Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Convict Roshan Lal has filed the instant criminal appeal to assail his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 15.09.2001and order dated 18.09.2001 thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 498A IPC. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. By the same judgment, appellant’s father and co-accused Jiwan Lal stands acquitted.

2. Prosecution case in brief is as under:

Marriage of Shimla since deceased was performed with the appellant on 20.04.1996. Sufficient dowry as per status of her father Chander Pal-complainant was given in the marriage. But the appellant and his father were not satisfied with the dowry. Immediately after the marriage, they started making demand of scooter from Shimla. She was subjected to beatings for the same. In the winter of 1998, appellant left Shimla at her parental home in village Aklimpur and told the complainant that if scooter was not given in dowry, the complainant should keep his daughter with him. In November 1998, the complainant left his daughter Shimla at the house of appellant in Devi Lal Colony, Gurgaon after persuading both the accused with the plea that the complainant has other issues and is poor and unable to give scooter. However, again in January 1999, the appellant again left his wife Shimla at her parental home. The complainant and his family members pleaded with the appellant without any result. On 24.06.1999, the complainant and his younger brother Rajpal along with Shimla went to appellant’s house in Devi Lal Colony, Gurgaon and tried to persuade the appellant and his father but they did not agree. However, Shimla was left in the matrimonial home. The appellant and his father had even sold the dowry articles of Shimla for purchase of liquor because they are drunkards. On 27.07.1999, on receiving information that Shimla had been burnt to death, the complainant and his brother Rajpal and wife Chandro visited house No.2067, Sector 10A, Gurgaon where the accused had shifted in rented premises for the last few days. Shimla was found lying dead with burns. The complainant reported the matter to the police by making statement alleging that both the accused had burnt Shimla to death for not satisfying their demand of scooter. On the said statement, FIR was registered and investigated. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared. Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. There were dermo-epidermal burns all over the body except both soles and small part in middle front of right thigh. Cause of death was ante mortem burns which were sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Both the accused were arrested on the same day. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) was presented for prosecution of appellant Roshan Lal and his father Jiwan Lal under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Charge under Sections 498A/34, 304B and 302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.

5. SI Daya Nand PW-1 stated that he recorded formal FIR in this case.

6. Head Constable Jagdish Chand PW-2 and Constable Inder Parshad PW-3 tendered their affidavits in evidence being formal witnesses.

7. Dr. Mahesh Parkash, PW-4 stated that he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shimla.

8. Amit Kumar, Photographer PW-5 proved photographs snapped by him.

9. Constable Naresh Kumar, Draftsman, PW-6 stated that he prepared scaled site p