Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akash Mani Tripathi and Sri, Om Prakash Mishra, learnd A.G.A. for the State.

2. By way of this appeal, the accused-appellants have felt aggrieved by conviction rendered by judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jaunpur convicting the appellants under Section 304-B/ 498-A of Indian Panel Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) And Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 304-B I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 498-A I.P.C. and further to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2006, State Vs. Ganges Kumar amongst many other grounds.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Ramjeet Yadav had lodged a report of the incident at P.S. Nevadiya, Village- Mahewa, District-l Jaunpur alleging therein that the deceased Sita Devi aged about 24 years was married with Mangesh Kumar Yadav S/o Jokhan Yadav, Village- Mainpur, Post- Madiawan , District- Jaunpur in the year 1999. The accused were dissatisfied with the dowry given by Ramjeet Yadav (father of the deceased) to the best of his capacity but the accused Mangesh was demanding money every year as dowry. The complainant Ramjeet Yadav gave Rs. 10,000/- to the husband of the deceased. The father, mother and brother of the husband of the deceased once again demanded Rs. 50,000/- for which the husband of the deceased wrote a letter to father of the deceased and demanded money. On 27.04.2006, the informant- Ramjeet Yadav received information that his daughter had got burnt.

4. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges have examined the following witnesses who are Nine in number:

1	Ramjeet Yadav	PW1
2	Durga Prasad Yadav	PW2
3	Shiv Sewak Yadav	PW3
4	Ram Lakhan Tiwari	PW4
5	Chedi Lal	PW5
6	Hare Ram Yadav	PW6
7	Dr. Vinod Kumar	PW7
8	Vijendra Giri	PW8
9	Sureshwar	PW9

5. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

1	F.I.R.	Ex.Ka-11
2.	Written Report	Ex.Ka.1
3.	Recovery memo of Envelop Card	Ex.Ka.3
4.	Recovery memo of Marriage Card	Ex.Ka.4
5	Recovery memo of Ash & Cloth	Ex.Ka.14
6	P.M. Report	Ex.Ka.10
7	Site Plan With Index	Ex.Ka.13

6. On the witnesses being examined and the prosecution having concluded its evidence. The accused were put questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but except pleading that they did not know anything and/or they have been falsely implicated, no material was placed. The accused examined 7 witnesses as defence witness, who are as under:

1	Akhilesh Chand Dubey	D.W.1
2	Sher Bahadur	D.W.2
3	Surendra Prasad Yadav	D.W.3
4	Satendra Kumar Debey	D.W.4
5	Rai Sahab Singh	D.W.5
6	Lal Bahadu Saroj	D.W.6
7	Prabhat Kumar Singh	D.W.7

7. Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant's submits that there is no averment and no proof that mother-in-law or the father-in-law had demanded any dowry, it is not even proved that the husband had ever demanded any dowry. He has raised the concern about proximity of death with so called dowry demand according to him the letter written is of the year 2000, much prior to the incident which occurred and for which the accused are held guilty. Learned Advocate has submitted that the husban