(Delivered by Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.)

Heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri Sagir Ahmad alongwith Sri Virendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the State.

2. Both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment dated 11.2.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No. 1, Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 368 of 2015 whereby accused-appellants in Crime No. 217 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in alternate Section 306 IPC have been acquitted whereas under Section 302/34 IPC have been convicted and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment in fine, one month additional simple imprisonment to each of the appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

4. Complainant received information from Bhola son of Munshiram regarding the death of his daughter Guddi on 7.9.2014 that she has been killed at 11.00 a.m. on the same day, then he alongwith his brother Kamal Singh and other persons reached to the in-laws' house of her daughter where he found his daughter dead. On the information received by police station concerned, PW-6 S.I. Megh Singh reached on the spot alongwith Naib Tehsildar and other police personnel including a lady home-guard and prepared the inquest report and also collected a dupatta in two pieces from the place of incident and sent the body for postmortem. At the time of inquest, complainant with his relatives was present and he did accompany the body to the mortuary where postmortem was conducted. From there, complainant came to the police station alongwith his brother Kamal Singh and got the FIR scribed from Kamal Singh. FIR was lodged at 10.45 p.m. in the night showing the incident of 7.9.2014 at 3.00 p.m. whereas as per information received by the complainant, death occurred at 11.00 a.m. on the same day. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were taken by the Investigating Officer. Site plan was also prepared that is Exhibit Ka-3. Affidavits on behalf of complainant as well as his brother, son of the complainant and other persons were filed in support of the prosecution before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer after finding the fact that death has been caused due to demand of dowry, chargesheet under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, has been filed. Trial court formulated the charge under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In the alternate, charge under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section 306 IPC also made, from which denial is being made by the appellants and claimed trial.

5. Before the trial court, complainant was produced as PW-1 who although supported the prosecution version in his initial statement of examination-in-chief, but later on he resiled from his earlier statement and did not support the prosecution story. This witness has been cross-examined by the appellants side but inspite of not having supported the prosecution case, this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution side and cross-examination on behalf of prosecution has not been done. This witness did accept the filing of FIR but asserted that FIR was not read-over to him which was written by his brother Kamal Singh. Witnesses of facts were also produced as PW-2 Smt. Rajwati, mother of the deceased- Guddi and PW-3 Monu Kumar, brother of the deceased and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution side upon being cross-examined and having not supported the case of the prosecution. Then there are following formal witnesses. PW-4 Dr. Pradeep Kumar who conducted the autopsy of the deceased- Guddi next day of the death i.e. 8.9.2014 and recorded two ligature marks upon the body of the deceased measuring 9.5cm x 1cm and 4cm below the left ear and left side of neck and second injury was measuring 8 x 1 cm on the right side of neck, 5 cm belo