The dying declaration was the sole basis for conviction, and the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code was crucial in determining the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 25.07.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 279/2012 (State vs. Mritunjaya @ Tinku) Case Crime No. 275/2012 under Section 498-A, 304-B, 302/34, 323, 506, 326 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act, Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498-A I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 304-B I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 4 D.P. Act with default stipulation.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that Geeta Devi daughter of the informant Shyammilan was married to Tinku son of Ram Sahai on 13.6.2011 after giving gifts, dowry and other household articles as per his capacity. On 26.5.2012 Geeta Devi went to her marital house after marriage where family members of her husband started quarreling with her for dowry and also tendered threatening to her. After five days when informant alongwith his son and brother-in-law went to the marital house of his daughter, the family members of her husband did not permit to meet with his daughter and started demanding dowry. Anyhow when he met with his daughter, she informed about the maltreatment, cruelty committed by her in-laws and non providing of food to her and when the informant wanted to talk with the family members of his daughter, her husband became angry, her father-in-law started threatening that if Rs. 50,000/- and golden chain are not provided, they shall burn his daughter to death. On 12.6.2017 at about 11-12 P.M. the informant received the information that his daughter had been burnt by her in-laws. He came to District Hospital, Jaunpur and saw that his daughter was in serious condition.

3. Thereafter, he moved the written complaint Ex.Ka-1 whereupon F.I.R. Ex.Ka-2 was lodged and Kayami G.D. Ex.Ka-3, site plan Ex.Ka-6 & 7 were prepared and after recording the statement, charge-sheet Ex.Ka-8, under Section 498A, 323, 506, 326, 304 B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act was submitted by the I.O.

4. On 31.8.2012 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by C.J.M. Jaunpur, where on 7.12.2012 charges were framed in the aforesaid Sections alongwith Section 302/34 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and sought trial, hence, trial began and following witnesses were examined:

4.1 In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons under 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded who claimed to be innocent. They have further stated that on 12.6.2012 there was marriage ceremony of daughter of their neighbour namely Nand Lal where they had gone. There was a quarrel between the deceased-wife and her husband for living at Aurangabad and when they were busy in the marriage ceremony, at about 7:00 P.M., Kavita came out shouting that ‘Geeta Bhabhi got burnt’ they immediately came and extinguished fire and took the injured in the Car to Sadar Hospital Jaunpur for treatment. Neither any dowry was demanded nor sh