JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:—This is an appeal by the four accused persons against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 16th November, 1992. Appellant No. 1 who was accused No. 1 was tried for the offence of having committed the murder of his daughter-in-law Sangita, wife of appellant No. 2 who was accused No. 2, during the night between 14th September, 1984 and 15th September, 1984 at the residential house of the appellants at Murtizapur with common intention and also for having treated her with cruelty on account of dowry amount. In the alternative the appellants were also charged for the offence of having abetted the deceased Sangita in commission of suicide by subjecting her to cruelty. Appellant No. 3, who was accused No. 3, is the wife of accused No. 1 and appellant No. 4, who was accused No. 4, is their daughter. Appellants 1 to 4 are hereinafter called accused Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The story of the prosecution was as follows: -

The accused run a printing press at their residence. Marriage of accused No. 2 was settled with the 5th daughter of Madan Lal (PW 8). Few days prior to the settlement of he marriage, marriage of her elder sister was also settled. As such marriages of both the daughters i.e. Sangita and Hemlata was celebrated at Paratwada on 28th April, 1984. Talk over the marriage had taken place about a month prior to the marriage and the same was finalised after about 2 or 3 days of such talks. At the time of finalisation, accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 20,000/ - byway of hard cash as dowry, besides other articles, and he himself had given such demands in writing vide Ext. 73. Though agreed, Madan Lal, father of the deceased could not give Rs. 20,000/- at the time of marriage. He also could not give the gold agreed, though he assured to comply with the demands later on getting the crops. After the marriage, on account of the month of Shrawan, and as per custom, Sangita resided with her parents it was during her stay after the marriage that she was found disturbed and sullen. Though she herself did not give out the reason therefor, but on insistence by the father to know the reason she told him that accused No. 1 had an evil eye on her and that other members of the family used to beat and ill treat her because of the failure on the part of Madan Lal to pay the dowry amount. Though Madan Lal assured that he would come down to Murtizapur and pursued the accused, but he could not visit Murtizapur. After the month of Shrawan, Sangita returned to Murtizapur but no communication was made about her safe return by the accused persons to her father. The accused persons had a telephone connection and Madan Lal (PW 8), two-three days prior to the date of the incident contacted accused No. 1 on telephone. Accused No. 1 talked angrily with Madan Lal. Madan Lal then requested accused No. l to call Sangita on telephone. Sangita came on phone and in answer to his query she broke down and started weeping and told Madan Lal as to why he did not send Ganesh Chaturthi Neg. Neg means a customary offer that the father of the bride has to pay on an auspicious day. It varies according to financial capacity of the father. He told Sangita that he had committed be a mistake and assured that he would be sending it immediately. On the next day he had got drawn a draft of Rs. 101/- on State Bank of India. Ext. 74-A is the said draft. It was thereafter when Madan Lal was on a visit to Amravati that Madan Lal received a message about Sangita having got burnt on 15th September, 1984.

3. During the night between 14th and 15th September, 1984 at about midnight the accused found Sangita not in her bed and smell of burning. They found that in the rear side open space Sangita was burning and lying down. According to the defence the doors were closed from inside and there was no access to the said open space. Accused No. 1 informed the police about the occurrence that he had seen through the window opening on the open space. Accused No. 1 at about 3.45