babhanpurwa, Majrey Sakhiyaon, Police Station Thariyaon, District Fatehpur. He performed marriage of his daughter namely, Sushila with Jaswant son Raghuraj Pasi resident of Chandpur Majrey Sanwat, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur 14 -15 years back. Her husband Jaswant, father-in-law Raghuraj and mother-in-law Smt. Pachauri started harassing and torturing to her. Son-in-law of Raghuraj namely Ram Khelawan also supported them in causing cruelty and harassment to her. She came back to her parental house 5 -6 years back due to cruelty and harassment caused on part of accused-persons and filed petition for maintenance in the Court against her husband in which specific direction was given to pay the maintenance. Son-in-law of Raghuraj namely Ram Khelawan also supported them in causing cruelty and harassment to her. She came back to her parental house 5 -6 years back due to cruelty and harassment caused on part of accused-persons and filed petition for maintenance in the Court against her husband in which specific direction was given to pay the maintenance. It is further mentioned that 7 -8 months ago, Jaswant, husband of Sushila, came to the house of informant and took back Sushila to his house on giving assurance. Thereafter, again they started harassing and torturing her. Daughter of informant again came to the house of informant around 15 days back due to maltreatment caused on part of accused. Again her husband Jaswant came to the house of informant and on 28.06.2006 giving assurance and pacifying the matter took her back to his house. In the evening of 06.07.2006, one Buddha Sahu belonging to Village Chandpur came to the house of informant and told that accused Jaswant, Raghuraj, Smt. Pachauri and Ram Khelawan in the evening of 04.07.2006 were present in the house of Jaswant. Sushila, daughter of informant was also present there. Hot talks were going on between them. Thereafter, whereabouts of Sushila is not known. Jaswant and Ram Khelawan both were absconding. Raghuraj and Pachauri were present in the house. Foul smell is coming out from their house. On information given by Buddha Sahu, informant came to village Chandpur and saw that large number of villagers were gathered at the house of Raghuraj, who had confined Raghuraj and Smt. Pachauri at their house. On inquiry made by informant and villagers, Raghuraj and Smt. Pachauri both confessed their guilt and stated that they and their son Jaswant and son-in-law Ram Khelawan have committed murder of Sushila on 04.07.2006 at 12:00 in the night and her dead body is buried in the house itself. It is also mentioned that smell was coming out from the house of accused-persons. Since it was night hour, informant could not go to the Police Station to lodge First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'F.I.R.'). It is also mentioned that villagers have restricted Raghuraj and Pachauri in their courtyard. 5. It is also mentioned that smell was coming out from the house of accused-persons. Since it was night hour, informant could not go to the Police Station to lodge First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'F.I.R.'). It is also mentioned that villagers have restricted Raghuraj and Pachauri in their courtyard. 5. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka.-1), Chik First Information Report (Ex.Ka.-11) at Crime No.163 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Khaga was registered on 07.07.2006 at 08:25 AM against Jaswant, Raghuraj, Smt. Pachauri and Ram Khelawan. G.D. entry was also made on the same day on the basis of Chik F.I.R. mentioning all details as Ex.Ka.-12. 6. Investigation commenced. P.W.6 Ram Bahadur Singh, the Investigating Officer, recorded statement of chik writer and informant at the police station concerned itself and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence along with police personnel. When the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, he saw that villagers restricted accused Raghuraj and his wife Smt. Pachauri there. On inquiry being made by Investigating Officer from accused-persons before witnesses Ramdhani, Mohan, Bhawanideen and Mahesh, they told that “there was no cordial relations between deceased Sushila and her husband Jaswant. Dispute was going on between them. Deceased was not doing any work, therefore, her husband Jaswant called his brother-in-law co-accused Ram Khelawan in the intervening night of 04/05.07.2006 at about 12:00 hours and tying the neck of deceased with a rope, they all committed murder of Sushila. Thereafter, tying the dead body of deceased with a rope it was buried inside the room situated on the southern side of the house.” 7. On the basis of disclosure statement of both accused-appellants, Investigating Officer took them to the place where dead body of deceased was buried. Accused-appellant Raghu Raj going ahead to the police party took them in a room where dead body of deceased was buried and showed the place saying that they have buried dead body of deceased at that place. 8. It also appears that police party, in the presence of villagers, unearthed the body of deceased with the help of villagers. Witnesses present there identified the same as body of deceased Sushila. Accused-appellant Raghu Raj also handed over the rope said to have been used in commission of crime. 8. It also appears that police party, in the presence of villagers, unearthed the body of deceased with the help of villagers. Witnesses present there identified the same as body of deceased Sushila. Accused-appellant Raghu Raj also handed over the rope said to have been used in commission of crime. Police party taking dead body of deceased and rope into possession prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka.-2 and inquest report along with other relevant police papers. 9. P.W.6 also arrested accused-appellants and visiting the place of occurrence prepared site plan Ex.Ka.-10. Investigating Officer also recorded statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Order passed on application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was also taken by the Investigation Officer as a piece of evidence. P.W.6 also proved Chik F.I.R. and G.D. Entry as Ex.Ka.