The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a thorough and unbiased appreciation of evidence, highlighting the importance of credibility and reliability in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Husband, mother and younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against their conviction under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/304-B IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and 3 years RI under Section 498-A of IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months RI respectively recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Biaora vide judgment dated 18.07.2012 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 154/2010.

2. Admittedly, Manju @ Nandini married Ritesh on 04.05.2008. After 1½ years of marriage on 29.11.2009 at about 11 forenoon, she sustained burn injuries at her marital home and was rushed to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. She was later shifted to LBS Hospital, Bhopal where during treatment she died on 09.12.2009.

3. After sustaining burn injuries, when she (deceased) was taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, her parents, brothers, sister and other relatives also reached their. Looking to her serious condition, she was shifted to LBS Hospital, Bhopal. Dr. Pradeep Billore of LBS Hospital, informed the police. On the request of police, Naib Tehsildar-Bajrang Bahadur (DW-1) recorded her dying declaration (Ex.D/5) on the same day i.e. 29.11.2009 at 16:05 hours. In her dying declaration, she stated that due to accidental fall of kerosene can kept above the gas stove, she caught fire and sustained injuries. On next day i.e. 30.11.2009 her second dying declaration Ex.P/21 was recorded at 22:25 hours. In this second dying declaration, she made allegation against the appellants that after pouring kerosene, her mother-in-law and ‘dewar’ set her ablaze. Parents, brothers, sister and other witnesses including one neighbour of the appellant Harpal Singh (PW-9) also made certain allegations that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of the appellants.

4. The information received from LBS Hospital was registered in Roznamcha Sanha No. 2309 (Ex.P/6). After receiving the information of death, Merg No. 01/09 under Section 174 was registered at Police Station-Shahajahanbad, Bhopal. Hair of the deceased received from the hospital were seized vide seizure memeo Ex.P/7. The police reached at the hospital, called the witnesses by issuing notice, prepared panchnama lash Ex.P/4 and requested doctors to perform postmortem and received its report and opinion Ex.P/14 and handed over the dead body to brother-in-law of the deceased Ashish in presence of father and brother of the deceased (Ex.P/5). As the incident was pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of police Kotwali, Rajgarh, all the papers were sent to the police Kotwali, Rajgarh.

5. At the same time, the police Kotwali, Rajgarh also received information of the incident from brother of the deceased. On the instruction of the SHO, this intimation was entered in roznamcha sanha No. 1587 at 23 hours dated 30.11.2009 (Ex.P/17) and the place of incident was sealed. After receiving papers from Police Station-Shahajahanabad, Merg No. 26/2009 (Ex.P/9) was registered at Police Kotwali, Rajgarh. The police visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/3. Several articles were seized vide Ex.P/2. The police also lifted chance finger prints and obtained specimen finger prints from the appellants (Ex.P/1). Both chance and specimen fingerprints and the articles seized during investigation were sent to the FSL, Sagar vide letter dated 10.06.2010 (Ex.P/10 and P/11). After analysis, finger print expert submitted its report (Ex.P/12). He opined that chance fingerprint found on the bottom of the kerosene can seized from the house of the appellant matched with the specimen fingerprint of Geetabai. The appellants were arrested vide memo of arrest Ex.P/18 to P/20. The police recorded statement of the witnesses and after completing investigation, filed charge-sheet.

6. The appellants were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated