JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. Heard Shri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the accused/appellant Guddu alias Gokaran against the judgment and order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 1997 arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 1996, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine to undergo two months’ additional imprisonment; and also convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of fine to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment. It was further directed that both the sentences will run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as per First Information Report (Exhibit Ka 4), is that prior to about six years ago from 19.08.1996, the informant Baburam (PW-1) married her daughter Smt. Saraswati (deceased) with accused/appellant Guddu alias Gokran, wherein he gave Rs. 10,000/- cash as well as goods worth Rs. 10,000/- as per his status. The accused/appellant and his family members were not happy with the given cash and goods and, after marriage, repeatedly demanded one buffalo and cash worth Rs. 10,000/- towards dowry. On account of non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand of dowry, his daughter (Smt. Saraswati) was not allowed to use the goods given by the informant; accused was used to give trouble to her to eat and drink; was used to torture her for dowry in various ways and also accused Guddu had beaten her. Prior to one month from 19.08.1996, accused persons had exerted pressure to give buffalo and 10,000/- rupees as dowry and his daughter was tortured and threatened her for life. On 8.8.1996, Jagdish, son of Jagat Narain, resident of Rahmatpur informed him that due to dowry, after killing his daughter, the accused had burnt the dead body of his daughter. Upon receiving this information, he went to the house of in-laws of his daughter, where his grand daughter Reeta, aged about 11 years, told him that the accused/appellant, after killing his daughter, burnt her dead body in Nimsar. Thereafter, the informant-Baburam went to police station Ramkot and submitted an application for lodging First Information Report but his report was not written. Therefore, informant-Baburam had filed the aforesaid application for lodging First Information Report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (Exhibit Ka 2) before C.J.M. Sitapur, upon which an order was passed for lodging First Information Report. On the basis of this typed report, First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Ramkot on 23.08.1996 at 21:50 hours, which was registered as Case Crime No. 197 of 1996, under Sections 498A, 304 B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The investigation of the case was conducted by Circle Officer, City Sitapur Sri. S.N. Bhardwaj (PW-4), who, in his deposition, has stated that on 24.08.1996, he was posted as Circle Officer, City Sitapur. The information regarding investigation of the case was received from the office of Police Station Ramkot on 24.08.1996. After obtaining copy of the chik F.I.R. and G.D. he had started investigation of the case w.e.f. 24.08.1996. Firstly, he obtained chik report from case diary and G.D. and thereafter recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Tej Bhan Singh. Thereafter, he reached at the house of the deceased Saraswati Devi situated at Village Itaunja from police station Ramkot with police personnel and recorded the statement of witnesses Bechelal and Chedu etc. There