Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vikas And Ors. vs Versus State Of Rajasthan on 18 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)WLC461, 2000(2)WLN558
Author: N.N. Mathur
Bench: N.N. Mathur
JUDGMENT N.N. Mathur, J.
1. Five accused persons namely, Vikas, Shripat Mst. Sohan Bai, Mst. Jyoti and Smt. Yojana @ Dalda were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 130/96 on the charge of the murder and dowry death of Mst. Neeta w/o Vikas. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 1.8.1997 convicted the first appellant Vikas for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment 'to further undergo three months' imprisonment. All the five accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under Section 302/120B IPC. However, the first appellant Vikas, second appellant Shripat and third appellant Mst. Sohan Bai have also been convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC. Each of them have bee sentenced to 10 years' R.I. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' imprisonment. Mst. Jyoti and Mst. Yojana @ Dalda have been acquitted for the offence under Section 304B and 498-A IPC. First appellant Vikas has also been convicted for offence under Section 364 IPC and has been sentenced to two years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the case as disclosed during the trial are as follows:
The first appellant Vikas was married to deceased Mst. Neeta on 10th March, 1988. The second appellant Shripat and third appellant Mst. Sohan Bai are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased Mst. Neeta. It is alleged that the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry brought by Smt. Neeta. Therefore, she was being ill-treated and tortured. She gave birth to a female child at her parents house. The husband and the in-laws kept the female child with them and turn her out from the house. However, Vikas used to visit Mst. Neeta with her baby. They also used to go out with the baby. It is alleged that on 28th June, 1990 at about 7 p.m. when Mst. Neeta was at the residence of P.W. 3 Smt. Kamala Bai, accused Vikas went there and as usual they went out on a motor bike. On the next day morning when P.W. 10 Sanjay went to the house of Vikas for delivery of medicines for Mst. Neeta, he was told that she was not in the house. A search was made, but it did not yield anything, and therefore, a F.I.R. Ex. P/4 was lodged by P.W. 9 Narendra Lal at Police Station, Banswara. The police registered a case for offences under Sections 498A, 364, 302, 302/120B and 304B/120 IPC. Accused Vikas was arrested on 1st July, 1990 vide Ex. P/40. In pursuance of the information given by him, the dead body of Mst. Neeta was recovered from the river Mahi. The police prepared the inquest and send the dead body for post mortem. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the five accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. Accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 19 witnesses and produced certain documents. The accused persons in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Six witnesses were examined by the defence. The trial court analysing the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed above.
4. We have heard Mr. B.N. Calla, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have scanned the prosecution evidence carefully.
5. P.W. 14 Dr. Vijay Kumar stated that for autopsy of the dead body of Mst. Neeta, a Board was constituted and he was one of the members of the same. He has proved the Post Mortem Report Ex. P/8. He has also stated that the dead body was decomposed and there was wrinkling of skin. The Board found that the neck of the deceased was freely mobile and there was a fracture of 7th cervical vertebra. The Board also found spinal cord and membrane turned up at the level of 7th cervical vertebra. In the opinion of the Board, Mst. Neeta died due to severe injury to cervical region and inhalation of water due to drowning.
The accused Vikas on the spot identified the dead body. The body was also identified by P.W. 7 Bhagwati Lal and P.W. 9 Narendra Lal. Thus, it is established that Mst. Neeta died of homicidal death.
6. It is contended by Mr. B.N. Calla, learned Counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304B and 498-A is not sustainable as there is no evidence that soon before the death, Mst. Neeta was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband or his relatives. It is also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in that regard is of general nature. The prosecution has not led convincing evidence to establish that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, . He has also referred to number of decisions of the single Bench of this Court.
On analysis, following are the ingredients of Section 304B IPC:
(1) When the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury.
(2) occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(3) and the aforesaid two facts sprints within 7 years of girl's marriage;
(4) and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative; and (5) this is in connection with the demand of dowry.
7. In the instant case, the prosecution has established that Mst. Neeta died of unnatural death and the death was within the period of 7 years of marriage. The only question which requires for consideration is 'whether she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death and whether the same was for or in connection with the demand of dowry. In this connection, the prosecution has produced P.W. 2 Ramesh Chandra, P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai, P.W. 7 Bhagwati Lal, P.W. 9 Narendra Lal and P.W. 12 Mst. Hetkanwar.
