recorded in Exhibits Ka-15 Ka-16, depicts altogether different incident than as alleged by prosecution and since theses documents have been got exhibited by the prosecution they can not be eschewed from consideration. It is further submitted that the appellant-husband, A3 had remained in jail continuously after the occurrence and, therefore, has served out practically entire sentence short of few days. It was also submitted that there was no evidence of demand of dowry soon before death and therefore charge U/S 304 B must fail. Wrapping up of the argument, it was submitted that both the appeals be allowed and convictions of the appellants be set aside.
Sri K.N. Bajpai, learned AGA on the contrary submitted that there was no occasion for the deceased to falsely implicate the appellants, dying declaration by the SDM is un-embellished and establish the charge of dowry demand and dowry death against A-2 and A-3, death had occurred within seven months of the marriage, deceased was hail and hearty and, therefore, there was no occasion for her to give a false declaration. It was also submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been rightly recorded and both the appeals, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments by both the sides and have summated the facts and evidences .
In this appeal some of the unchallenged facts are that the deceased was the wife of A3 and her marriage was solemnized with A3 on 25.1.2000. Inter-se relationship between appellants is also not in dispute. Date and time of death of the deceased is also not a bone of contention and therefore she lost her life within seven months of her marriage. Real bone of contention is regarding demand of dowry and causing of deceased murder because of non- fulfillment of the same. On the above issues when evidences of fact witnesses are crtically appreciated it is revealed that so far as P.W.-1 is concerned, he is not a very reliable witness. His cross examination indicates that he has prevaricated on all major facts and has consciously deposed irreconcilable statements. His statement regarding his relationship with the deceased, weather deceased was class 10th pass or fail, his ignorance regarding expenses in the marriage etc all are false statements. He had also not mentioned regarding demand of dowry of motorcycle in his FIR nor he had mentioned the same to the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Regarding payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellants one and half months prior to deceased death was also not divulged during Investigation to the I.O. His uncle (mausa) is a practicing advocate in Khurja, district G.B. Nagar, yet he did not sought his help in the matter. He had not informed the I.O. that he was allowed to meet the deceased when she was battling for her life in the ICU in Safdarjung Hospital. Although he claimed that he was allowed to meet the deceased in the ICU and has conversed with her and it was she who had disclosed the incident to him yet he had not mentioned demand of motor cycle and payment of ten thousand rupees in his FIR albeit he claims that he had scripted the FIR after being informed about the same from the deceased. Although residing in a joint family has denied that few months earlier to her death, deceased had a miscarriage and was got treated for the same by the appellants at Ghaziabad, although according to PW2 , deceased mother, said was a fact.
Record further reveals that so far as depositions of the parents of the deceased P.W.-2 Smt. Sharda Devi and P.W. 3 Budh Dev are concerned, they are also not wholly reliable witnesses. In their earliest statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by SDM at Delhi, P.W.3 Budh Dev father of the deceased had stated without any ambiguity in no uncertain terms that there was no demand of dowry, deceased and her husband A-3 were