ANNAPURNAversusSTATE OF U.P.

                        [2013] 2 S.C.R. 870


A                          ANNAPURNA
                                 v.
                          STATE OF U.P.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2008)
                          APRIL 17, 2013
B
         [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                   IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Death of 22 year old married
C  woman within 2 months of marriage due to bum injuries -
   Dying declaration given by the victim alleging that she was
   subjected to cruelty for dowry and that her mother-in-law
   (appellant) sprinkled kerosene oil on her and burnt her -
 · Conviction of appellant u/s. 302 alongwith life imprisonment - ·
D Held: The victim got injured in her in-laws house while the
   appellant was present - In her dying declaration, the victim had
   disclosed that her sister-in-law was also present there but did
   not make any allegation, whatsoever, against her - Thus, the
   veracity of her dying declaration cannot be doubted and there
E is no cogent reason to interfere with the conviction of the
   appellant - However, the appellant has already served 14
   years and 6 months of imprisonment in jail and her case has
   not been considered by the State for premature release ul
   s.432 CrPC - Authorities concerned to consider the case of
F the appellant for premature release strictly in accordance with
   law - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 1138 - Code of Criminal
   Procedure, 1973 - s.432.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1039 of 2008.
G
        From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2007 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
    3443 of 2000.

H                                870
            ANNAPURNA v. STATE OF U.P.                      871


    Manoj Prasad, S.S. Gupta for the Appellant.                     A

    Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ram Kishor Singh Yadav for the
Respondent.

    The following order of the Court was delivered
                                                                    B
                            ORDER

     1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3443 of 2000 C
by way of which, the High Court has affirmed the impugned
judgment and order dated 15.12.2000 of the Sessions Court
passed in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2000, convicting the appellant
 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
 referred to as · 1PC') and sentencing her to undergo
 imprisonment for life.                                          .D

     2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant is alleged
to have poured kerosene oil on her daughter in law Santoshi
and set her on fire. On hearing hue and cry of the deceased,
her neighbour Ram Singh took her daughter in law to the             E·
hospital. In the hospital, two dying declarations were recorded,
one by the Investigating Officer and another by Shri Ved Priya
Arya, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Magistrate (PW.8). The dying
declaration was recorded by the said Magistrate on 26.6.1999
after getting a certificate from Dr. P.K. Pathak that she was fit   F
to make the statement. In her dying declaration, she had clearly
stated that she had married to Satish on 4.5.1999 and she was
pregnant. She was not sent to her parental house because her
in laws were demanding ring and money. Her mother in law
sprinkled kerosene oil on her and burnt her. She was subjected      G
to cruelty for dowry.

    3. The trial court also applied the provisions of Section
113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Evidence Act'), which gives a presumption of demanding of
dowry in such a case and recorded the findings of guilty of the     H
    872      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A   appellant. The said findings had been affirmed by the High
    Court.

       4. We have gone through the entire record and we are not
  impressed by any of the argument advanced by Shri Manoj
8 Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
  and we are of the view that no fault can be found with the
  judgment and order impugned before us. Undoubtedly, the
  deceased Santoshi, was only 22 years of age when she got
  married on 4.5.1999. She got injured in the said incident on
C 25.6.1999 and died on 17.7.1999, i.e. within a period of two
  months from the date of marriage. She got injured at 8.00 a.m.
  in her in laws house when the appellant, her mother in law, was
  present there. In her dying declaration, she had also disclosed
  that her sister in law was also present there. She did not make
  any allegation, whatsoever, against her. Thus, the veracity of
0 her dying declaration cannot be doubted and we do not find
  any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and
  order. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

        5. It is submitted by Shri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel
E for the appellant, that the appellant has already served 14 years
  and 6 months of imprisonment in jail and her case has not been
  considered by the State for premature release under Section
  432 Cr.P.C. Further, Shri Mehrotra, learned standing counsel
  appearing on behalf of the State of U.P., assured the Court that
F her case for premature release would be considered within a
  period of 3 months from today. In view of the above, Shri
  Mehrotra will send a copy of this judgment to the concerned
  authorities. We request the said authorities to consider the
  case of the appellant for ,premature release strictly in
G accordance with law.

    B.B.B.                                    Appeal dismissed.