( 1 ) APPELLANTS have challenged, by filing this appeal u/s. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Surat dated 9/3/1995 delivered in Sessions Case No. 131/1994. Vide said judgment Ld. Judge had convicted the appellants for offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ipc) and has sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. He has also convicted both the appellants for an offence punishable u/s. 498-A read with section 114 of the IPC and has sentenced them to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 each, in default further RI for two months. Appellant no. 2 is also convicted by the Ld. Judge for an offence u/ss. 323 and 504 of the IPC and has sentenced her to suffer RI for one month.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present prosecution of the appellants stated in nutshell are as under :-2. 1. THE deceased Bebiben, wife of Anil Vishvanath was residing with her husband and parents-in-law i. e. the present appellants in red road locality in the city of Surat. Her husband Anilbhai was working in Rina Dyeing factory, whereas appellant no. 1 was working in Jenil Silk and the mother-in-law i. e. appellant no. 2 was doing the work of cleaning utensils for others. The deceased was doing only the household work. Since the husband of the deceased was drawing meagre salary, the appellants always insisted that the deceased should also find out some work and earn some money. Though the deceased was ready for the same, her husband did not like this idea and he prevented her from doing any outside work. It appears that this issue gave rise to continuous quarrel between the appellants on one side and the deceased on the other. On account of this, the deceased was being harassed and mentally tortured by the appellants and whenever the deceased visited her parents she complained to them regarding the cruel behaviour of the appellants with her. She was always pacified by the parents and persuaded to go back to the matrimonial home and to take care of the things. It also appears that to reconcile with the situation she started going for work and cleaned the utensils of others. It she did for about two months. However, this was not liked by her husband and as a result of that, she had to discontinue the same. The appellants, therefore, again started torturing and taunting the deceased and caused her mental harassment. 2. 2. ON 6th March, 1994 the deceased got up at about 5. 30 a. m. and cooked food for her husband, who was required to leave the house at about 7. 00 a. m. for reporting on duty. On that day the appellants were at home since appellant no. 1 who usually went to the mill at about 8. 00 a. m. did not go for the job on that day. In the morning round about 8 Oclock appellant no. 2 again started quarrelling with the deceased and gave her filthy abuses. When deceased asked appellant no. 2 not to speak abuses, appellant no. 2 got enraged and gave 2 to 4 slaps to the deceased. Deceased at that time was in the kitchen. In the meantime appellant no. 1 also arrived there and started scolding the deceased that why she was confronting the mother-in-law i. e. appellant no. 2 and so saying he immediately poured kerosene over her from a container already lying in the kitchen. Appellant no. 2 immediately brought a match box and lighted a match stick and set fire to clothes of the deceased. As a result of this, deceased started burning and as if that was not enough, appellants pushed her towards lavatory with an intention to confine her in the lavatory. In the process appellant no. 1 received some burn injuries on the hand. 2. 3. THE parents of the deceased were informed about the incident by some lady at about 8. 30 a. m. and, therefore, the parents as well as the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased went running to the house of deceased. When they reached there they found that appellants were not present in the house, but they were standing o