The dying declaration, post mortem report, and compromise agreement were crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused and determining the benefit of doubt for certain appellants.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - The present appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction 25.03.2015 and order of sentence dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') in case FIR No. 634 dated 05.09.2013 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR was registered on the statement of victim Babita who was in hospital at that time with 80-90% burns on her person. Her statement (Ex.P-5) was recorded in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak and after recording the statement victim Babita, passed away. The said statement would read as under:-

"I fetched on Tokni (Picher of metal) of water at that time, my husband and father in law Sattu @ Satnarain started saying me some unparliamentry words and also extended beating me. It was happened today at around 9:00/9:30 AM. Thereafter, my father in law said to leave the house otherwise he would set me ablaze. Then my father in law, mother in law, sister in law and Bhanji went to the fields they came back from the fields at about 11:30 AM. At that time, I was taking rest in the room. My father in law and husband caught me. I tried to protect myself. Meanwhile, my mother in law, Bhanji and sister in law reached there and poured kerosene upon me. My mother in law, father in law, husband, sister in law and Bhanji, set me on fire. I tried to run away from there, but they closed the door. Arel (kundi)of outer door was open and I came in the street. Then I was brought to hospital, my marriage was solemnizes in the year of 2005. I was living in my in laws house for the last four months. Earlier also they extended beatings to me. They did not provide me food. They used to keep the things under lock and key. They demanded dowry articles like car etc. I brought many dowry articles from my house. At that time, they also used to quarrel with me."

3. On 06.09.2013, post mortem examination was conducted; spot inspection report was prepared besides collecting of photographs and placed on record as Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-9. Disclosure statement of appellant No.1-Virender (Ex.P-27) was recorded and similarly disclosure statements of appellant No.2 Sat Narayan (father-in-law) and appellant No.3, Savitri (mother-in-law) were also recorded.

4. As per record, investigation in the present case was conducted by the DSP, Bhiwani and Section 302 IPC was deleted and Section 304-B IPC was added in the FIR and during this very investigation, appellants No.4 and 5, namely, Sushila and Sunil (both sisters-in-laws of deceased) along with grand-daughter Pooja were also declared innocent, but vide order dated 11.12.2013, both appellants No.4 and 5 and Pooja were summoned to face trial but Pooja, was declared juvenile-in-conflict on 19.03.2014.

5. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 14 witnesses besides producing on record documentary evidence i.e. as many as 42 exhibits.

7. Appellants, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case. It was stated that appellant No.1 had cordial relations with his wife Babita (victim) and that she had made statement against appellant under pressure of her parents. Son Vivek (age 6 years) was residing with the appellants. Thus, in defence DW1 Leela (neighborour)) deposed that appellants No.4 and 5 had been present in their matrimonial homes on 04.09.2012. Similarly DW2, Vinod (neighborour) of appellant No.1 (husband of victim) stated that appellants No. 1 to 3 had not been present when the occurrence took place as they were in their