JUDGMENT :

K.J. Thaker, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the state.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 05.03.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Bareilly in Session Trial No. 301 of 2001 (State v. Mohd. Azeem and others). All the appellants were charged for offences as defined under Section 304-B IPC and in addition and alternatively, the appellant Nos.3 & 4 were charged for commission of offence as defined in Section 302 IPC also. By the judgment & order dated 05.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Bareilly, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant nos.3 & 4 have also been convicted under Section 302 IPC but the punishment at the end except mentioning Section 302 IPC, the punishment of all appellants were convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant nos. 3 & 4 have been sentenced to life imprisonment whereas appellant nos. 2 & 3 have been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 18.07.2000 at about 8:00 p.m. sister of the informant was burnt to death after pouring kerosene oil and by being set ablaze by the accused. The accused persons fled away with injured Shakira (deceased) from Bareilly and, lastly, when he came to the hospital, where his sister was lying in a burnt up condition, none of family members from the side of her in-laws were present. The informant finally raised the inference about the commission of the act perpetrated by accused persons in furtherance of their common object of doing away the deceased. The victim also told the informant that the appellants had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil.

4. The accused were summoned and charges were framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on Mohmad Azeem and Mohmmad Idrris whereas all four accused were charged with commission of offence under Sections 302, 304-B IPC read with Section of I.P.C.. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The offences for which accused were charged were triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the accused-appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions.

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

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

7. Should a husband and brother-in-law always be held to have been guilty of demanding dowry and the punished even though there may not be any allegation leveled against them by the deceased wife in her dying declaration where husband was not present when incident occurred and took her to hospital to save her. The brother in-law's name nowhere figured in the dying declaration. A completely concocted story was made out by family members of deceased. This is a glaring case where there is not only miscarriage of justice, but there is overzeal of judge to see that the accused are punished. The learned Judge has devoted more than 80 pages when the matter could have been disposed of, in brevity on the basis of dying declaratio