( 1 ) THESE two Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code for short) are directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 2. 2002 rendered in Sessions Case No. 283 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 22, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by which the appellants (A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5) of both these appeals have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ( ipc for short) and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) and sentenced to suffer R. I. for ten years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- i. d. , to undergo R. I. for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- i. d. , to undergo R. I. for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. It is also ordered that all the sentences imposed on A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5 shall run concurrently. The order further stipulates that A-4 has been given benefit of doubt and has been acquitted of the offences with which she was charged.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, A-1 and A-2 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2002 whereas A-3 and A-5 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2002.

( 3 ) SINCE both these appeals challenge the same judgment and order, they are heard together, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 4 ) AT the outset, it is required to be mentioned that so far as appellant No. 2 (A-2) of Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2002 is concerned, as per the jail record sheet forwarded by Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Ahmedabad, he has died on 11. 1. 2005 while languishing in jail which fact is also endorsed by Mr. A. D. Shah, learned advocate of the appellants and Mr. K. T. Dave, learned Addl. P. P. for the respondent ? State of Gujarat and since no application is filed by any of his near relatives seeking leave to continue the appeal as provided under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 394 of the Code, the appeal filed by him has been abated on his demise and accordingly Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2002 stands abated qua A-2.

( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution, as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial, in short, is as under:

1]. A-1 is the husband, A-2 is father-in-law, A-3 is mother-in-law, A-4 is married sister-in-law residing with her husband at her matrimonial home and A-5 is unmarried sister-in-law of one Muktaben alias Manisha ? deceased victim.

2]. On 18. 3. 1999, A-1 had married Manisha as per ritual and rites. On 28. 5. 1999, Naresh, the son of the complainant (brother of the deceased) had been to Ahmedabad to take Manisha to her parental home at Chalala, where Manisha had stayed for about one month. During that time Manisha informed her brother Madhavjibhai and the complainant (the mother) about the cruelty, harassment and torture meted out to her by all the accused in connection with demand of dowry and further demanded Rs. 50,000/- and Manisha was told not to come back without bringing Rs. 50,000/- Manisha had also complained that the accused were taunting her for having brought insufficient dowry. During her stay at Chalala, it was felt by Manisha and thereafter learnt by others that she had pregnancy of two to three months. It was also complained by Manisha that after the marriage she had been to the City of Baroda, at the residence of A-4 where A-4 told ?why have you brought this kind of wife? By spending money you could have brought better wife?, and thus Manisha was made to cry by A-4.

3]. On 3. 7. 1999, A-1 had been to Chalala to take Manisha back to Ahmedabad. Though Manisha was reluctant to accompany A-1, the complainant had persuaded her to return to her matrimonial home and thus Manisha had returned to Ahmedabad along with A-1.

4]. On 12. 7. 1999, the complainant received a