HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.715 of 2007
1. Shailendra Kumar
2. Jawla Prasad
3. Smt Shashi Tiwari
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE Cr.P.C.)
! Shri Surendra Singh, Senior counsel with Shri Tarun
Dadsena, counsel for the appellants
^ Shri Akhil Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate for the
State/respondent
Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J
Dated:11/09/2009
: Judgment
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 11th September, 2009)
1. Challenge in this appeal is the legality and propriety
of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
3.8.2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.21/2007 whereby and whereunder
learned First Additional Sessions Judge after holding the
appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code for commission of dowry death
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
challenged on the ground that without there being any
evidence of torture and cruelty soon before the death of the
deceased, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the
appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed
illegality.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased
Neera Tiwari was married to appellant No.1 Shailendra Kumar
and appellants No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the deceased. Marriage between the deceased and appellant
No.1 was performed on 30.5.2006 in Ratanpur Mahamaya Temple.
She committed suicide in the house of the appellants by
pouring kerosene upon her and setting herself on fire on
9.8.2006. Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/9 at the
instance of appellant No.2 on 10.8.2006. Father of the
deceased also lodged written compliant vide Ex.P/2 in which
it has been mentioned that the appellants have demanded
dowry, committed cruelty and torture upon her daughter and as
a result of such torture and cruelty, she committed suicide.
After summoning the witnesses vide Exs. P/1 and P/4, inquest
over the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Plastic
container, burn piece of clothes, broken pieces of bangles
and match stick were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/5.
Death body was sent for autopsy vide Ex.P/7. Autopsy was
conducted by Dr.Vijay Kumar Verma vide Ex.P/6. Smell of
kerosene was coming from dead body, burn injuries were found.
Brain membrane was congested, carbon particles were present
incise brochia and lungs. Burn was ante-mortem and cause of
death was shocked as a result of excessive burn and toximiya.
Accused were arrested vide Exs.P/8, P/10 and P/11. Spot map
was prepared by patwari vide Ex.P/13. F.I.R. was lodged vide
Ex.P/16. Investigating officer has also prepared spot map
vide Ex.P/17.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the
Code’). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Bilaspur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from where First Additional Sessions
Judge, Bilaspur received the same on transfer for trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants/accused,
the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses.
Statements of the accused/ appellants were also recorded
under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the material
appearing against them. The appellants have taken specific
defence that prior to marriage, the deceased was working as
Nurse and when she left her service after marriage, she was
distressed, therefore she committed suicide.
6. I have heard Shri Surendra Singh, Senior counsel with
Shri Tarun Dadsena, counsel for the appellants and Shri Akhil
Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent
and perused the judgment impugned and record of the Court
below.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued
that though deceased Neera Tiwari, wife of appellant No.1 and
daughter-in-law of appellants No.2 and 3 has committed
suicide on 9.8.2006 in the house of the appellants within 2
months and 8 days of her marriage, she died in abnormal
circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, but these facts
are not sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants
have committed torture and cruelty in connection with demand
of dowry and that too soon before her death. This is a
criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove all
essential ingredients of the offence beyond all shadow of
doubt. Only on the ground of death within 3 months under
abnormal circumstances is not sufficient for drawing
inference that the present appellants are the persons who
have committed “dowry death” of the deceased. This was a case
of “Samuhik Vivah” in the temple where several persons have
married in a common platform in the presence of responsible
persons of the society with a view to avoid any transaction
of dowry. Learned counsel further argued that evidence of the
relatives of the deceased reveals that before marriage the
appellants had demanded motor-cycle for appellant No.1 which
they have provided before the marriage and they have
satisfied the dowry demand. After such satisfaction even
there was no occasion for further demand because daughter of
Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) and sister or daughter of other
relatives have committed suicide and ended her life,
therefore, maternal relatives of the deceased have deposed
against the appellants. Statements given under sentiments or
in ground of announce is not a true statement admissible
under the law. In the absence of such demand, cruelty and
torture and that too soon before death of the deceased, all
appellants are entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel also
argued that evidence of relatives of the deceased reveals
that husband of the deceased i.e. appellant No.1 used to
drink liquor and used to beat her excludes the possibility of
cruelty and torture by appellants No.2 and 3. At the worst,
it appears from the evidence that the deceased was not
satisfied with the behavior of appellant No.1 who used to
drink and beat her, therefore, she ended her life and the
same does not fall within the category of torture and cruelty
in connection with demand of dowry.
8. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab and others1 in which the Apex Court
has held that in-laws of deceased cannot be roped in only on
ground of being close relations of husband of deceased. Overt
acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2 in which
it has been held by the Apex Court that close relatives of
the victim have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts. The
Court should examine their evidence with great care and
caution. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter
of Salamat Ali and another v. State of Bihar3 in which it has
been held by the Apex Court that in the absence of clear and
cogent evidence involving parents of accused in demands of
dowry, evidence of prosecution witness stating that there
were frequent quarrels, but only between husband and wife,
parents are not liable for any conviction.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the
judgment impugned and argued that this is a case of dowry
death where the appellants i.e. husband and relatives of the
husband had committed dowry death of the deceased within 2
months and 8 days of her marriage. Learned counsel further
argued that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence
to show that the appellants are the persons who have demanded
motor-cycle and after receiving motor-cycle they have
again demanded Rs.50,000/- and when the parents of the
deceased failed to satisfy such demand, then they committed
cruelty and torture upon the deceased and as a result of such
torture and cruelty she committed suicide and took drastic
action of ending her life. No person including a woman of
common prudence will end his/her life on the trifle ground
unless he/she was compelled to take such action. Learned
counsel further argued that the Court below has rightly
convicted the appellants and sentenced as aforementioned and
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case they do not deserve any sympathy. Conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellants are just and proper.
10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I
have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution. In the present case, it is undisputed that
deceased Neera Tiwari was married to appellant No.1 on
30.5.2006 at Ratanpur Temple under social arrangement
(Samuhik Vivah). Appellants No.2 and 3 were father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased. She committed suicide by burn
in the house of the appellants on 9.8.2006. Death was
abnormal by suicide within 7 years of her marriage, otherwise
also established by the statements of Dr.Vijay Kumar Verma
(PW-7), autopsy report (Ex.P/6) that deceased Neera Tiwari
died as a result of burn injuries. Burn was ante-mortem and
cause of death was shocked as a result of excessive burn and
toximiya.
11. Dowry death has been defined under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
“304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”,
and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have caused her death.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-
section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life.
12. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides presumption
as to dowry death which reads as under:-
“113-B. When the question is whether a person
has committed the dowry death of a woman and it
is shown that soon before her death such woman
had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this
section, “dowry death” shall have the same
meaning as in S.304BG of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860).
13. Word cruelty has also been explained under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-for the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her tom et any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand.
14. For decision of this case, the substantial question
involve is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and
torture soon before her death in connection with demand of
dowry. The prosecution has adduced evidence of maternal
relatives of the deceased. Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1) mother of
the deceased has deposed that marriage of her daughter was
performed at Ratanpur Mahamaya Temple. Just two days before
the marriage, appellants No.1 and 2 demanded two-wheeler then
they sold some land and provided motor-cycle. After one month
of the marriage, deceased Neera Bai telephoned to her nephew
Rajesh Tiwari and told that there is danger to her life and
she called them. Rajesh Tiwari informed them and then Rajesh
Tiwari and her husband Shiv Kumar Tiwari went to the house of
the appellants where both advised to the appellants that they
should not beat his daughter. They also requested to permit
the deceased to go with them, but the appellants refused
their request. After 15 days, appellant No.1 came to her
house with the deceased where appellant No.1 demanded
Rs.50,000/- and when she shown her inability, at that time
appellant No.1 annoyed. After sometime at the time of Raksha
Bandan festival appellant No.1 came to her village and again
demanded money and again annoyed. On the morning of Raksha
Bandan she came to know that her daughter has burn. She went
to the hospital. Deceased died as a result of cruelty and
torture committed by the appellants. Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-
3), father of the deceased, has also corroborated the
statement of Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1). Rajesh Tiwari (PW-2)
cousin brother of the deceased has also corroborated the
statement of Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1). Rajesh Tiwari (PW-5)
S/o Shri Chhedilal Tiwari, cousin brother of the deceased has
also corroborated the same thing. He has deposed in his
evidence that one day deceased telephoned him and told that
appellant No.1 used to consume liquor and used to assault
her. She also requested him that they immediately took her,
otherwise members of in-laws house will kill her. They
advised and come back. He has also deposed that on the demand
of the appellants, father of the deceased sold the land and
gave C.D.Down Hero Honda motor cycle.
15. Admittedly, Kumaribai Tiwari (PW-1), Rajesh Tiwari (PW-
2), Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3), Dev Kumar Pathak (PW-4) and
Rajesh Tiwari (PW-5) are mother, father and brothers of the
deceased. As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Sharad
(supra), in view of the close relationship and affection any
person in the position of the witness would naturally have a
tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been
stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but
even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased
would create a psychological hatred against the supposed
murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such
evidence with very great care and caution. Para 48 of the
said judgment reads as under:-
“48. Before discussing the evidence of the
witnesses we might mention a few preliminary
remarks against the background of which the oral
statements are to be considered. All persons to
whom the oral statements are said to have been
made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last
time, are close relatives and friends of the
deceased. In view of the close relationship and
affection any person in the position of the
witness would naturally have a tendency to
exaggerate or add facts which may not have been
stated to them at all. Not that this is done
consciously but even unconsciously the love and
affection for the deceased would create a
psychological hatred against the supposed murderer
and, therefore, the Court has to examine such
evidence with very great care and caution. Even if
the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or
perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a
spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused
person and in this process certain facts which may
not or could not have been stated unconsciously by
the witnesses in order to see that the offender is
punished. This is human psychology and no one can
help it.