8. P.W. 12 Het Kanwar has stated that her daughter Mst. Neeta was married to accused Vikas. After 7 days of the marriage, Sohan Bai, Jyoti, Dalda, Vikas and Shripat turned out her daughter from the house saying that she has not brought sufficient dowry. Her daughter stayed in her house for about one and half month. Thereafter, her husband, P.W. 9 Narendra, P.W. 7 Bhagwati Lal and P.W. 5 Ramesh took her to her in-laws house. She was again sent back to her house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan saying that, ^^rsjs eka cki us D;k fn;k gS^^ Her elder brother-in-law again took Mst. Neeta and left her in-laws house after 15 days. After 8 days she was again turned out from the house by accused Vikas saying that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, her parents had given him only Rs. 200/-. Her daughter Mst. Neeta returned to the house. She disclosed that she was being beaten by her husband Vikas, both the sisters-in-law Jyoti and Dalda. Thereafter, they went to the house of the in-laws of Neeta to leave her, but they did not accept her. On the occasion of Deepawali, accused Vikas made a demand of golden ring. They could arrange one ring. They had also given certain sarees for the mother-in-law of Mst. Neeta. Thereafter, Mst. Neeta gave birth to a female child. The delivery took place at her parents residence. After delivery, accused Mst. Sohan Bai made a demand of silver Kadas, five pairs of silver Toriya and clothes for the female child. That demand was made by them. Certain clothes were given, but they were not liked by the mother-in-law. After Holi, Mst. Neeta went to her in-laws house but she was again turned out after 15 days. She has also stated that all the accused persons used to beat Mst. Neeta and then turned out from the house. She has also given some instances of torture to Mst. Neeta by the accused persons. They kept the child with them and again turned out Mst. Neeta from the house.
9. P.W. 9 Narendra Lal has stated that her daughter Mst. Neeta was married to accused Vikas. To satisfy the demand, lot of ornaments were given to the accused persons at the time of the betrothal ceremony. They have also made demand of dowry at the time of marriage. After 5-7 days, a issue was raised with respect to the clothes given to the daughter of accused's sister. Mst. Neeta was tortured on the said issue. They purchased the saree of Rs. 800/- and gave to the in-laws of Mst. Neeta to satisfy their demand. They again raised a demand of the stitching charges of the clothes. A sum of Rs. 800/- was paid against the stitching charges. A sum of Rs. 200/- was given on the occasion of Rakhi. Accused Vikas made a demand of ring, which was also made. Thereafter, her daughter Mst. Neeta became pregnant and as such it was not possible for her to take up domestic work. The accused persons used to torture her. They used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. The food was also not given to her. She was being beaten by the accused persons. After Deepawali, he alongwith his brothers went to leave Mst. Neeta to the house of the accused persons. They gave them Rs. 500/- on the occasion of Deepawali. They raised demand of T.V. and fan. He has also stated that Mst. Neeta was harassed and tortured by the accused persons. In the month of January, she delivered a female child. On the occasion of Holi, they made a demand of golden chain. He also stated that the accused persons kept with them the baby of Mst. Neeta and turned her out from the house.
10. P.W. 7 Bhagwati Lal has stated that Mst. Neeta, daughter of his younger brother P.W. 9 Narendra Lal was married to accused Vikas on 10th March, 1988. Four days after the marriage of Mst. Neeta, Dalda made a demand of Saree from Mst. Neta, which was made by Narendra Lal. On the occasion of Rakhi, a sum of Rs. 200/- was given. Accused Vikas made a demand of golden ring, which was also made. She was turned out from the house before Deepawali. Accused Vikas made a demand of T.V. and fan, which Narendra Lal could not arrange, and therefore, Mst. Neeta was turned out from the house. He has stated that he alongwith his two brothers namely P.W. 9 Narendra Lal and P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra went to the house of in-laws of Mst. Neeta and left her there. However, she was again turned out from the house as Narendra Lal could not meet their demand. Mst. Neeta delivered a female child at the house of Narendra Lal. When Mst. Neeta was turned out from the house, the female child was about 3-4 months. He has stated that he alongwith his brothers again went to the house of Shripat and tried to make him understand. However, Shripat was not agreeable to anything. He has also stated that because Narendra Lal could not meet with the demand of dowry, there was lot of quarrel in the family. About a month prior to the death of Mst. Neeta, accused Shripat came to him and reported that Mst. Neeta use to quarrel with his daughter Jyoti. He inquired from Mst. Neeta about the said incident and she told him that accused Jyoti does not allow her to enter in the kitchen from the day of marriage. He also disclosed that once his daughter had entered in the kitchen and on that Jyoti slapped her. Her daughter was also assaulted by accused Vikas. He has also stated that Shripat became annoyed and abused him and threatened that they will not get a single piece of bone,of his daughter. He narrated the entire incident to the other members of the family. He has also given some instances of the torture of Mst. Neeta at the hands of her husband and in-laws.
