Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home to the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there, with a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom’s house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact. Alas! The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterized to be out-laws for perpetrating terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles in every possible direction.

2. Present is another case of unnatural death of a young lady within one year of her marriage. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that deceased Kiran got married to accused Rajesh on 13th December, 1998. She was harassed on account of dowry and ultimately was burnt. A DD No.11A was recorded at police station. An information was given to SI Prabhu Dayal. On receipt of DD No.11A, he visited the house of injured from where he received another DD No.18A stating therein that injured has already been admitted to Safdarjung Hospital. Therefore, he reached Burn Ward along with Constable Jaipal and collected MLC of Kiran, W/o Rajesh. SI Prabhu Dayal inquired from the doctor about the condition of the injured who declared her unfit for statement. The Investigating Officer came to know about the factum of marriage within a period of seven years. Therefore, he informed SDM on 27th October, 1999 for recording the statement of Kiran. Statement of injured was recorded by learned SDM who made her endorsement and directed registration of the case. The investigation of the case was referred to SI Prabhu Dayal who went at the spot, prepared the site plan Ex.PW 12A and searched the accused persons. Accused Bhateri was arrested on 28th October, 1999. The Investigating Officer recovered one bottle, prepared its pullanda and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C and deposited in the Malkhana. Another DD No. 17A was received regarding death of the injured. The SDM was accordingly informed about the death of Kiran. Post Mortem on the dead body was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. On 8th November, 1999, accused Rajesh was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court.

3. Since offence under Section 304B IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, as such, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge for offence under Section 498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC was framed against both the accused. An alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC was also framed against them. Another charge under Section 201 IPC was also framed. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Both the accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of prosecution and pleaded their innocence. In support of their defence, they examined three witnesses. Vide order dated 22nd February, 2003, it was observed that charge under Section 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC was not made out, however both the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 498A/ 304B r/w Section 34 IPC.

5. Vide order dated 11th March, 2003, both the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 498A IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence under Section 304B IPC. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. They were also granted benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. I have h