Brief facts, just necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the deceased Smt. Farida Bi was the daughter of Usman (PW-01).About 3 years ago Farida Bi was married to accused Rafiq.Accused Ramjan and Rehmat Bi, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law 2 respectively of the deceased Farida Bi and the accused Hurmat Bi is the real sister of the accused Rafiq.About 2 years prior to the date of the alleged incident Usman (PW-01) left for Bhusawal to earn his livelihood.Till then he was living at Khandwa, the deceased Farida Bi was living happily.When Usman (PW-01) left for Bhusawal, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons, for or in connection with demand of dowry.On the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 14-02-1991 she had gone to house of her uncle Sattar (PW-06) and narrated him that her `Nanad' - Smt. Hurmat Bi was quarrelling with her.Thereafter, Sattar (PW-06) sent his wife - Smt. Maina Bi (PW-03) to the house of the accused persons.When she asked about the quarrel from the accused Smt. Hurmat Bi, she got infuriated and started abusing.She was saying that Farida Bu is a cunning woman and often used to quarrel, she would be taken back or else she would be killed.Thereafter, Smt. Maina Bi (PW-03) returned to her home.The accused Rafiq and his elder brother went to the house of Smt. Maina Bee (PW-03) and allegedly asked them that who had gone to his house, he would break their legs.At that time, Sattar (PW-06) told accused Rafiq that as per their capability they had given dowry.Why they are harassing the girl (Farida Bi).He also added, let her mother come in the evening, on her arrival they will discuss the matter.But, accused Rafiq was adamant and said that he will finish the dispute once for all.At about 03:30-04:00 P.M. father-in-law of the deceased accused- Ramjan called Sattar (PW-06).When Sattar reached there after 15 minutes, he found that Smt. Farida Bi was burnt to death.Someone informed the Police on telephone.On the basis of which `Rojnamcha Sanha' (Ex.P/3) was prepared and `Merg' (Ex.P/4) 3 was registered.Whenever, parents of the deceased used to come at her matrimonial home she told them that her sister-in-law, accused Smt. Hurmat Bi used to quarrel with her and used to taunt her for not bringing enough dowry.When Usman (PW-01) father of the deceased used to visit Khandwa she used to tell him about the harassment.Rs.500/- was given by Usman to Farida Bi, so that her in-laws should stop harassing her.Smt. Farida Bi gave this amount to the accused Rafiq.In-laws of the deceased were also threatening her and to leave the matrimonial home.After the death of Smt. Farida Bi, spot map (Ex.P/5) was prepared.The container of kerosene, match box, burnt clothes and soil with and without keresone, one `Sansi' made of iron were seized, vide Ex.P/6) from the spot.After drawing `Safina Form' (Ex.P/7) and `Panchnama' (Ex.P/8), the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination by Dr. Kaushal Kumar Lohani (PW-07) to District Hospital Khandwa.Autopsy of the dead-body of the deceased was conducted by Medical Officer Dr. Mahesh Kumar Patni (PW-04), who found the deceased 81% burnt and it was a third degree burn.( 18.01.2016) Per : Sushil Kumar Palo, J.:This appeal preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for brevity `CrPC'] is directed against the judgement, dated 20-08-1993, passed in S.T. No.196/1992 (State of M.P. vs. Rafiq and others) by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimad (Khandwa), District Khandwa, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `the IPC'].The death of the deceased was caused due to shock because of severe burn injuries.Postmortem report (Ex.P/2) was prepared.Seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, vide Ex.P/10 for examination.The accused persons were arrested.After due investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.10. Charges in respect of offence punishable under sections 304- B and 498-A, and in the alternative, 306 of IPC were framed against the accused persons.The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence recorded the finding of acquittal of the accused- respondents by the impugned judgment.Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State endeavoured to convince that the learned trial Court has erred in pronouncing the judgement of acquittal, on the ground that the death of the deceased has occurred within a span of 7 years from the date of solemnisation of her marriage.Father of the deceased has clearly stated about the demand of dowry.The postmortem report (Ex.P/2) reveals that the death was not natural.Thus, the learned Panel Lawyer contended that learned trial Court has committed grave error in not appreciating the evidence brought on record, especially the medical report.We have gone through the record and the contentions raised by the learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.It is not disputed that the deceased - Smt. Farida Bi died due to severe burn injuries and her marriage was solemnised with accused Rafiq 3-4 years prior to the date of the incident.Necessary ingredients to prove commission of the offence are lacking in the present case.The Medical Officer (PW-4) has denied the suggestion that the deceased died before she was burnt.He also opined that the hands of the deceased were severely burnt.This indicates that when a persons is caught with fire accidentally, he/she endeavours hard to save himself/herself.In the present case the deceased might have made best possible efforts when her hands came in contact with fire and got severely burnt.These witnesses are also close to Usman (PW-01) and, therefore, the learned trial Court has inferred them as interested witnesses.Delay in recording the statements and apparent inconsistencies therein, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.Therefore, the learned trial Judge did not find the statements of these prosecution witnesses creditworthy.Besides, Rabia Bi, an immediate neighbour of the accused persons, who was examined as a defence witness, in her statement has stated that the deceased narrated that no quarrel occurred at the place of her in-laws.The deceased - Smt. Farida Bi used to visit this witness repeatedly, but she never expressed about any quarrel for or in connection with demand of dowry.Rabia Bi did not say anything incriminating against the accused-respondents.Another neighbour Suleman (DW-01) has also deposed that the deceased - Smt. Farida Bi frequently used to visit his place, but she never expressed anything about demand of dowry, causing any cruelty or ill-treatment to her by her in-laws.He specifically stated that no cruelty was meted out to Farida Bi one day prior to the incident.He further stated that Smt. Farida was suffering from some unknown disease, for which she was being treated by a local 'Sailani Baba' by practicing 'Jhadphoonk' (witchcraft).She used to roam around spreading her hair without consciousness.

Relevant sections: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code