JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 3.2.2016 in S.T. No. 34 of 2012, Crime No. 440 of 2011 under Section 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act, Police Station- Banda, District- Shahjahanpur and S.T. No. 216 of 2013 (State Vs. Shivkumar Tripathi and Others). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. VII, Shahjahanpur, has convicted the accused-husband for commission of offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment, under Section 498-A for three years imprisonment and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for two years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. In connected S.T. the accused Sujeet Tripathi, Shivkumar Tripathi, Smt. Bineshwari and Asha Tripathi have been convicted under Section 304- B for seven years each, under Section 498-A I.P.C. for two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/ each, with default stipulation. It was also directed that out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 75,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the father of the informant and deceased under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

3. Grounds of appeal:

The appellants in both the appeals have taken grounds that the conviction of the appellants is against the weight of evidence on record and is bad in law; on the facts and circumstance, no offence is proved against the appellant; the order passed by the trial Court dated 3.2.2016 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed by this Court; the trial Court has erred in law in convicting the appellants without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidence adduced by the prosecution are contrary to each other; the impugned judgment and order has been passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner; the impugned judgment and order has been passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner; that in any case on the basis of the record of the case, the appellants are liable to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed as the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt; and that the sentence and fine awarded is too excessive and severe.

4. In brief, facts of the case are that informant Km. Pooja Vajpayee moved a written complaint Ex.Ka-1 on 23.8.2022 that her sister Smt. Vandana Vajpayee (deceased) was married to Puneet Tripathi about two years ago. Her parents had given dowry as per their capacity in the marriage but accused persons were not satisfied and were demanding a Wagon R Car. When the aforesaid demand could not be fulfilled, they started beating and torturing her sister. Her sister was posted as a Primary Teacher in Banda District Shahjahanpur and used to live in a rented house of one Anil Jaiswal with her son namely Achintya aged about one and half year. Her mother Smt. Shashi Vajpayee was also living with Vandana. On 22.08.2011 at about 10:30 AM, accused Puneet and his family members came to the house of Vandana and at about 4:00 P.M. ousted her mother from the house saying that they did not provide the Car, today, you taste the fun. Her mother remained at the house of landlord and at about 7:00 PM on hearing her daughter's screaming, she went there and saw that Puneet and his family members had caught the deceased and administered some material from a bottle to her. After drinking, Vandana started vomiting, all the accused persons after administering poison, fled away. Her father was keeping ill much before the incident. Puneet and his family members used to threaten that if Car was not provided, they would kill Vandana and also that Pun