-11 and 12 prepared by Head Moharrir Rajendra Prasad identifying his handwriting and signatures. Inquest report prepared in the matter is Ex.Ka.-3; letter to R.I. is Ex.Ka.-6; Challan Nash is Ex.Ka.-7; letter to C.M.O. is Ex.Ka.-8 and Photo Nash is Ex.Ka.-9. 10. Keeping the dead body in a sealed cloth sample seal was prepared and dead body was dispatched for postmortem, which was carried by Constables Abdul Kuddus and Ramesh Kumar. 11. Postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted by P.W.3 Doctor B.C. Bughani, Medical Officer at Fatehpur Mortury on 07.07.2006 at 5:45 PM. On general examination, deceased was found aged about 32 years. Probable time since death was about 3 days. Body was swollen. Eyes were closed and mouth was opened. Tongue protruded cut and bitten between teeth. Face was congested. Rigor mortis passed off from both upper and lower extremities. Skin was peeled of at most of the places. Maggots were present. Hairs easily taken out. 12. On examination of body, following ante mortem injury was found on person of deceased : (i) Ligature mark 32 x 1.5 cm. from transversely over and all around neck continuous, below the thyroid. The mark is 7 cm. below left ear, chin and below right ear. The margins are contused and abraded. The underneath subcutaneous tissue and muscles are ruptured. Hyoid bone fractured. 13. from transversely over and all around neck continuous, below the thyroid. The mark is 7 cm. below left ear, chin and below right ear. The margins are contused and abraded. The underneath subcutaneous tissue and muscles are ruptured. Hyoid bone fractured. 13. On Internal examination, larynx and trachea were congested; pleura was congested; both lungs congested; pericardium congested; heart empty; small intestine partially full of digested food matter and large intestine partially filled of faecal matter and gases; liver congested and decomposed; gall bladder full; spleen congested; both kidneys congested and decomposition started; urinary bladder and uterus were empty. 14. In the opinion of Doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. Postmortem report prepared by Doctor concerned is Ex.Ka.-4. Clothes and other wearings found on body of deceased along with relevant papers were handed over to concerned Constable to return the same to the Investigating Officer concerned. 15. P.W.6 Ram Bahadur Singh had also applied to the Court concerned for coercive process against accused Jaswant and also recorded statements of some of the witnesses. Since co-accused Jaswant could not be arrested, hence on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused-appellants and accused Ram Khelawan (acquitted) as Ex.Ka.-5. 16. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter. Case being exclusively triable by Sessions Judge was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 17. Accused appeared and prosecution opened its case describing all evidence collected during investigation and proposed to be adduced against accused-appellants during trial. Trial Court also heard accused side and on 03.01.2007 framed charge for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34 and 201 IPC against accused-appellants and co-accused Ram Khelawan (acquitted) mentioning all details of crime. Charges were read over to them to which they denied and pleading not guilty claimed their trial. 18. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 Dhunna, father of deceased, P.W.2 Bhagwan Deen, brother of deceased, P.W.3 Dr. B.C. Bughani, who has conducted postmortem on body of deceased, P.W.4 Baldhari Singh, Investigating Officer, P.W.5 Rama Shanker Dixit, the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Khaga in whose presence inquest report and other relevant documents were prepared and P.W.6 Ram Bahadur Singh, Investigating Officer. 19. B.C. Bughani, who has conducted postmortem on body of deceased, P.W.4 Baldhari Singh, Investigating Officer, P.W.5 Rama Shanker Dixit, the then Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Khaga in whose presence inquest report and other relevant documents were prepared and P.W.6 Ram Bahadur Singh, Investigating Officer. 19. It appears that after closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused-appellants and co-accused Ram Khelawan were recorded in which they have admitted the fact of marriage between deceased and co-accused Jaswant, but they denied about the litigation pending between deceased and her husband and also they denied the prosecution case mentioned in the written report (Ex.Ka.-1) and stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. In question no.5, both accused-appellants have respectively admitted that villagers were gathered there, but recovery and confession part said to have been made by accused-appellants are false. They also stated that prosecution was started on the basis of false facts. Charge-sheet was submitted on the basis of insufficient evidence. Witnesses examined in the matter have made false statement. Both accused-appellants also stated that prosecution was started against them due to enmity and they were residing separately way back 20 years from Jaswant (co-accused), husband of deceased. It was also stated that Jaswant was residing along with deceased constructing a separate house. 20. Accused-appellants did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence in their defence. 21. Trial Court, appreciating prosecution evidence, going through record and hearing both parties, vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced accused-appellants for offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC, as above and acquitted co-accused Ram Khelawan for offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC. Hence, this appeal has been filed by convicted accused. 22. We have heard Sri Manvendra Singh, Advocate and Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Nigam, learned counsel for both appellants as well as Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for State. 23. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellants that appellants have no concern with the present matter. They were not involved in commission of present crime. Neither they made any confessional statement nor dead body of deceased was recovered on their pointing out. Referring to the place of recovery, it was further argued that it appears improbable and unbelievable that dead body of deceased was buried beneath the earth, but smell was coming out. They were not involved in commission of present crime. Neither they made any confessional statement nor dead body of deceased was recovered on their pointing out. Referring to the place of recovery, it was further argued that it appears improbable and unbelievable that dead body of deceased was buried beneath the earth, but smell was coming out. Learned counsel also referred to statements of prosecution witnesses and submitted that there are major contradictions in their statements on point of recovery of dead body and rope said to have been used in commission of crime. It was next argued that if dead body was unearthed from the pit, there should have been some soil affixed on dead body of deceased. Since soil was not present on dead body, on this ground, recovery becomes false. Several villagers were said to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of recovery but they have not been examined. Thus, on this ground also recovery becomes doubtful. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. Investigation, in this case, was made in perfunctory manner. Referring to recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-2), it was further argued that if, for the sake of argument, prosecution case be taken into consideration, then also offence under Section 302/34 IPC could not be attracted against accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri. Dead body of deceased is said to have been recovered on pointing out of accused-appellant Raghuraj, therefore, findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding involvement of accused-appellant Pachauri in this case are perverse and illegal. Thus, prayer was made to allow the Appeal and acquit appellants. 24. Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of accused-appellants on pointing out of accused-appellant Raghuraj. If they were not involved in commission of present offence, they ought to have informed the Police or parents of deceased. Thus, their conduct also goes against them and shows their involvement in commission of crime. It was further argued that prosecution was able to prove recovery of dead body of deceased and rope. Prosecution witnesses have also proved the factum of cruelty and harassment extended to deceased. Dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of accused-appellants. Presumption drawn by the Trial Court about involvement of accused-appellants regarding commission of offence under Section 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC is based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law. Prosecution witnesses have also proved the factum of cruelty and harassment extended to deceased. Dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of accused-appellants. Presumption drawn by the Trial Court about involvement of accused-appellants regarding commission of offence under Section 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC is based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law. No interference is required by this Court, as contradictions said to have been occurred in statement of prosecution witnesses do not go to the root of the case. Non-examination of villagers also does not falsify the recovery of dead body from the house of accused-appellants. Thus, prayer was made that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 25. We have considered rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through entire record and evidence. 26. In this matter, as is evident from record, incident is said to have been committed in the intervening night of 04/05.7.2006. Prosecution case is that one Buddha Sahu had informed P.W.1 and P.W.2 at their village on 06.07.2006 in the evening. Thereafter they reached the place of occurrence. When accused-appellants admitted the commission of present offence, P.W.1 moved written report (Ex.Ka.-1) at Police Station in the morning of 07.07.2006 at about 08:25 AM. F.I.R. was registered on 07.07.2006 on the basis of written report. Certainly there was some delay in lodging the F.I.R. as it was lodged on 07.07.2006 at 8:25 AM, but delay occurred in lodging F.I.R. has been properly and satisfactorily explained by prosecution. No one was aware about commission of offence till accused-appellants confessed their guilt before villagers on 06.07.2006. Written Report (Ex.Ka.-1) also reveals that on the basis of extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused-appellants, P.W.1 prepared written report and till that time, neither dead body of deceased nor the rope said to have been used in commission of crime had been recovered. What facts came into knowledge of P.W.1 till that time, mentioning the same in written report, he moved it to the Police Station concerned. Thus, in our considered view, in this case, delay occurred in lodging the F.I.R. has been properly and satisfactorily explained by prosecution and same does not affect other evidence in any way. 27. What facts came into knowledge of P.W.1 till that time, mentioning the same in written report, he moved it to the Police Station concerned. Thus, in our considered view, in this case, delay occurred in lodging the F.I.R. has been properly and satisfactorily explained by prosecution and same does not affect other evidence in any way. 27. So far as motive to commit the offence is concerned, P.W.1 is father of deceased and P.W.2 is brother of deceased. There was dispute between deceased and her husband. Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was also filed by deceased which was allowed directing co-accused Jaswant (absconding) to pay maintenance. It has also come in evidence that after passing the maintenance order, co-accused Jaswant, husband of deceased had gone to the house of informant and had taken back deceased to his house but again cruelty and harassment was started against her and deceased returned back to her parental house again. Husband of deceased again went to the house of P.W.1 and after giving assurance, he had taken back deceased to his house. It has also come in statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that again cruelty and harassment was extended to deceased by accused-appellants and other named accused and due to that reason they committed present offence in the intervening night of 04/05.07.2006. If the litigation pending between parties regarding maintenance and relations between husband and wife are taken into consideration, finding of the Trial Court on point of motive cannot be termed to be illegal. In our considered opinion, from the above factual evidence, statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on point of motive attributed to accused-appellants cannot be disbelieved. 28. Now coming to the recovery part, we have analyzed the Site Plan (Ex.Ka.-10) which reveals that dead body was recovered from the house of accused-appellants by police concerned on information of P.W.1 through Ex.Ka.-1. Recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-2) also reveals that recovery was witnessed by villagers also. Even signature of accused-appellant Raghuraj finds place on it. Submission of leaned counsel for accused-appellants is that police party did not find doors and windows in the walls of room when they recovered the dead body and this fact shows that recovery is false. Recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-2) also reveals that recovery was witnessed by villagers also. Even signature of accused-appellant Raghuraj finds place on it. Submission of leaned counsel for accused-appellants is that police party did not find doors and windows in the walls of room when they recovered the dead body and this fact shows that recovery is false. If statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are minutely analyzed cumulatively in its entirety, it emerges that dead body of deceased was buried in the room, which was closed from all sides. Smell coming out from dead body from the room concerned cannot be said to be unnatural. If dead body of deceased was buried in the intervening night of 04/05.07.2006, then smell must come out from the dead body despite the fact that same was buried beneath the earth. It is pertinent to mention here that when dead body was unearthed, it was not found kept in a plastic bag or other such type of item. If such was the position, then also coming out of smell from the dead body is natural phenomenon. Recovery on this point cannot be doubted. Dead body was recovered on pointing out of accused-appellant Raghuraj from his house. Thus recovery of dead body from the house of accused-appellant on 07.07.2006 at the time mentioned in Ex.Ka.-2 is proved from prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Finding of the Trial Court on this issue is also based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. 29. While passing impugned judgment and order and convicting and sentencing accused-appellants, Trial Court has also placed reliance on extra judicial confession. If entire evidence adduced by prosecution are minutely analyzed, it emerge that on 06.07.2006, only accused-appellants were present in their house. Foul smell was said to be coming from their house and due to this reason, villagers gathered there. Since whereabouts of deceased was not known, they suspected and confined accused-appellants in their house. When P.W.1 reached the place of occurrence on receiving information, he himself and other villagers gathered there asked accused-appellants regarding whereabouts of deceased, then accused-appellants disclosed before them that they have committed murder of deceased and have buried her dead body at the place from where the same was recovered. When P.W.1 reached the place of occurrence on receiving information, he himself and other villagers gathered there asked accused-appellants regarding whereabouts of deceased, then accused-appellants disclosed before them that they have committed murder of deceased and have buried her dead body at the place from where the same was recovered. Although actual words said to have been used in extra judicial confession were not made clear by prosecution separately, but recovery of dead body on pointing out of accused-appellant Raghu Raj itself indicates that accused-appellant Raghu Raj has made extra judicial confession before witnesses and on his disclosure statement, dead body of deceased was recovered on his pointing out. If, for the sake of argument, extra judicial confession be not read against accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri, the same can be read as a piece of evidence against accused-appellant Raghu Raj. It is also mentioned here that all criteria required under law in regard to extra judicial confession are available in present matter. Extra judicial confession is said to have been made on inquiry of witnesses, but nothing is on record to show that there was any sort of compulsion or pressure or duress upon accused-appellants. Thus finding of Trial Court on the point of extra judicial confession to the extent to be used as a piece of evidence against accused-appellant Raghu Raj Pasi is based on correct appreciation of fact, evidence and law. In our considered view, applying the rule of caution, extra judicial confession as well as recovery part in the present matter could not be read as a piece of evidence against accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri as dead body was not recovered on her pointing out. Prosecution has also not proved specific word uttered by her to constitute extra judicial confession. 30. So far as medical evidence is concerned, P.W.3 Dr. B.C. Bughani, who has conducted postmortem on body of deceased, has clearly stated that ligature mark all around the neck was found and due to which she died. When dead body was unearthed, smell was coming out and dead body was swollen. At the time of postmortem, maggots were also found in the body. Decomposition started. Rigor mortis had passed off. Doctor, who conducted postmortem on body of deceased, has specifically opined the time since death of deceased was about 3 days. When dead body was unearthed, smell was coming out and dead body was swollen. At the time of postmortem, maggots were also found in the body. Decomposition started. Rigor mortis had passed off. Doctor, who conducted postmortem on body of deceased, has specifically opined the time since death of deceased was about 3 days. If medical evidence adduced by prosecution in present matter is taken into consideration, then the time of death and the manner in which she was done to death have been proved by prosecution from its evidence. Finding of Trial Court on the point of medical evidence is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. There is no contradiction in medical and oral evidence. 