Hon’ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.—Under assail in the instant Criminal Appeal is the judgment and order dated 19.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Aligarh in S.T.No. 943 of 2005 (State v. Rashid and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C.and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for further imprisonment of one year and further convicted for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation for simple imprisonment for one month. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 315 I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for two months. He has further been convicted for the offence under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to R.I.for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation with simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Heard Dr. Arun Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Poonam Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

The FIR of the instant case was lodged with police on 16.6.2005 at 14.15 p.m.while the incident took place on 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours. According to the FIR version the marriage of daughter of the informant Zeenat Perveen was solemnized on 27.12.2002 with Mohd. Rashid s/o Mohd. Kadar Kuraishi. According to the FIR, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but Mohd. Rashid husband of the deceased, Shakir Jeth, Mother-in-law Chhoti, Gulabo sister-in-law of the deceased, Shamshuddin brother-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. An additional demand of dowry was raised regarding Motor Cycle, Colour T.V.and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The informant and family members tried to convince them on the score of additional dowry but it had no effect. The deceased, daughter of the informant was ousted from the house on certain occasions. There was Community Reconciliation even it yielded no result. Approximately 15 to 20 days prior to the incident before the death of the deceased, filthy abuses were given to her and threat to her life was extended and she was ousted from the house. Thereafter on 14.6.2005 the accused persons visited the house of informant and assured that they would not make any demand of additional dowry in future nor would subject the deceased to cruelty or misbehaviour. Again they pressed their demand for additional dowry just second day when the daughter of the informant reached to her matrimonial home. On 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours, the informant received information that his daughter has been murdered by hanging. After receiving the information he alongwith his son and others visited the daughter’s matrimonial home. The accused persons fled away from the spot after seeing the informant and others. The deceased was pregnant and was shortly expected to deliver a child. The corpus of the deceased daughter of the informant was lying there. The FIR was lodged.

4. After registration of the FIR the investigation proceeded. Inquest was prepared and certain documentation was done for the purposes of post-mortem examination of the corpus of the deceased. A recovery memo was prepared with respect to articles recovered from the deceased. The post-mortem of the body was done. After recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the evidence, the investigation culminated into filing of police report in the shape of charge-sheet.

5. After complying with the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Court below the accused Rashid s/o Kadar, Rashid s/o Nanhey, Shakir, Shamsuddin were charged for the offence un