Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- The appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who recorded conviction under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. Appellant No. 1 – Shanni @ Kala, the husband, appellant No. 2 the mother-in-law of the deceased Mukesh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 304-B IPC and 2 ½ years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. Mukesh was married to Shanni in March 2008. The complainant is the brother who alleged that sufficient dowry beyond his means was given in the marriage. The in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry. Shanni repeatedly taunted Mukesh that they had not given the car at the time of marriage and on the birth of the child. Taunts were thrown by the mother-in-law that Mukesh was from a destitute family and did not bring ‘Kanthi’ or ‘ring’ in the marriage nor any gift was given at the time of birth of the child. The allegations are that on the instigation of the husband and mother-in-law, the father-in-law also taunted and abused her. Mukesh had been narrating it to her family whenever they came to meet her. On the unfortunate date, the family received information that Mukesh had died in PGI Rohtak.

3. Based on this complaint, the FIR was registered. The matter was investigated and challan was presented under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. At the trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.

4. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused adjured the trial and pleaded false implication. They had stated that it was accidental death and Mukesh had consumed poison accidentally and examined one witness in defence.

5. The trial Court accepted the statement of the witnesses and convicted and sentenced them to punishment mentioned herein above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that there is no evidence that there was any demand at the time of the marriage and the incident was accidental death and a perusal of the MLR would reveal that when the girl was taken to the hospital for treatment, her vitals were stable and she was conscious and oriented and had given a statement that some tablets was accidentally consumed. It was urged that there is no evidence that relations were strained and no Panchayat had taken place and the history given in the MLR should be taken as the dying declaration. He strenuously urged that witnesses have made improvements at the trial and the story comes out from the mouth of Shamsher that the girl had visited her parents before her death and had disclosed about the harassment which is an improvement and statements are hearsay. It was urged that parents and the uncle had stated that there was no earlier complaint and there is no evidence of harassment or cruelty soon before the death and general allegations have been levelled and no specific instances were given and the best possible statement could have been of the brother who had the first hand version. It was urged that the accused had examined one witness and had taken the risk to probablise the defence. It was urged that wedding of the uncle of the deceased was fixed for 18.04.2010 and family had asked Mukesh to reach by 13.04.2010 and Shanni did not allow her to attend the wedding though the parents had no issue and Mukesh went to uncle’s house but was brought back by Shanni and that could have upset her. It was urged that there were suicidal tendency running in the family. It was urged that Shakuntla PW-3 clearly stated that Shanni had never directly demanded anything and Shanni had been visiting the house of the parents of Mukesh 4-5 times after his marriage and all was well.

7. The State counsel had submitted that it was case of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and the girl had died of poisoning and there is no previous history of medicati