The central legal point established in the judgment is that for punishment under Section 304B I.P.C., harassment or cruelty must be related to any demand of dowry, and if not, the person cannot be convicted under this section. The court also emphasized that when simple cruelty is done, the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. will be made out.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri K.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.K. Tripathi (B.H.), learned counsel for the State respondent.

2. This Criminal appeal (under Section 374 Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Mumtaz Ali, Akalina @ Nanhi and Jugari Begum challenging the judgment and order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in S.T. No.241 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 376 of 2005, under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Marihan, District Mirzapur whereby the accused Madina was acquitted and accused Mumtaz Ali, Akalina @ Nanhi and Jugari Begum were convicted and sentenced under Sections 304B I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 498A I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-each and Mumtaz Ali was also convicted under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/-. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. In nutshell, according to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Mumtaz Ali, Madina, Akalina @ Nanhi and Jugari Begum alleging that daughter of the complainant Shabana Begum was married on 7.6.2002 with Mumtaz Ali. For demand of motorcycle, they used to assault and torture her and on 21.7.2005, when the accused Mumtaz Ali had come to the house of the informant, he again demanded motorcycle and threatened her that if the motorcycle is not provided he will kill her. On 24.7.2005, Mumtaz Ali had assaulted his wife and on 25.7.2005 in the night he along with his family members poured kerosene oil and set on her fire in which the deceased received burn injuries. She was taken to the hospital at Marihan by the father-in-law of the deceased with the help of villagers. The complainant went there and admitted her in another hospital, namely, Mritunjay Hospital but on 1.8.2005 she unfortunately died.

4. F.I.R. was lodged on the ground of letter written by complainant (Sahabuddin) which is Ex. Ka.-1. check F.I.R. was prepared, which is Ex. Ka.-4. Injury report was prepared, which is Ex. Ka.-17 and bed head ticket is Ex. Ka.-18. According to postmortem report, cause of death was found due to shock as a result of anti-mortem burn injuries. Panchayatnama, photonash, and other relevant papers were prepared and dying declaration, which is Ex. Ka.-16 was also recorded by Naib Tehsildar on 27.4.2005 and deceased Shabana Begum stated that on catching hold of Jugari and Nanhi (Nanads), the husband had thrown kerosene oil and set her on fire. She also stated that for demand of dowry, the husband was generally beating her.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all accused persons, namely, Mumtaz Ali, Madina, Akalina @ Nanhi and Jugari Begum. Cognizance was taken and charges were framed on 2.1.2016 to which they pleaded to be not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined Sahabuddin as P.W.1 father of the deceased, Munni Begum as P.W.2, she is mother of the deceased, Ramazan Ali as P.W.3, Pappu Siddiqui as P.W.4, Hasina Begum as P.W.5 and Nazama Begum as P.W.6.

7. Dr. S.K. Srivastava was examined as C.W.1. He had conducted the post mortem and has proved the post mortem report, I.O. Amarnath Singh, (C.O.) was examined as C.W.2. He has proved site plan and has submitted the charge-sheet. Kaushalesh Kumar, Naib Tehsildar was examined as C.W.3. He has proved the dying declaration and also inquest report and corresponding police papers. Dr. H.R. Maurya was examined as C.W.4. He has prepared the injury report and had also given the certificate that she was capable of giving statement i.e. dying declaration.

8. The accused have denied the allegations of the prosecution and have claimed to be falsely implicated in the case. Accused Mumtaz in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he is working as a labourer wi