JUDGMENT :

V.M. Deshpande, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellants are challenging judgment and order passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 09.11.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 31/2006, by which the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Their punishment for their respective conviction is two years and five years and payment of fine of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/- for the said conviction.

2. Heard Mr. A.S. Thotange, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Tembhare, learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also gone through the record and proceedings and proved the documents, especially three dying declarations of deceased Sunita, with the assistance of both the learned counsel.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that it would be unfair to record a finding of guilt against the appellants only on the basis of dying declarations. He submitted that close relatives of the deceased Sunita did not support the prosecution that at no point of time before deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of appellants. He submitted that there was every possibility of Sunita being in hallucinations at the time of recording her dying declaration. He submitted that there is no evidence to show that at any point of time, the appellants' intention was that the deceased should commit suicide. He relied on decision of this Court in Shripad Arjun Kamat Vs. State of Goa: reported in 2002 ALL Mr. (Cri.) 1055, Mahendra Singh and anr. Vs. State of M.P., reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 and Laxman Vs. State Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2973, to buttress his submissions. It is also his submission that appellant no. 1 is aged about 80 years and appellant no. 2 is aged about 72 years. He, therefore, submitted that in the light of that some respite in the quantum of punishment be given.

4. Per contra, Mr. Tembhre, learned A.P.P. would submit that the dying declarations clearly cull out the ill treatment to the deceased, resulting into taking the extreme step of life by her. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

5. The facts of the case are summarised as under:

(a) The appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Sunita. Her marriage was solemnized with Rameshwar on 12.05.2005.

(b) The incident of burning took place on 06.10.2005, which is after five months of her marriage. The incident of burning occurred in matrimonial house of the deceased, as it could be seen from spot panchanama (Exh.-39). Post mortem report (Exh.-45), shows that cause of death is shock and septicemia due to burn injuries. Post mortem report was admitted by the appellants during the course of trial. These facts are not at all disputed.

(c) Pratap Ramrao Khokale (PW5), on 06.10.2005 was discharging his duties as Police Sub Inspector at Civil Lines, Akola. On the said day, PI Patil received an information that at Zilla Parishad Colony, Khadki, Akola one woman is burnt in the house of Kherdekar. Therefore, PSI Khokale (PW5) along with his staff, went to the spot. There he found a woman in burnt condition. Therefore, firstly, with the help of his staff, he sent the said woman to Civil Hospital, Akola. Further, he prepared spot panchanama (Exh.-39) in presence of panchas. He seized burnt pieces of saree, chimni, some clothes smelling of kerosene from the spot of incident. Thereafter, he proceeded to Civil Hospital, Akola and recorded statement of said burnt woman who was identified as Sunita Rameshwar alias Sanjay Kherdekar. Before recording her statement, PSI Khokale (PW5) issued requisition letter (Exh.-50) to the Medical Officer to ascertain as to whether the patient was in a fit condition to give her statement. As per the evidence of Dr. Abhay Patil (PW7), on 06.10.2005, police came to the hospital for recording statement of Sunita and at that time, after examining Sunita, he gave a certificate that she was conscious,