JUDGMENT

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vivek Gupta and Shri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Four accused persons, namely, Ram Naresh Prajapati, Smt. Bhulana, Smt. Kalawati and Ram Kumar Prajapati, were tried by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1993 : State v. Ram Naresh Prajapati and 3 others, arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 1992, under Sections 4 98A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur.

3. During pendency of the trial, co-accused, namely, Ram Naresh Prajapati, died and as such, his trial stood abated by the order of trial Court dated 30.11.1998.

4. Vide judgment and order dated 20.03.1999, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Sultanpur, convicted and sentenced three accused persons, namely, Smt. Bhulana, Smt. Kalawati and Ram Kumar Prajapati, in the manner as enumerated hereinbelow :-

"(i) Under section 304B I.P.C. to undergo 10 years' R.I.;

(ii) Under section 498A I.P.C. to undergo 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional one year's R.I.;

(iii) Under section 201 I.P.C. to undergo 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional six months' R.I.; and

(iv) Under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-.

All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently."

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.03.1999, convicts/appellants, Smt. Bhulana and Smt. Kalawati, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999, whereas convict/appellant, Ram Kumar Prajapati, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1999.

6. It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999, convict/appellant no.1-Smt. Bhulana died and as such Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999 stood abated on her behalf vide order dated 17.07.2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999 is only surviving on behalf of convict/appellant no.2-Smt. Kalawati.

7. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, this Court is proceeding to decide it by a common judgment.

8. As per the prosecution case, the niece of the complainant Sitaram (P.W.1), namely, Sursati Devi (deceased), aged about 22 years, got married with Ram Kumar, son of Ram Naresh Prajapati, five years ago in village Amha, Police Statin Chanda, District Sultanpur. After three years of marriage, her gauna took place. In the marriage, the parents of Sursati Devi (deceased) gave Rs.6000/- cash, two tolas of gold, 10 tolas of silver jewellry and kada etc. worth Rs.2000/-. It was agreed during marriage to give television, however, the same could not be given by the parents of the deceased Sursati. After gauna, when Sursati Devi (deceased) went to her in-laws' house, then, her father-in-law Ram Narain, her mother-in-law Smt. Bhulana, her husband Ram Kumar and her sister-in-law Kalawati started misbehaving with her and told her that it was promised by her parents that television would be given in vidai, however, the same has not been given and if she does not get television from her father, she would not be treated well and she will be sent to her parental home. After six month of gauna, Sursati (deceased) came to her maternal home, she told her mother (P.W.3-Smt. Durpati) that all the persons in her matrimonial home asked her that if her parents fail to give television, then, she would be killed. Again in thauna, vidai of Sursati (deceased) was made, however, after that she did not return from matrimonial home to her parents' house. It is further alleged that the family members of the deceased-Sursati went several times to her matrimonial home, however, they did not send her and they were told that