The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the dying declaration, the determination of the nature of the offense, and the application of the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present criminal appeal challenges judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No.27 of 2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants, Naresh & Smt. Rajjan for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo two year simple imprisonment.

2. Accused-appellant, Naresh, is in jail since 31.10.2013 and Smt. Rajjan is in jail since 26.10.2017.

3. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the mother of the deceased lodges an F.I.R. on 20.10.2013 at about 9.30 a.m. against the accused-appellants and two other family members which is registered as Case Crime No.940 of 2013 under Sections 498A & 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Maudaha, District Hamirpur. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the daughter of the informant namely Rinki was married with accused appellant No.1, Naresh, two years' ago and the in-laws were given sufficient dowry but after two years of marriage the appellants and other co-accused persons started demanding Rupees Two Lakhs as additional dowry and in the course of said demand on 16.10.2013 they set her daughter ablaze by pouring kerosene oil. She was admitted in the Hospital by the neighbors. During treatment, the deceased breathed her last on 4.11.2013 due to septicemic shock.

5. On investigation being put into motion, the investigating officer recorded the statements of all the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet to the learned Magistrate against accused Naresh, Ramadheen and Smt. Rajjan under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. 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 has framed the charges against the above accused under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and additional charge under Section 302 of IPC.

7. On being summoned, the accused-persons pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

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

9. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved:

10. At the end of the trial and after recording the statements 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 accused-appellants as mentioned above.

11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident occurred on the spur of moment and the accused had not premeditated to do away with the deceased and the death was after couple of days. The cause of death according to doctor who conducted the postmortem of deceased was septicemia.

12. It is further submitted that conviction under Section 302 IPC is not made out as no overt act as per Section 300 IPC is made out. In alternative, it is submitted that at the most, the death can be homicidal death not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 I