JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Both these appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 17.1.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.713 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the appellants in both the appeals under Section 302 read with Section34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P. Code') for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- each and, in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the deceased was set ablaze by the appellants on 20.11.2014 at the house which was sold by the appellants to the deceased but possession was not given to the deceased. So as to settle the dispute deceased was called by the appellants. The appellants set ablaze the deceased as a result of which she was severely burnt and died in the hospital on 28.11.2014 namely after about eight days during treatment. A complaint to that effect was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No.595 of 2014 against the accused-appellants. Dying Declaration of the deceased was recorded in the hospital on the very same day of incident.

4. Investigation was moved into motion and after recording statements of various persons, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against Raja and Jeetu (both accused) to the competent court.

5. The accused were facing charges which were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

6. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried, hence, the trial started and the prosecution examined about 9 witnesses who are as follows:

In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

7. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement 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 appellants as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the decisions in Maniben v. State of Gujarat , 2009 Law Suit (SC) 1380 , Bengai Mandal @ Begai Mandal v. State of Bihar , 2010 (1) Supreme 49 , Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2010 Law Suit (SC) 843 , and the decisions of this High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2010 (Smt. Rama Devi alias Ramakanti v. State of U.P.) decid