S. Awasthy, J. -- 1. The appellant No. 1 Basant Kumar and appellant No. 2 Meena Kumari have been convicted under section 306 IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while the appellant No. 2 Ladki Bai has been convicted under section 306, IPC and sentenced to ten years' simple imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No. 10/82, decided on 23.11.1984.

2. The prosecution case is that Smt. Ushabai was married to Basant Kumar four years prior to the date of incident. They had a son. The appellant No.2, Ladki Bai is the maternal grandmother of Basant Kumar while the appellant No.3 Meena Kumari is the sister of Basant Kumar. Appellant No.1 Basant Kumar had written some letters to his father-in-law which are Exs.P.1 and P.2 in this case. On 7.10.80 in between 12.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. Ushabai sustained burn injuries in the house of the appellant Basant Kumar. She later on died in Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, the same day. Ushabai had gone to her parent's about a month or two prior to the date of incident and had shown the injuries on her person to her pare9ts. She was sent back to her husband's house about 15 days, prior to the incident. Om Prakash Gupta (PW-6), Said Khan Police Constable (PW-7) and Udaiveer Singh Head Constable (PW-11) saw the deceased Ushabai burning. At that time, appellants Ladki Bai and Meena Kumari were also witnessing Ushabai in fire. It is also suggested that some cloth to extinguish the fire was demanded by them, but they declined to give. She was rushed to the Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal where she breathed her last. Appellant Basant, Kumar wrote Ex.P.2 a letter to his father-in-law Jagannath (PW-1). Dr. Heeresh Chand (PW-12) conducted the post-mortem (Ex.P.5) and opined that Ushabai did not die because of some accident, but the matter required investigation. First information report (Ex.P.11) dated 28.1.81 was recorded by B.S. Dube.

3. There is no direct evidence for holding that Ushabai committed suicide as the incident had taken place inside the, house of the appellants and no other person was present in the house. The defence of the appellants is that she caught fire while preparing tea on a kerosene stove. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav (DW-1), Dr. A.K. Dube (DW-2) have been examined to prove that she caught fire because of an accident while preparing tea on the kerosene stove. No such stove has been produced in the Court to substantiate the said plea in defence. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav (DW-1) merely proves that late Ushabai had stated to him that she caught fire from the stove and Dr. A.K. Dube (DW-2) also states the same fact. She was burnt 90% when she came before him. She was in a shock and not in a position to speak. Ex.D.3 was written by him on consultation of those who were attending on her in the hospital. Thus, it is clear that she did not give any dying declaration, as alleged by Dr. A.K. Dube (DW-2). It is rightly held that she was not in a position to give any statement to Dr. Dube (DW-2). The learned trial Judge has disbelieved the statement of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav (DW-1) and discussed his evidence in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of his judgment. The learned trial Judge in paragraphs 20 and 21 of his judgment has held as to why the theory of accident propounded by the accused-appellants is unreliable. I do not repeat the reasoning, but suffice to say that the trial Judge has reached to the correct conclusion on the reasons given in those paragraphs.

4. The trial Court has relied the following circumstances for holding the appellants guilty:

The appellants used to beat Ushabai and harass her as mentioned in paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of the judgment. Even on the date of incident Ushabai was assaulted by her husband, as per PW-9 she was seen burning by Om Prakash Gupta (PW-6) and Said Khan Police Constable (PW-7). A circumstance that a cloth was demanded from the appellants 2 and 3 which they declined to give is also believed to be a circumstance against t