JUDGMENT :

K.J. Thaker, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 24.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2010 convicting accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for six months.

2. Factual scenario as culled out from the record and the judgment of the Court below is that the accused-appellants are alleged to have set ablaze the deceased on 16.10.2009.

3. On the complaint of the brother of the deceased, First Information Report being No.434 of 2009 was registered under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and thereafter, the investigation was moved into motion. After recording statements of various persons, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against accused under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom charge sheet was laid committed the same to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the accused, framed charges under Section 498A, 304 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. On being read over the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried, hence, the trial started and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses who are as follows :

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

6. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

8. It is submitted that the deceased in her dying declaration mentioned that the accused poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Her statement was recorded at 8.00 a.m. on 18.10.2009.

9. Learned counsel has thereafter taken us to the depositions of other witnesses who are hostile witnesses. Be that as it may, the main crux on which submission is made by learned counsel for the appellant are that the deceased died out of burn injuries after two days. The medical evidence according to the counsel for the appellant shows that she died due to septicemic shock and, therefore, it is submitted that looking to the F.I.R. and the dying declarations, it cannot be said that the deceased was done to death and she was murdered. It is submitted that even if it is considered that it was culpable homicide, it would be culpable homicide not amoun