ORDER :

1. Accused-appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 22/2014 whereby appellant-Bunti @ Laxminarayan has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default for non-payment of fine, to further undergo one year simple imprisonment and appellant No. 2-Smt. Ramdulari has been convicted for offence under Section 302 /34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default for non-payment of fine, to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by Bhikkan Singh-maternal uncle of the deceased along with his brother-in-law-Ramkishore at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur on 17.02.2014 about the death of Dheeraj-wife of appellant Bunti. It was mentioned in the FIR that marriage of deceased with appellant-Bunti took place on 18.11.2011. Appellant-Bunti, his brother-Ravi and mother-in-law-Ramdulari used to harass the deceased on account of dowry. There was demand of Rs.50,000/-. The deceased first turned out of the house and she was threatened that if she does not fulfill the demand, she would be burned alive. It was also mentioned in the report that Kerosene was poured upon the deceased and she was put ablaze. The police on the basis of above report, registered FIR No. 102/2014 and after due investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 302 in alternative Section 304-B of IPC against appellant-Bunti husband of the deceased and Ramdulari- mother-in-law of deceased. The Trial Court framed charges against appellant-Bunti for offence under Section 302 and 498-A IPC and in alternative offence under Section 304-B of IPC and against appellant-Ramdulari under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 498-A of IPC. Accused denied charges and sought trial. On behalf of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited. Explanation of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No evidence was produced in defence. After hearing both the parties learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant vide judgment and sentence dated 22.01.2016, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that Bhikkan Singh-complainant(PW.1) has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. PW.2-brother of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile. PW.4-Ramrati aunt of deceased, PW.5-Saroj- mother of deceased, PW.6-Aidel Singh and PW.7-Mahavir neighbour of deceased have turned hostile. It is also contended that learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants solely on the basis of dying declaration(Ex.P-20) recorded by the Magistrate. It is further contended that appellants have been acquitted for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC meaning thereby that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was any demand of dowry.

4. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate has opposed the appeal. It is contended that dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate and there is no reason to disbelief the dying declaration given by the deceased, wherein she has specifically stated that oil was poured upon her by her husband. Her hands were also held by her husband and her mother-in-law put her ablaze with candle.

5. We have considered the contentions.

6. As far as the material witnesses are concerned, PW.1- compl