1. Both the appeals are being disposed of together as the same germinate from the judgment dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby appellants have been convicted under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and 304-B/34 IPC. Appellants Shailender, Braham Singh and Santosh are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Sonia (deceased) respectively. Besides them, Deepak Kumar (Dever), Surinder Singh Panwar (Nandoi) and Neelam (Nanad) were also charged for the offences under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC by the learned trial court but they have been acquitted by extending to them benefit of doubt.

2. Relevant facts are that deceased was married to Shailender on 13th February, 2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were known to each other even prior to their marriage and it appears that they were in love. However, their marriage was solemnized with the consent of their family members. Both deceased and Shailender were engineers by profession. At the relevant time, deceased was pursuing her Master?s degree in Technology from Delhi College of Engineering and was staying in Room No. 10 of Married Women Hostel within the college campus. Deceased committed suicide in her hostel by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with the help of her chunni. Since deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, inquest was conducted by SDM Jai Singh, who recorded statement of Prem Singh, father of the deceased, wherein he stated that sufficient dowry was given in the marriage; after about one month of marriage Shailender and his family members started torturing and maltreating the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry; Shailender used to beat the deceased in order to force her to leave matrimonial home; in the last week of July, 2005 deceased was pushed from the staircase by her husband, resulting in her hospitalization at Satya Bhama Hospital at Nangloi; he requested husband and in-laws several times not to mistreat his daughter but to no effect; husband and in-laws of the deceased told him that as long as car was not given to them they would continue to torture and harass the deceased; subsequently, this demand of car was replaced by demand for a plot of land; because of the financial constraints he could not fulfil their demand; deceased committed suicide as a result of torture at the hands of her husband and in-laws, on account of dowry. On the basis of this statement, FIR No. 410/2005 was registered at Police Station Bawana.

3. During investigation, police recovered a register from the room of deceased which contained two personal notes (Ex.PX1 and PY) written by her. As per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, (FSL) these notes were in the handwriting of the deceased. Autopsy of the deceased was got conducted and as per the doctor deceased died due to asphyxiation as a result of ante mortem hanging. Ligature mark and material was found around the neck of deceased.

4. Charges under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and 304-B/34 IPC were framed against the appellants. Alternate charge under Sections 306/34 IPC was also framed against Shailender and Santosh. Appellants pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to prove its case. After prosecution closed its evidence, statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr .P.C. were recorded separately wherein entire incriminating evidence, which had come on record during trial, was put to them. Appellants denied the same as being incorrect and claimed themselves to be innocent. They further stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Appellants also examined Constable Raju Khan as DW1, in their defence.

6. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties learned trial court concluded that prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of appellants for having treated the deceased with cruelty and causing “dowry death”. For arriving at this