Garg, J. -- 1. The appellant Uma Verma and appellant Suresh Kumar have respectively filed Criminal Appeal No. 2177/2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 2699/2000 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.8.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 521/1999 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur convicting each of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to undergo R.I for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for four months and convicting the appellant Suresh under Section 498A IPC sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for four months, the substantive jail sentence to run concurrently, have filed this appeal.

2. The prosecution case as it appears from the written report is that deceased Mamta was married with appellant Suresh Kumar on 25.6.1995, since after marriage accused Suresh Kumar was cruelly treating the deceased, he was also demanding money from the deceased and her parents. As a result of the cruel treatment extended to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry she died an unnatural death. On basis of the fact the Court below levelled charges under Section 304B and Section 498A IPC, in the alternative under Section 302 IPC.

3. The first information report further says that on 5.7.1999 deceased Mamta had come to her parental house, on 6.7.1999 accused Suresh telephoned Mamta that some theft was committed at their house, therefore, she was to come back. It appears that Sharad (PW6) brother of deceased Mamta accompanied the deceased as he wanted to drop Mamta at her matrimonial house. According to the prosecution the moment Mamta entered the house, it was found that Uma Verma was sitting in the house, accused Suresh after picking up some quarrel gave one slap to the deceased. When PW6 Sharad wanted to intervene in the matter, the deceased Mamta asked him to go back. It has come on the record that a telephonic information was sent by Mannulal, Supervisor, VFJ Security to the Police Station at about 10.45 p.m. that Mamta wife of Suresh had died because of the extensive bums.

4. After receiving the information about the unnatural death the police agency came into action, the investigating officer came to the spot seized the body and sent the same for postmortem. He prepared certain panchanamas on the spot. Though the incident had taken place on 6.7.1999 Kattulal alias Fattulal (PW 1) lodged a written report on 8.7.1999 to the police that accused Suresh was ill-treating the deceased and making demand of dowry and he anticipated foul play in the death of the deceased. On that report further investigation was made, statement of the witnesses were recorded, charge-sheet on completion of the investigation was filed, the accused were subjected to trial and on conclusion of the same they were convicted and sentenced as referred to above.

5. Shri S.C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Uma Verma, after taking us through the statement of PW6 Sharad and his case diary statement Ex. D/3 submitted that PW6 Sharad in his case diary statement (Ex. D/3) did not inform the police that when he entered the house he had seen Uma Verma in the house. It is submitted by Shri Datt that from perusal of Ex. D/3 it would appear that according to Sharad he had seen some 'Maya Verma' Nurse in the house of the accused. It is submitted by him that from the records it does not appear that except the statement of Sharad there is any other evidence to connect appellant Maya Verma with the alleged incident.

6. Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned G.A. for the State, on the other hand submitted that from a further reading of Ex. D/3 it would appear that Suresh and Uma Verma were fleeing away from the back door and under the circumstances the statement of Sharad that Uma Verma was sitting in the house has to be accepted as a correct statement.

7. So far as EX.D/3 is concerned the Public Prosecutor did not bring