S.H. VORA, J.

1. Jagdishgiri Khimgiri, accused No. 1 and Muktaben Khimgiri Rajgiri, accused No. 2 were facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, the said Act). Vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and F.T.C., Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2003, the learned Trial Judge convicted accused No. 1 Jagdishgiri for the offence punishable u/s 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and whereas, he was acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 498(A) and 114 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the said Act and accused No. 2 was given clean chit and thus, she acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 114 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the said Act Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, accused No. 1-Jagdishgiri Khimgiri preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2006 u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Code') whereas, the State of Gujarat also being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, so far as acquittal of accused No. 1 Jagdishgiri from the charge of offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 114 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the said Act and acquittal of accused No. 2 Muktaben Khimgiri from the charge of offence under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 114 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the said Act, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2005 u/s 378(1)(3) of the Code.

2. Since both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and F.T.C., Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2003, we are disposing of both these appeals by this common judgment so as to avoid repetition of facts and findings.

3. Pending hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2005, accused No. 2 Muktaben Khimgiri died on 20.12.2011 and, therefore, appeal against her was ordered to be dismissed as abated.

4. As per the facts of the prosecution case, one Gulabgar Dhangar Meghnathji (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') residing at village Kadach, Taluka Madhavpur lodged complaint on 17.7.2003 vide I-C.R. No. 155 of 2003 registered with Keshod Police Station against the accused persons to the effect that his eldest daughter namely Ranjanben married to accused No. 1 Jagdishgiri about 20 months ago before the date of incident i.e. 9.7.2003 in a mass marriage held at Keshod. On festival times, daughter of the complainant and her husband i.e. accused No. 1 used to visit his place. But on initial stage of pregnancy of said Ranjanben, she came at her parental home for delivery of her child and during her stay, she disclosed that accused No. 2 (died pending appeal) was taunting her for not bringing anything at the time of marriage and also accused No. 1 used to beat her for that reason. During her stay at her parental home, she delivered girl child and as per their customs, when accused No. 1 came at the complainant's place, at that time, the complainant stated that only if the parents of accused No. 1 including accused No. 1 give an undertaking in writing assuring that they would not make any unlawful demand or exercise any torture or pressure on his daughter Ranjanben then and then only, the complainant would send Ranjanben to her matrimonial home. Accordingly, one undertaking was prepared in the office of Advocate Mr. Vijay Goswami and came to be executed between the parties on 3.4.2003 at Keshod. Thereafter, Ranjanben resumed her matrimonial home but as and when she visited her parental home, she made grievances about the conduct of the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

5. On 9.7.2003 at 7 O'clock, one Gaganbh