11. P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra has stated that the marriage of Mst. Neeta, daughter of his elder brother Narendra Lal took place in the year 1988 with accused Vikas. He has also stated that just after the marriage, Shripat, Vikas, both the sister in laws and the mother-in-law of Mst. Neeta used to harass her. The accused persons used to make demand from his brother from time to time. They made demand for golden ring, T.V. etc.
12. P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai has stated that Mst. Neeta, daughter of her brother Narendra Lal was married to Vikas. The in-law of Mst. Neeta, namely, Shripat Lal, father-in-law, Mst. Kamla Bai, mother-in-law, Vikas-husband, sister-in-laws Jyoti and Dalda used to torture her. They were not providing even food to her. Mst. Neeta had wept before her many times and narrated the treatment given to her by her in-laws. They used to make demand for dowry. Mst. Neeta was turned out from the house by the in-laws on many occasions.
13. P.W. 2 Ramesh Chandra, a Principal of the Higher Secondary School has stated that Mst. Neeta was married to Vikas in the year 1988. She had given birth to a female child. Bhagwati Lal used to tell him about the ill-treatment given to Neeta by her in-laws. The reason of torture was not satisfying the dowry demand. He once went to Shripat alongwith Bhagwati Lal and tried to make him understand that he should not harass Mst. Neeta. He also told him that it was not fair to separate a mother from the child. He has also stated that the grievance of Shripat was that deceased Mst. Neeta was not knowing stitching work.
14. From the statement of the aforesaid witnesses, it does not appear that Mst. Neeta left the house of the in-laws 15 days after the death. This may be April. She died of un-natural death in August. Thus, though there is evidence of cruelty and harassment by the husband and his relatives but not soon before her death. Appellant used to visit deceased with their baby, but there is no allegation of harassment during this period. Thus, in absence of evidence of cruelty and harassment soon before the death, which is the one of the ingredient of Section 304B IPC, the conviction of the appellants for the said offence is not sustainable. However, there is a consistent evidence that Mst. Neeta was subjected to cruelty. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of aforesaid witnesses. In view of this, the conviction of the three appellants u/s 498A does not call for any interference.
15. Dealing with the charge of murder, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstantial witnesses:
(1) that Mst. Neeta was last seen in the company of accused Vikas.
(2) the recovery of the dead body of Mst. Neeta at the instance of accused Vikas.
(3) the recovery of ornaments of Mst. Neeta wearing at the time of last seen recovered from the possession of accused Vikas.
(a) Last Seen in the Company of Accused Vikas As regards last seen, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Pankaj, P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai, P.W. 4 Rohit and P.W. 12 Mst. Het Kanwar.
P.W. 3 Mst. Kamala Bai has stated that Mst. Neeta was turned out by the in-laws from the house. She was staying at her father's house. She gave birth to a child. She used to often visit her. She came alongwith her mother to her house. Her mother went to pay condolence on the death of Jitendra Lal leaving Mst. Neeta at her house. At about 6-7 p.m. accused Vikas came to her house on a motor-bike. The daughter of accused Vikas was sitting on the motor-bike. On his calling Mst. Neeta went to him. Neeta returned and told her that her husband is taking her. Thereafter, Mst. Neeta, her husband Vikas and the baby proceeded towards Mahalaxmi Chowk on the motor-bike. After some time, the mother of Mst. Neeta arrived, whom she informed of the fact that Mst. Neeta going with her husband. On the next day at about 8-9 a.m. when the brother of Mst. Neeta went to her in-laws house for delivery of medicines, her daughter was there but Mst. Neeta was not available. Thereafter, number of people had assembled at the house of his brother, which included Shripat also. She told Shripat that his son had taken Mst. Neeta but this fact was denied by Shripat. After 3-4 days accused Vikas showed the dead body of Mst. Neeta near the Geman bridge.
P.W. 12 Mst. Het Kanwar has stated that when his daughter Mst. Neeta was at her residence, accused Vikas used to visit her. Mostly, he used to visit in the evening. They used to go for walking alongwith their daughter. On returned, he used to leave Mst. Neeta at her residence. On the date of incident, she had left Mst. Neeta at the residence of her sister-in-law P.W. 3 Kamla Bai. While returning after paying condolence on the death of Jitendra Lal, in the way she had seen accused Vikas and his daughter alongwith the baby going on the motor cycle.
