Point of law: there is no provision for fine in the newly added Section inserted in 1986. The same is recalled, we hold that the fine deposited would be considered to be period under Section 357 Cr.P.C. for the benefit of the daughter and it will be kept in a fix deposit for three years for benefit of the daughter of the accused which amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today failing which the accused shall suffer three months simple imprisonment under Section 498-A of the I.P.C though there is no default clause

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and order dated 19.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura in Session Trial No. 497 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry of Prohibition Act, Police Station-Raya, District-Mathura convicting and sentencing the appellants to under go life imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/- fine for committing offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and further convicted the appellants to under go three years imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine for commission of offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and also convicted the appellants to under go for the period of one year imprisonment in Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. This appeal arises out of conviction recorded of both mother-in-law and son who are alleged to have done to death wife of appellant no. 1 and daughter-in-law of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 within the period of seven years of marriage.

4. The prosecution was moved by lodgement of First Information Report dated 17.4.2007, the accused were charged of the offences. The accused no. 1 was in jail when the case was committed to court of session. However, Savitri Devi and Shivcharan were enlarged on bail. The accused Ajay is in jail past conviction, pre convition he was enlarged on bail by the court below.

5. The matter was triable by the court of session and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of session.

6. On 5.3.2008 charge was framed against all the three accused for commission of offences under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. The prosecution examined about seven witnesses so as to bring home the charge framed against the accused as enumerated:

8. In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

9. The accused also led evidence that of the Doctor so as to prove their case that the deceased was mentally not of sound mind as examined on which they examined DW-1, Dr. Ved Prakash Verma.

10. The accused were put to questions under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. also. The arguments of both side were heard thereafter.

11. At the outset before we begin to pen down our reasons for modifying the judgment of the court below but concurring with it on the finding as to commission of offence by the husband, one aspect is required to be noted that the accused No. 1, Ajay is in jail since 19.1.2011 which would be 9 years and more than 11 months without remission till the date we hear this appeal. He has a child who by now has grown up.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Rajiv Lochan Shukla has firstly relied on the following grounds raised in the memo of appeal to contend that the accused are not guilty namely:

“(i) Because the judgment and order passed by the Court below is not only illegal but is also against the weight of evidence on records.

(ii) Because the sentence awarded to the appellant is too severe.

(iii) Because conviction awarded to the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(iv) Because the medical evidence is not supported to the prosecution case and the court below has also not ap