JUDGMENT :

1. In Criminal Appeal No. 439/1989:-

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to accept this appeal and acquitted the accused-appellants of the charges conviction and sentence passed by the learned lower court in the interest of justice.”

In Criminal Appeal No. 272/1989:-

This Criminal Appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C (for enhancement of sentence) has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :-

“It is therefore prayed that appeal for enchancement of sentence ma kindly be accepted, order learned Trial Court may kindly be set-aside and accused-respondents may kindly be punished and sentenced adequately.”

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment, dated 27.10.1989, passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Case No. 74/1987 whereby the learned Court convicted the appellants herein for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C. whereby appellants no. 1 and 4, Madanlal and Kundanlal respectively, were awarded 7 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 100/-each, in default of payment of which they were to further undergo 10 days R.I. whereas appellants no. 2 and 3, Dropadi and Vimla were each awarded a sentence of 5 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of which they were to further undergo 10 days R.I. whereas for the offence under Section 498A, each of the appellants were awarded a sentence of 1 year R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of which they were to further undergo 10 days R.I.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Court below had originally framed charges against the accused-appellants for the offences under Section 304 B I.P.C. However, when the prosecution failed to prove its case, that there was any demand for dowry, the learned Court below incorrectly substituted it for the charges under Section 306 and 498A I.P.C. and wrongly convicted the accused-appellants for the same.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that since no charge under Section 306 was originally framed and neither was put to questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the same.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the alleged demand of Rs. 11,000/-, was never made personally by any of the accused-appellants. And that the learned Court below has proceeded to convict the accused-appellants solely on the basis of word of mouth of the deceased, which was allegedly communicated to her relatives before her passing.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the statement of the deceased victim, if it was to be given any credence, then the dying declaration as recorded by the A.S.I. Tilokchand countersigned by the Doctor who treated the deceased victim, was enough to discard the entire case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the circumstances under which the body of the deceased was discovered, forcing open the room she was in and rushing her to the hospital after informing her parents immediately indicates care and concern towards her from her husband and in-laws.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the husband, Madanlal has already served more than 2 years and 3 months in jail, and that appellant no. 4 Kundanlal too has remained in jail for about over a year. And that, looking into the same, the period already undergone by them should be held to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order of conviction against the accused-appellants, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on record before it.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Court below has rightly disregarded the dying declaration of the deceased victim, recording the finding that the due