P.W. 4 Rohit has stated that his maternal uncle Narendra Lal's daughter was married to accused Vikas. On the date of incident at about 6.30 p.m. he was sitting at the house of his grand mother Mst. Kamla Bai. At that time accused Vikas arrived on a motor-bike. His baby was sitting on the motor-bike. He called Mst. Neeta by giving a signal. Mst. Neeta returned after talking to him for about 3-4 minutes. She told to her grand mother that she is going with her husband. Thereafter, accused Vikas took Mst. Neeta and the baby on the motor-bike. Thereafter, they heard about the death of Mst. Neeta.
P.W. 1 Pankaj Kumar admitted on being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor that on 28th June, 1990 at about 7 p.m. he has seen accused Vikas taking his wife and daughter on a motor-bike. He has also stated that on the next day, he disclosed this fact to Narendra Lal.
P.W. 10 Sanjeev has stated that his sister Mst. Neeta was married with accused Vikas on 10th March, 1988. He has also stated that accused Vikas has taken his sister P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai. On that night, his sister Mst. Neeta did not returned. On the next day his parents sent him to the house of accused Vikas for the delivery of medicines for Mst. Neeta. At that time, accused Vikas was sitting on the shop. When he wanted to give medicines to accused Vikas, he refused to accept saying that Mst. Neeta is not at the residence. Accused Vikas also stated that he had not brought his sister Neeta. He returned to the house and disclosed this fact to his father. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his sister Mst. Neeta had gone to the house of Mst. Kamla on the last evening at about 7 p.m. He has also stated that she had gone to the house of Mst. Kamla alongwith him mother Mst. Het Kanwar. His mother returned at about 9 p.m. He denied the suggestion that alongwith his mother, his sister Mst. Neeta had also returned. He has also stated that he got the information from his mother Het Kanwar hat Mst. Neeta had gone with Vikas from the house of Mst. Kamla.
On close scrutiny of the evidence of all the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, we do not find any reason to dis-believe them on the point of last seen. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses to dis-credit their testimony. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the evidence of last seen firmly against the accused appellant Vikas.
(b) Recovery of Dead Body at the Instance of Accused Vikas:
Accused Vikas was arrested on 1st July, 1990 Vide Ex. P/40. While in custody, he made a disclosure statement vide Ex. P/18 before P.W. 8 Narendra Mohan to the effect that he can point out the place from where Mst. Neeta was pushed in the river. In pursuance of the said information, the police recovered the dead body of Mst. Neeta from the Mahi river vide Ex. P/90.
P.W. 18 Narendra Mohan Sharma, Dy. S.P., Banswara has stated that after recording the disclosure statement of the accused Vikas vide Ex. P/18, they went to the 3 Geman bridge alongwith the accused Vikas. Accused Vikas lead the police party.to the Geman bridge. He pointed out the place from where he had pushed Mst. Neeta in the river. They found the dead body of Mst. Neeta at a distance of one kilometer from the Geman bridge on the northern side on the bank of the river. Accused Vikas admitted the dead body that of his wife. The autopsy of the dead body conducted on the spot by the Medical Board. According to the Post Mortem Report Ex. P/8, there was fracture of 7th cervical vertebra of the deceased Mst. Neeta. In the opinion of the Medical Board, she died due to severe injury to cervical region and inhalation of water due to drowning. Therefore, the recovery stands corroborated by the medical evidence in as much as that when on being pushed from the bridge, 7th cervical vertebra must have been fractured and thereafter, she must have died on account of drowning. At this stage, it is contended by the learned Counsel that river Mahi is a large river and until the accused did point out the exact place from where the dead body was taken out of the water, the information Ex. P/18 cannot be connected with the recovery of the dead body.
To deal with the contention, the decision of the Privy Council in Kottaya v. Emperor, reported in AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 67, which is a Division Bench decision on the point can be usefully referred, particularly to a passage, which reads as under:
In their Lordships' view it is fallacious to treat the fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact.
Thus, it is not necessary that Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be brought in to operation only when some object is discovered, because it mentions about a disclosure of any fact and not of the object. The words of Section 27 simply shows that when evidence is led that any accused was in custody of the police and he has given information, in consequence whereof some fact is discovered, then that portion of the information which relates distinctly to that fact, thereby discovered can be proved. Therefore, what has to be seen is whether disclosure is in consequence of the information. There is nothing in Section 27 that only that disclosure shall be admissible, which is made at the pointing of the accused. The accused may given some information and the police officer thereafter may discover the object, of which he has no previous knowledge, then though there has been no pointing by the accused, but it shall be said that disclosure took place in consequence of the information given by the accused. Thus, in the instant case, the accused has pointed out the place from where the deceased Mst. Neeta was thrown in the river. The police had no previous knowledge that the dead body of Mst. Neeta was in the river Mahi at what place, but the dead body of Mst. Neeta was recovered as consequence of information given by the accused. Thus, in our view, the information given by the accused under Ex. P/18 is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also well settled law by the catina of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that the expression fact discovered' under Section 27 of the Evidence Act includes not only the physical object produced but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused. A reference may also be made in this respect to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, reported in 1999 Cr. L.J. page 2025. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the recovery of the dead body of Mst. Neeta has been made in pursuance of the information given by the accused-appellant Vikas.