31. So far as contradiction, omission and laches on part of the Investigating Officer elucidated by learned counsel for appellants during the course of argument are concerned, in our considered view, particularly keeping in view the recovery of dead body from the house of accused-appellants and extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused-appellant Raghu Raj Pasi and also keeping in view this fact that opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses has been availed at length by accused, no error or illegality is found in the finding of the Trial Court on this issue. Reference may also be given of settled proposition of law on this point. In State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others; 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC) Court has held that "prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof." Further, in Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 32. Now the question is what was the actual role of accused-appellants and whether conviction and sentence of accused-appellants passed in impugned judgment and order is sustainable. As has been discussed here-in-above, dead body of deceased was recovered on pointing out of accused-appellant Raghu Raj. What actual words were used by accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri have not been proved by prosecution to be used against her as extra judicial confession. As has been discussed here-in-above, dead body of deceased was recovered on pointing out of accused-appellant Raghu Raj. What actual words were used by accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri have not been proved by prosecution to be used against her as extra judicial confession. Thus submission advanced by learned counsel for appellants that accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri could only be punished in this case for offence under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC, as a rule of caution, is acceptable. In our considered view, conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri for offence under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable. 33. So far as conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Raghu Raj is concerned, finding of the Trial Court in regard to his conviction in present case for offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC is based on correct appreciation of evidence. He has made extra judicial confession and dead body was also recovered on his pointing out from his house. Prosecution was able to prove all essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC against accused-appellant Raghu Raj. Thus conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Raghu Raj for the aforesaid offences awarded by the Trial Court need no interference by this Court. 34. So far as punishment is concerned, Trial Court while passing impugned judgment and order has imposed 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-for offence under Section 498-A IPC to both accused-appellants. Accused-appellant Raghu Raj was sentenced for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.2000/-for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Similarly, both accused-appellants have been sentenced for offence under Section 201 IPC for 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. Since sentence imposed upon accused-appellants is not maximum sentence, thus keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that sentence imposed upon accused-appellants by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order for the offences proved against them would meet the ends of justice and would also be to the conscience of the society and the Court. The sentence imposed upon accused-appellants is also adequate and proper sentence. 35. In the light of foregoing discussions and for reasons mentioned above, Jail Appeal No.839 of 2008 filed by appellant Smt. Pachauri is allowed in part and Jail Appeal No.176 of 2009 filed by appellant Raghuraj lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 36. The sentence imposed upon accused-appellants is also adequate and proper sentence. 35. In the light of foregoing discussions and for reasons mentioned above, Jail Appeal No.839 of 2008 filed by appellant Smt. Pachauri is allowed in part and Jail Appeal No.176 of 2009 filed by appellant Raghuraj lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 36. Impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Trial Court regarding conviction and sentence imposed upon accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri for offence under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC is affirmed, but conviction and sentence imposed upon Smt. Pachauri for offence under section 302/34 IPC is set-aside. She is acquitted for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. However, conviction and sentence imposed upon accused-appellant Raghu Raj vide impugned judgment and order for offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34, 201 IPC is affirmed. Both accused-appellants are in jail. If accused-appellant Smt. Pachauri has served out the sentence imposed upon her for offence under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC, she be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 37. Copy of this judgment alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to the Court concerned for compliance and compliance report be sent to this Court. Copy of judgment be also sent to both accused-appellants through concerned Superintendent of Jail for information and compliance report be sent to this Court. 38. Let copy of this judgment be also placed on record of jail appeal no.176 of 2009 (Raghuraj Vs. State).