The factual matrix of the case is as follows:The FIR of the instant case was lodged with police on 16.6.2005 at 14.15 P.M.while the incident took place on 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours.According to the FIR version the marriage of daughter of the informant Zeenat Perveen was solemnized on 27.12.2002 with Mohd. Rashid s/o Mohd. Kadar Kuraishi.According to the FIR, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but Mohd. Rashid husband of the deceased, Shakir Jeth, Mother-in-law Chhoti, Gulabo sister-in-law of the deceased, Shamshuddin brother-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.An additional demand of dowry was raised regarding Motor Cycle, Colour T.V.and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs.The informant and family members tried to convince them on the score of additional dowry but it had no effect.The deceased, daughter of the informant was ousted from the house on certain occasions.There was Community Reconciliation even it yielded no result.Approximately 15 to 20 days prior to the incident before the death of the deceased, filthy abuses were given to her and threat to her life was extended and she was ousted from the house.Thereafter on 14.6.2005 the accused persons visited the house of informant and assured that they would not make any demand of additional dowry in future nor would subject the deceased to cruelty or misbehaviour.Again they pressed their demand for additional dowry just second day when the daughter of the informant reached to her matrimonial home.On 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours, the informant received information that his daughter has been murdered by hanging.After receiving the information he along with his son and others visited the daughter's matrimonial home.The accused persons fled away from the spot after seeing the informant and others.The deceased was pregnant and was shortly expected to deliver a child.The corpus of the deceased daughter of the informant was lying there.The FIR was lodged.After registration of the FIR the investigation proceeded.Inquest was prepared and certain documentation was done for the purposes of post-mortem examination of the corpus of the deceased.A recovery memo was prepared with respect to articles recovered from the deceased.By way of additional statement he has stated that his wife was very short tempered.She wanted goad bharai rasam of her child at her parents' home which he declined.Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.(Per Raghvendra Kumar, J. )Under assail in the instant Criminal Appeal is the judgment and order dated 19.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Aligarh in S.T.No. 943 of 2005 ( State Vs.Rashid and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2005 under sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B I.P.C.and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for further imprisonment of one year and further convicted for the offence under section 498A I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation for simple imprisonment for one month.He has also been convicted for the offence under section 315 I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for two months.He has further been convicted for the offence under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to R.I.for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation with simple imprisonment for one month.Heard Dr. Arun Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Poonam Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.The post mortem of the body was done.After recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the evidence, the investigation culminated into filing of police report in the shape of charge sheet.After complying with the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned court below the accused Rashid s/o Kadar , Rashid s/o Nanhey, Shakir, Shamsuddin were charged for the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B and 315 I.P.C.read with ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.The accused persons denied the prosecution case, claimed themselves innocent and taken plea of false implication.To substantiate the charge the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Mohd. Hanif, P.W.2 Bhuri, P.W.3 Mohd. Chand, P.W.4 Abdul Salam, P.W.5 Abdul Wahid, P.W.6 Anwar, P.W.7 Constable Dhirendra Singh who has proved the execution of chick FIR and relevant entry in G.D.P.W.8 Dr. V.K.Gupta has conducted autopsy of the corpus of the deceased Zeenal Perveen and has noted following ante mortem injuries:-(i) Ligature mark 9 cm x 1 cm on Lt.side neck upper part .(ii) Multiple abrasion on Rt.side neck 8 cm x 3 cm in size.(iii) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on Lt. Side abdomen 17 cm below Left nipple.On internal examination, the Doctor has noted presence of blood out side of both the lungs, lungs were found congested.Trachea was not found fractured.There was presence of blood in abdominal cavity.100 ml of water was found in stomach.Spleen was found ruptured.There was triangular lacerated wound on the spleen.The deceased was having pregnancy of 8 ½ months.Cause of death has been assigned Asphyxia, shock & haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury.9. P.W.8 Dr. V.K.Gupta has proved the execution of autopsy report.The husband Mohd. Rashid has admitted marriage with Zeenat Perveen.He has denied rest of the allegations and has disclaimed the knowledge with respect to the material put to him which appeared during course of trial.He further stated that he went to purchase some items from the market and when he came back he found the deceased lying on the bed in unconscious condition.A Dhoti was found wrapped in her neck.He took her to the hospital where she was declared dead and she was taken back to the house and kept there.The rest of the accused persons also denied about material put to them which appeared during the course of the trial and also disclaimed knowledge.After conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant Rashid s/o Kadar was convicted and rest of the accused namely, Shakir, Rashid s/o Nanhey and Shamshuddin were acquitted.It has been submitted on behalf of the accused appellant that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and has submitted that the accused appellant is in jail and he prayed for mercy of the Court.Being Court of first appeal, the Court is obliged to scrutinize the evidence which is available on record and to see that the learned Court below has rightly recorded the finding of conviction on the basis of the material available on record.In the instant case, the P.W.1 Mohd. Hanif is father of the deceased whose daughter has been murdered by hanging by her neck.He has categorically stated that the marriage of his daughter Zeenat Perveen was solemnized with Mohd. Rashid son of Kadar about 3 years and 8 months back.He had given sufficient items in the dowry at the time of marriage of her daughter but the husband and his family members ,namely, Shakir, Chhoti, Gulabo, Shamshuddin and Rashid son of Nanhey were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.The accused persons allegedly assaulted his daughter on occasions after marriage and even they ousted her from the house.Additional demand of dowry for Colour T.V., Motor Cycle and a cash of Rs. Two lakhs was made on which the informant complainant tried to convince to the husband and in- laws of the daughter.There was a Community Reconciliation effort even in the presence of those members the demand of Motor cycle, Colour T.V. and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs was reiterated.They did not agree to the suggestion of the Panchayat.15 to 20 Days prior to the incident the daughter was physically assaulted, abused and was even ousted from the house due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.The deceased Zeenat Perveen residing with her parents for 10 - 12 days.Thereafter accused persons again took away the daughter of the informant to their house.On 16.6.2005, the informant received the message that his daughter was hanged and murdered by the accused persons.The witness P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had ligature mark in her neck.She was having pregnancy of 8 ½ months.He further stated that whenever the deceased came to her parents' house, she used to complain of conduct of the accused persons regarding demand of additional dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and misbehaviour on the score of dowry.Before appreciating the evidence, it is essential to appreciate the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. These ingredients are as under:Thus the appeal deserves to be partly allowed on the quantum of sentence.( Raghvendra Kumar, J.) (S.V.S.Rathore,J.)

Cited provisions: Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code