(C) Recovery of Ornaments of MST. Neeta Wearing at the Time of Last Seen Recovered From the Possession of Accused Vikas:
In pursuance of the information (Ex. P/20), the ornaments namely golden chain, earing, three golden rings were recovered vide Ex. P/3. The test identification of the ornaments was arranged in the presence of P.W. 11 Vijay Kumar, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. He has stated that on the request of the police, the identification of the ornaments was arranged on 18.8.1990 in his presence. He has proved the Identification Memo Ex. P/1. He has also stated that he had followed the entire procedure for arranging the test identification of articles.
P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai has identified the golden chain that to be of Mst. Neeta. She has stated that Mst. Neeta was bearing the golden chain (article 1) at the time she had left with accused Vikas on the motor-bike. There is no cross-examination on this point. She has also identified Article 2, a pair of earrings that to be of Mst. Neeta, but she has stated that she was not wearing those earrings at the time when she left with accused Vikas. She has also identified the golden rings. Article 4 and Article 5 that to be of Mst. Neeta. She has also identified Article 7 silver Paijab. There is some substance in the contention of Mr. Calla that there is nothing unusual in presence of ornaments of a wife in the house of her husband. However, as far as golden chain is concerned, Mst. Kamla Bai has categorically stated that Mst. Neeta was wearing the said golden chain when she left with accused Vikas on the motor-bike. It is significant to notice that the said golden chain was not found on the dead body as is evident from Ex. P/2 Panchnama. Thus, in our opinion, the recovery of the golden chain is an incriminating circumstance pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing firmly the recovery of the golden chain in pursuance of the information of the accused appellant Vikas pointing towards his guilt.
16. There is another important circumstance against the accused that he did not report to anybody about the missing of his wife. There is evidence of P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai and other witnesses that the accused Vikas took Mst. Neeta from the house of P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai. On the next day when P.W. 10 Sanjeev went to the house of accused Vikas, he simply denied saying that Mst. Neeta was not at his residence. He made a false statement to the extent that he has not seen Mst. Neeta for last four days. This is an important incriminating circumstance against the accused Vikas. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid incriminating circumstance together i.e. last seen, recovery of dead body at the instance of accused Vikas, the recovery of golden chain from the possession of the accused and the conduct of the accused in not informing anybody about the disappearance of his wife Mst. Neeta, completes a chain of circumstances, leading to the conclusion that it was the accused Vikas, who has committed the murder of Mst. Neeta. The distance between the Geman bridge and the Banswara town as appears from the evidence is 17-18 kms., and it is lonely side. Mst. Neeta alone could not have travelled to such a distance. Thus, in the facts of the case, there can be no hypothesis but of the guilt of the appellant Vikas.
17. As regards the conviction of the appellant Vikas for offence u/s 364 IPC is concerned, in our opinion, the conviction is not sustainable as even according to the prosecution Mst. Neeta was not taken against her will from the house of P.W. 3 Mst. Kamla Bai. It is also not in dispute that Mst. Neeta was above 18 years of age. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant Vikas under Sec, 364 is not sustainable.
18. The defence evidence is to the effect that appellant did made demand of dowry and harassed Mst. Neeta. It is not necessary to discuss here the evidence of the defence witnesses as we have already acquitted all the accused persons for the offence under Section 304B IPC. As far as cruelty part is concerned, in view of the positive statement of the prosecution witnesses, we do not prefer the statement of the defence witnesses. As far as the charge on murder against accused Vikas is concerned, the defence has not led evidence in that regard.
19. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed and ordered as follows:
(1) conviction of the appellant Vikas for offence u/s 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life is maintained.
(2) conviction of the appellants Vikas, Shripat and Sohan Bai forthe offence u/s 498A IPC is maintained. However, the sentences awarded to them is reduced to the period they have already undergone.
(3) conviction of the accused-appellants Vikas, Shripat and Sohan Bai for offence u/s 304B IPC is set aside and they are acquitted.
(4) conviction of the accused appellant Vikas for offence under Section 364 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge.
(5) accused-appellant Vikas is in jail: He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
(6) accused-appellants Shripat and Mst. Sohan Bai are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.