ORDER

1. Three accused persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana, Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 120-B and Section 201 IPC. All the three were found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 120-B IPC, and a fine of Rs 2000 was imposed on each of them and for the offence under Section 201 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs 500 each. They a challenged their conviction and sentence before the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan confirmed their conviction and sentence. The accused Amrit Lal and his wife Angoori Devi have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1110 of 2002 and their son Hemender Kumar has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1344 of 2002.

2. The prosecution case is that deceased Neeraj was the daughter of PW 1 Vishambar Dayal. She was married to appellant Hemender Kumar in 1989. After the marriage, Neeraj was staying with the appellants for some period and occasionally she used to come to the residence of PW 1. Whenever she came to the house of PW 1 she used to say that she was being physically tortured by her husband Hemender Kumar. PW 1 and his wife PW 10 Somawati used to console and persuade their daughter to go to her husbandshouse. Deceased Neeraj found her life intolerable as her husband continued to physically assault her. She came back again to the house of PW 1. Appellant Amrit Lal came to the house of PW 1 and undertook that he would take care of his daughter-in-law and assured that his son Hemender Kumar would not cause any injury to Neeraj at the matrimonial house. On 8-11-1992, PW 1 got information that his daughter Neeraj was done to death. He was in shock and he went to the house of the appellant along with the Station House Officer and SDM and saw the dead body of his daughter Neeraj. He later gave the PI statement before the police and based on the statement the police registered the case under Section 304-B IPC and started the investigation.

3. The dead body of Neeraj was sent for post-mortem examination and the doctor opined that she died of asphyxia. The investigation officer filed a charge-sheet under Sections 302/304-B/120-B and under Section 201 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the record framed charges only under Sections 304-B/201l120-B IPC. On the side of the prosecution PW 1 to PW 20 were examined and the documents in evidence as Ext. P-l to Ext. P-22 were also produced. The Sessions Court held that these appellants were guilty of offence charged against them and the same was confirmed by the High Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the State.

5. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the offence, if any, committed by these appellants will not come within the purview of Section 304-B IPC. It is pointed out that PW 1 gave the PI statement before the police and there was no allegation of any demand of dowry by any of these appellants. In PI statement given to the Station House Officer, Bayana on 8-11-1992, PW 1 only stated that he suspected that the in-laws of the deceased have killed her after putting her on fire. He also stated that his daughter never wanted to go to the house of the appellant as they used to fight with her. He also stated that there was panchayat earlier but the deceased did not disclose this fact to the panchayat. PW 1 stated that the deceased had told him that one day the appellant Hemender Kumar tried to kill her and even caused hurt to her with cycle chain and the deceased Neeraj refused to go to her in-laws place but he sent his daughter to the house three months prior to the incident thinking that there may be some social stigma. Apart from these allegations, PW 1 did not state anything regarding the demand of dowry. At the time of evidence, PW 1 deposed that Hemender Kumar wanted dowry of Rs 10,000. It is clear that he specific