The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had killed his wife by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. The court also held that the appellant had subjected his wife to cruelty and harassment on account of her inability to meet their dowry demands.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2015 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, North-East, District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Sessions case No. 78/2012 in FIR No. 156/2012 under Sections 302/498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Seelampur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 45,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) That the appellant and the deceased (Ms. Shaina Praveen) got married on 13.12.2009 and thereafter both of them were residing on the First Floor of H.No. E-16 B-38, K Block, Seelampur, Delhi. The appellant and the deceased were having a normal/peaceful marital life for about 4 to 5 months, but thereafter the appellant and his father Azad Ali started raising frequent demands of dowry. Consequent to which, the deceased was exposed to physical and mental assault from her husband and in-laws because the family of the deceased were not able to fulfill the said demands. It was discovered that the appellant was having an affair with a girl named Asma, contrary to which the parents of Ms. Shaina Praveen initiated every way in harmonizing their daughter's relationship with her husband and her in-laws, but the relation remained stinging.

(ii) That the deceased had stayed at her parent's house for about 1 to 11/2 months and was accordingly taken back to her matrimonial house before 30.04.2012 (after 4/5 months) on the surety and declaration that the she will not be subjected to harassment and cruelty from her husband and in-laws.

(iii) On 30.04.2012 at about 5 pm, the appellant assaulted Ms. Shaina Praveen and asked her to bring a sum of Rs. 5000/- from her parents. Being refused to bring the desired amount, appellant got annoyed and picked a bottle of kerosene oil, poured it over his wife and set her on fire.

(iv) On the following circumstances DD. No. 35A was registered at Police Station Seelampur and the injured was accordingly admitted in GTB Hospital with 45% burn injuries. The statement of the victim was recorded in the hospital, by SDM Sh. Radha Charam and based on her statement FIR No. 156/2012 was registered under Section 307/498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Further, DD No. 23A was registered on 10.05.2012 with regard to the death of Ms. Shaina Praveen and the post-mortem report was concluded with the fact that the death is caused due to septicemic shock as a result of infection ante mortem flame burns involving about 45% of the total body surface area.

(v) On the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Section 302/304B/498A IPC and Charges were framed under Sections 302/304-B/498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and examined 3 witnesses in his defense.

4. Mr. M.M. Kashyap learned counsel for the appellant, opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2015 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law; that the learned Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material