JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Vinod against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Badaun in Session Trail No. 172 of 2013 (State of U.P. v. Vinod), arising out of Case Crime No. 547 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kadarchowk, District Badaun whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment, under Section 498-A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for three months. Accused-appellant is also convicted and sentenced for the offence Section 4 of D.P. Act for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one month.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that a written report was submitted by complainant Natthu Lal (father of the deceased) at police station Kadarchowk, District Badaun with the averments that marriage of his daughter Seema was solemnized with accused-Vinod before one and half year. He had given dowry as per his capacity. After marriage accused-Vinod and his family members demanding motorcycle, gold chain and ring as additional dowry and used to compel his daughter to bring the aforesaid articles. It is further averred that on 23.10.2012, appellant-Vinod and his family members had murdered his daughter, who is having injury marks on her neck and feet. It is also stated in written report that accused-Vinod himself informed him on phone that they have killed his daughter.

3. On the basis of above written report, a case crime No. 547 of 2012 was registered at Police Station Kadarchowk, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation was taken up by Circle Office, who visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses. 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-Vinod only, who is the husband of the deceased. Other accused named in the First Information Report were not charge-sheeted. Case being exclusively triable by the Court of session was committed to the Court of session for trial, hence, trial taken placed against accused-Vinod.

4. Learned Sessions Court framed the charges against accused-Vinod 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.

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

6. In support of oral evidence, prosecution submitted following documentary evidence, which was proved by leading oral evidence :

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), in which he denied his involvement in the crime and told that false evidence was led against him. The accused examined D.W-1 Ram Nath and D.W.-2 Satyapal in defence.

8. Heard Ms. Gunjan Sharma, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. Record has been perused.

9. Perusal of record shows that occurrence