JUDGMENT :

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Both these appeals arise out of common impugned order dated 28.3.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.67 of 2011 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant, Alka, for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 2275 of 2017 has been preferred by accused-appellant, Alka against her conviction whereas the Government Appeal No. 230 of 2021 has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of respondents, Sanjiv Kumar, Rajiv Kumar & Rajendra Prasad under Section 498A, 304B, 302/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961').

3. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for accused-appellant, Alka and acquitted respondents in Government Appeal. Heard Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for respondent-State in Criminal Appeal and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. in Government Appeal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the informant Gopal Varshney, uncle of the deceased made a complaint before the police authority stating therein that marriage of his niece was solemnized with Sanjeev s/o Rajendra Prasad one and half years ago and the informant had given money and households as dowry as per his capacity. It was further alleged that the in-laws of the deceased were persistently demanding amount of Rs.20,000/-and one motorcycle as additional dowry. Many time settlements were taken place but the things were not pacified and on the fateful day of 13.4.2010 at 11.00 p.m., the in-laws of the deceased namely Sanjeev (husband), Manoj (brother-in-law/Jeth), Rajeev (brother-in-law/Devar), Anita (mother-in-law), Alka (Sister-in-law/Jethani) and Rajendra (father-in-law) poured kerosene on Julie and set her ablaze. It was further alleged by the informant that on being informed by his nephew, he reached at Medical College, Aligarh on 14.4.2010 where he found his niece, Julie unconscious and she was being treated there.

5. On the basis of above, complaint, Case Crime No.221 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 307 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act, 1961 was registered against the above accused.

6. On investigation being put into motion, the investigating officer recorded the statements of all the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet to the learned Magistrate.

7. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offences alleged to have been committed were triable by the Sessions Court as prima facie offences were alleged to be falling under Sections 498A, 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 304B of IPC was included as the deceased died.

8. On being summoned, the accused-persons pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

9. On 1.9.2011, the charges were framed under Sections 498A, 304B & 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

10. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 11 witnesses who are as follows:

11. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved:

12. At