Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 1998 (State v. Bhupendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 522 of 1995, under Sections 498A/149, 306/149, 304-B I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act/149 IPC, Police Station Hapur, district Ghaziabad, whereby accused Parvinder Singh alias Bobby and Rimpi alias Talvinder Kaur were acquitted, whereas the accused Bhupendra Singh was found guilty under Sections 498A/149, 306/149, 304-B/149 I.P.C. under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, one year simple imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, five years’ imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and a fine of Rs. 2500/- and ten years’ imprisonment under Section 304-B/149 IPC with default stipulation.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution story in brief is that initially, there was a G.D. report (Report No. 51) at 21.15 hours on 19.8.1995 by the father-in-law of the victim about the unnatural death of the victim. It was further stated that she set herself ablaze and committed suicide. Later on, on 20.8.1995 an F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the victim at the Police Station stating that his sister Jasveer Kaur alias Mandeep was married to the appellant about 18 months prior to the incident. After sometime of the marriage, the victim was being harassed for dowry. A demand of scooter and Rs. 50,000/- was made by the husband and his family members and when the deceased used to come to her house, she used to state this fact to her family members. She also used to tell that her father-in-law, sister-in-law, husband and brother in-law (dewar) used to assault her often. The informant has further stated that the financial position of his father was not good, hence, he could not fulfill the demands of the in-laws of the deceased and, finally, the father of deceased expired due to this sorrow. When the deceased was six months pregnant, her husband had beaten her with his leg and he got her pregnancy terminated at Sharda Hospital, Hapur. In the meantime, the deceased was brought to her parental house although she was not willing to go to Hapur. She came to attend the ‘terahawi’ of her father at Hapur where panchayat was held and on the request of panchayat members, the deceased was sent to her in-laws house due to which the deceased was disturbed, hence, she has herself set her ablaze or she has been set at fire by in-laws of the house, on account of which she has died.

3. On the basis of information sent by the father-in-law of the victim, inquest was prepared by S.I. Prithavi Singh (P.W.8). He prepared the inquest report on 20.8.1995, sealed the dead body and handed over the papers and the dead body to Constable Hardeep and Constable Prabhu Dayal. He proved the inquest report as Ext. Ka-8. Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Prem Pal Singh, P.W.5. He received investigation on 20.8.1995. He copied the F.I.R. and chik report in the case diary, recorded the statement of the informant, Sukhveer Singh and after that he went to the place of incident where Sub-Inspector Prithavi Singh was preparing the inquest report. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan which was proved as Ext. Ka-3. The accused Bhupendra, Dharm Singh and Parvinder Singh alias Bobby were arrested on the spot. Statements were recorded. After that statements of panch, namely, Chandrajeet Singh, Harbeer Singh, Jaswant Singh, Swarup Singh and Amar Singh were recorded. All the three accused were admitted in the police station. After that statements of Jeet Singh and Panda Singh were recorded. Later on this witness recorded the statements of Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Raj Kumar, Khsetra Ram Singh, Sat Pal Singh, Har Jeet and S.I. Prithavi Si