Criminal Appeal No.679 of 1992 is filed by the original accused Nos 1 to 3 questioning their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code as also conviction of accused No.2 for offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentences of various terms of imprisonments and fine imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, upon conclusion of Sessions trial No.556 of 1989.

2. Criminal Appeal No.163 of 1993 is filed by the State for enhancement of sentences imposed upon the accused.

3. Criminal Revision Application No.92 of 1993 is filed by the first informant questioning the acquittal of accused Nos 4 and 5.

4. Facts which are material for deciding these proceedings are as under:-

The complainant Tukaram's daughter Shobha Dubal was married to accused No.1 Baban the son of accused Nos 2 and 3 on 29th May, 1988. It was alleged that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.15,000/-was agreed to be paid as dowry. Out of the same, a sum of Rs.5,000/-was paid and for security of payment of balance, a gold necklace had been given to the accused persons. The accused persons are alleged to have repeatedly sought the payment of balance of Rs.10,000/-and used to harass, abuse and taunt the victim for failure of her father to pay the balance of Rs.10,000/-. On 7.12.1988, the victim sustained burn injuries when she was inside her house at Mumbai. She succumbed to injuries. On a report by the victim's father, lodged on 12/13th December, 1988, an offence was registered and an investigation commenced. Police had performed inquest on the body of the victim and caused it to be sent for postmortem examination. Police performed panchnama of spot and recorded the statements of witnesses including that of the Fire Officer of the Mumbai Fire Brigade since the cause of fire was not known. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Mumbai.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charged the appellant and accused Nos 4 and 5 of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B, 342, 506 part II and 386 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused persons and the accused persons examine three defence witnesses.

6. After considering the evidence in the light of defence of false implication, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused Nos 4 and 5 of all the offences charged. He convicted accused Nos 1 & 2 of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. He sentenced accused No.3 for simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1,000/-or in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Sections 498 and 306 of the Indian penal Code. He also convicted the accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and three months respectively with fine Rs.15,000/-. He acquitted them of the other offences charged. Aggrieved thereby the parties are before this Court.

7. During the pendency of appeal, accused No.2 was reported to have died, hence the case as against him has abated.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned advocate for the first informant. With their help, I have gone through the evidence on record.

9. P.W.1. Atmaram is the victim's father, who states about settlement of dowry of Rs.15,000/-and payment of Rs.5,000/-and handing over ornaments as security for the payment of bala