1. - Shanti Devi, Radhey Shyam and Manoj Kumar, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, who vide judgment dated January 9, 2002 convicted and sentenced them as under:-U/s. 304B Indian Penal Code :Each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

U/s. 498A Indian Penal Code :

Each to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default fifteen days simple imprisonment.

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The informant Prakash (PW.8) submitted a written report at Police Station Sadar Sikar on April 10, 1998 with the averments that his daughter Laxmi @ Parmila (since deceased) was married to Manoj (first appellant) on June 22, 1997. On April 9, 1998 Radhey Shyam Sharma (second appellant) informed him that Laxmi was burnt while cooking food and declared dead in the hospital. On that report proceedings under section 174 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate. Dead body was subjected to autopsy. Statements of Prakash were recorded wherein Prakash stated that his daughter died accidentally. However Prakash thereafter took U turn and filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate stating therein that the appellants caused dowry death to his daughter. The complaint was sent for investigation under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to Police Station Sadar Sikar where case under section 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2' Sikar. Charges under sections 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance weighed the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants made following submissions:

(i) The father of deceased made no allegation of demand of dowry in the first information report. The complaint which was filed after days was afterthought and it could not have been believed.

(ii) There were two versions of the incident and it Is well settled that earlier her version ought to have been taken to be true.

(iii) The issue of demand of dowry was already resolved when the accused allegedly said that there was no need of money, therefore the conviction under section 304B, Indian Penal Code was not sustainable.

5. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial I notice that Laxmi died within nine months of her marriage under abnormal circumstances A look at the site plan goes to show that in the kitchen Cooking gas was installed but post mortem report shows that there was smell of kerosene on the dead body. However, in the kitchen no sign of kerosene was found and the lantern was full of kerosene. The first version stated in the report was based on the information supplied by the in-laws of the deceased. Conjoint reading of statements of prosecution witnesses however established that Laxmi was dragged to such a situation by her husband that she opted to commit suicide.

6. The expression 'dowry' is defined by Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), as meaning anything which is given either directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person" at or before or after marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. The act has been amended by Act 63 of 1984 and Ac