The court upheld the conviction under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death based on consistent testimonies, presence of kerosene residue, and contradictory explanations for the deceased's head injury.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2013 and Order on Sentence dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in FIR No.194/2011 whereby the appellants were sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 304-B/34 IPC in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months each. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-under Section 498A/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for four months. It was also ordered by the Sessions Judge that the sentences awarded to the appellants/convicts shall run concurrently and they would be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period during which they had already remained in custody furing investigation/trial.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2011 at about 5 am, Duty Constable Omjeet passed telephonic information at Police Station Kalyan Puri that one Meenakshi, wife of Yogender, was admitted in the hospital by her Jeth Rajbir in a burnt condition. On this information, DD No.4-A was recorded. On receipt of DD No.4-A, SI Haroon Khan reached LBS Hospital where injured Meenakshi was found in a burnt condition. She was not in a position to give statement and was referred to GTB Hospital. Since the burn injuries were received by Smt. Meenakshi within seven years of marriage, SDM Preet Vihar was informed. The crime team was called at the spot and the exhibits were seized from the spot. The injured was unfit for statement. She expired at GTB Hospital on 15.06.2011. On 16.06.2011, SDM came at GTB Hospital. Sh.Vijay Pal Singh, father and Smt. Kaushal mother came at the hospital with their son Rinku. After proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C., the body was sent for post mortem. The body was then released to the kins of the deceased. The statement of Sh.Vijay Pal Singh was recorded wherein he stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the appellant No.1 on 08.03.2011. He gave dowry articles as per his capacity. After marriage, Yogender and his father Mahabir made demand of motorcycle and started beating his daughter. He further stated that he was told by his daughter that appellant No.1/husband was having illicit relations with a girl and that on 15.06.2011 he came to know from a person that his daughter had been burnt and had been admitted to GTB hospital. He further stated that when they went to hospital, they were not allowed to meet their daughter. He stated that the appellants and the Mausi Babli were responsible for her death. An FIR was registered under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC. On 21.06.2011, accused Yogender was arrested in the present case. Appellant No.2/accused No.2 was arrested on 19.07.2011 after he surrendered in the court. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem flame burns involving 80% of total body surface. No evidence was found against Babli. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Section 498A/304-B/34 IPC.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of his case has raised the grounds that the story set up by the prosecution is based on concocted facts; that the Trial Court without considering the defence taken by the appellants and without applying its judicial mind, passed the impugned order and order on sentence which shows that the Trial Court has wrongly interpreted the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the same being bald statements without any cogent evidence; that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the prosecution witnesses PW-4 to PW-6, being the father, mother and brother of the deceased respectively, had not disclosed any particular date and month of alleged demand from the appell