Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the two appellants who are father and son amongst themselves and are the husband and father-in-law of the deceased/ Lalita Devi who is said to have died of burn injuries after being treated for four days at Arwal Hospital in the district of Arwal and thereafter at PMCH, Patna. The State has been represented by Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned APP.

2. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 498-A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 04.11.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad and by order dated 05.11.2016, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for three months for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for six months for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

3. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The deceased died of burn injuries which stands proved by the postmortem report (Exhibit-2) which clearly states that there was antemortem dermoepidermal burn injuries all over the body of the deceased, except the right flank of abdomen, right buttocks, right upper thigh, postero-lateral aspects of both foot and soles. The wounds were infected but partially healed. On dissection of the wounds, in general, all visceras were found to be congested. The cause of death as opined by the conducting doctor was burn and its complications.

5. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Arun Kumar Singh (PW-7), who, in his deposition before the Trial Court, has stated that while he was posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, PMCH, Patna on 19.05.2014, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Lalita Devi (deceased) at 3:30 PM.

6. In his cross-examination, though he has said that the burn injuries were not 100 percent and he had not found any smell of kerosene oil, but those observations were not penned down in the postmortem report. He was not in a position to state whether the burn injuries were accidental or intentional, caused by anyone. In the same breath, he has stated that the body of the deceased was completely burnt except the portions as mentioned in paragraph-3 of his examination, which has been referred to above.

7. We have referred to the postmortem report and the opinion of the conducting doctor for the reason that the major thrust of argument on behalf of the appellants is that the deceased died an accidental death and was completely burnt. With such burn injuries to the extent of 100%, as claimed by the defence, she would not have been in a position to make a detailed statement implicating the appellants and Shiv Bachan Devi (still absconding) and which statement has been relied upon by the Trial Court as the dying declaration of the deceased.

8. It would be apposite for us to refer to the fardbeyan/dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded in presence of the brother of the deceased, viz., Benkatesh Kumar Pandit (PW-1) and Dr. Kumar Purushottam Singh Nirala (PW-4), by S.I. Indrajeet Kumar (PW-6) at Sadar Hospital, Arwal in the district of Arwal on 15.05.2014 at 2:15 PM in the emergency ward of the hospital.

9. The statement, referred to above, discloses that when the deceased, after cooking food, went to clean up the room, her husband/ Appellant No. 1 came and started abusing and assaulting her. Shortly thereafter, Appellant No. 2, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law, viz., Shiv Bachan Devi came and all of them assaulted her and asked her to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her father. Thereafter they set her on fire. Even before this incident, the deceased had stated, she was treated in a cruel manner for bringing money from her father. On the day of the occurrence also, she was assaulted and set on fire only b