The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the doctrine of dying declaration, the interpretation of Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and the application of the reformative theory of punishment in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Sonu against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2015, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trail No. 144 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Sonu and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 581 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year. Accused Krishnapal Sharma was acquitted by the Court below, therefore this appeal has been preferred only for appellant-Sonu.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that a written report was submitted by complainant Brahm Deo (father of the deceased) at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar with the averments that marriage of his daughter Priyanka was solemnized with accused-Sonu on 14.7.2010. He had given dowry as per his capacity. After marriage accused-Sonu and his family members demanded additional dowry. It is further averred that on 07.11.2011, appellant-Sonu and his family members poured kerosene on his daughter and set her ablaze. It is a fact that during treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

3. On the basis of above written report, a case crime no. 581 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Dadri, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation was taken up by Circle Officer, who visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses. the dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded on 10.11.2011. F.I.R. was registered as written report on 24.11.201. Inquest report was prepared and post-mortem of the dead body was conduced and its report was also prepared by doctor. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted the charge sheet against accused-Sonu and Krishnapal, who are the husband and father-in-law of the deceased.

4. Case being exclusively triable by the court of session was committed to the court of session for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

5. Learned Sessions Court framed the charges against accused-Sonu and Krishnapal, under Section 3 r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, under Section 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. Charges were read over to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined following witnesses:

7. In support of oral evidence, prosecution submitted following documentary evidence, which were proved by leading oral evidence and proving the contents of the said documents:

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in which the accused denied involvement in the crime and deposed that false evidence was led against accused. The accused examined DW-1 Smt. Vijay and DW-2 Radhey Shyam in defence.

9. Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, l