Point of Law : Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present criminal appeal challenges judgment and order dated 05.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, District Firozabad in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2006 (State vs Hasmuddin) in connection with Case Crime No. 26 of 2006, Police Station-Ramgarh, District Firozabad, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant, Hasmuddin for commission of offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, under Section 498-A to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-in default of payment of fine further one year’s additional imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the accused-appellant was married to the deceased three and half month prior to the incident with Muslim rites and rituals and also gave one motorcycle and some house hold articles to the appellant as dowry. The In-laws were demanding rupees one lakh for bangles business. The deceased was done to death by setting her ablazed by pouring kerosene oil by her-in-laws in connection with non-fulfillment of rupees one lakh of demand of dowry. She was admitted in the hospital and her dying declaration was recorded in which she has specifically made allegation against the In-laws. During the treatment informant's daughter succumbed to her injuries.

4. On the basis of F.I.R., the investigation started and charge-sheet was laid. 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. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

6. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 14 witnesses who are as follows:

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

8. 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.

9. It is an admitted position of fact that death occurred due to setting ablaze of the deceased. There are two dying declarations however while going through the record, it is clear that the appellant is the author of the incident and therefore after arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the appellant requested this Court to consider the sentence of the accused as he has been convicted under Section 304B IPC for life and septicaemial death is occurred after two and half month of medical treatment of the deceased.

10. The first dying declaration dated 22.02.2006 implicates the accused and the