Point of Law: The law as far as it concerned septicemia is well settled death occurred after few days. The deceased died during treatment, this High Court substituted the sentence as the deceased died out of septicemial septicemia.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgment and order 20.2.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etah in S.T. No. 228 of 2016, State Vs. Veerpal @ Anuj and another arising out of Case Crime No. 0014 of 2016, under Sections 302/34 of IPC, Police Station Marhara, District Etah whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year.

3. The brief facts as per prosecution case are that complainant's daughter Manisha was married to Mahipal and he had given dowry and gifts according to his capacity, a 4 year daughter was born out of their wedlock. Manisha in-laws were not happy with the dowry and gifts and there was a demand of motor-cycle by them but due to non-fulfilment of demand they use to torture and harass Manisha. On 07.01.2016 at about 2:00 O' clock, they poured kerosene oil on Manisha and put her ablaze, On telephonic information by the villagers complainant and his family reached to Manisha's matrimonial home and brought her to Varun Trauma Centre, Aligarh for treatement where she succumbed to death on 13.01.2016.

4. The investigation Officer tookup the investigation visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded statements of the deceased and witnesses and after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused.

5. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges examined six witnesses, who are as under:-

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

8. Heard Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

9. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have deposed that there was no demand of dowry. The deposition is supported by the evidence of P.W.-5 who is the husband of the deceased. The present appellants were not staying with the deceased. The appellants are in jail since 14.06.2016 and has submitted that Dr. Anil Kumar Singh who conducted the postmortem of the deceased deposed that the deceased died due to 95% of burn but there was no kerosene or petrol oil present on the body of the deceased. It was further submitted that Dr. Virendra Singh Sisodia and Dr. Jinendra Kumar Jain, Additional City Magistrate, Aligarh who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased have conveyed no specific depositions regarding the smell of petrol or kerosene oil from the body of the deceased was recorded.

10. While going through the factual scenario we are of the opinion that even if we go by the factual