16. The aforesaid witnesses are close relatives of the
deceased, but their evidence cannot be discarded only on the
ground that they are close relatives. Only it requires minute
scrutiny and if the separation of exaggeration and falsehood
from truth would possible, then the Court is required to
separate the truth from falsehood.
17. In the matter of Salamat (supra), the Apex Court has
held that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence against
the appellants, conviction of the appellants not proper. Para
3 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“3. By the conviction of Salim Ahmed, it stands
confirmed that the deceased met a suicidal death
and that Salim Ahmed was responsible for it,
whether by himself or conjointly with others. The
only point to be examined is whether there is
clear and cogent evidence to involve the parents
in the demands of dowry made or were they
otherwise responsible for inflicting any cruelty
on the deceased. We have been taken through the
relevant portions of the evidence led by the
prosecution. Uniformly every witness has said that
the family members of the husband, i.e.
Sasuralwale had been making demands of dowry in
the form of television and scooter. The nature of
the demand is some indication. The demand of
scooter predominantly must have been raised by the
husband. It cannot be expected that the father-in-
law would be demanding a scooter for himself or
that the mother-in-law needed it for her use.
Different considerations, however, could, in
certain events, apply to the television demand,
but here again, it predominants that the husband
wanted it more than his parents. Evidence of P.W.1
is clear on this point that there were frequent
quarrels, but only between husband and wife. In
other words, the parents had no part to play in
the quarrels between the spouses. P.W.7, the
father of the deceased also had said that his
daughter had told him that the demand had been
made by the husband, but he had then not taken it
seriously. Thus, the allegations against the
appellants are general in nature attributed to the
husband’s family. They have been identified
because they were members of his family. It is not
clear on the record as besides them who else were
members of the family. It thus appears to us that
in the absence of clear and pointed evidence it
would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the
parents, on vague allegations that the demand of
dowry was made by the husband’s family members. In
this view of the matter, we would record their
acquittal.”
18. While dealing with the question of tendency of relatives
of the deceased in the matter of Kans (supra), the Apex Court
has held that in-laws of deceased cannot be roped in only on
ground of being close relations of husband of deceased. Over
acts attributed to them should be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“5……In the light of the evidence in the case
we find substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5
were roped in the case only on the ground of being
close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of
the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the
in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all
cases, be held to be involved in the demand of
dowry. In cases where such accusation are made,
the over acts attributed to persons other than
husband are required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and
implications such relations cannot be held guilty
for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A
tendency has, however, developed for roping in all
relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in
the maters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the
prosecution even against the real culprits. In
their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek
conviction for maximum people, the parents of the
deceased have been found to be making efforts for
involving other relations which ultimately weaken
the case of the prosecution even against the real
accused as appears to have happened in the instant
case.”
19. In the light of decisions of the Apex Court in the
matters of Sharad & Kans (supra), minute scrutiny of the
evidence of close relatives is required. Kumaaribai Tiwari
(PW-1) has specifically deposed that her nephew Rajesh Tiwari
and her husband went to the house of the appellants after
receiving telephone call from her daughter. Appellant No.1
came two times to her village and demanded Rs.50,000/-.
Appellant No.1 also used to beat her daughter after consuming
liquor. In her detail cross-examination, she has stated that
marriage of her daughter has performed in Adarsh Vivah and
she knows that demand and receipt of dowry is a crime. She
has denied the suggestion that the appellants No.1 and 2 have
not demanded motor-cycle. She has also denied the suggestion
that the deceased has not telephoned to Rajesh Tiwari and
Rajesh Tiwari and her husband have not advised to the
appellants. She has also denied that after marriage at the
instance of appellant No.1, deceased has left her service of
nurse and she was perturbed and as a result of such mental
problem, she committed suicide. Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3)
father of the deceased, has specifically deposed that
appellants No. 1 and 2 came to his house and demanded
Rs.50,000/- and again appellant No.2 demanded Rs.50,000/-. He
has lodged written report (Ex.P/2) on 10.8.2006 in which it
has been specifically mentioned that the appellants have
demanded motor-cycle and has given C.D.Dawn motor cycle.
After marriage, appellant No.1 also demanded Rs.50,000/-. He
has admitted in para-9 of his cross-
examination that he was in police service and he knows that
demand and giving dowry is a crime. He has denied the
suggestion that who are unable to give dowry, performed the
marriage in Adasrh Vivah system. He has also denied the
suggestion that appellants No.1 and 2 have not come to his
house and demanded dowry. He has admitted in para-15 of his
cross-examination that his daughter used to compel that
appellant No.1 used to consume liquor and used to beat her.
Rajesh Tiwari (PW-5) who has received telephone has
specifically deposed that father of the deceased has given
motor-cycle before the marriage of her daughter. He has given
number of telephone. He has admitted in para-6 of his cross-
examination that when they went to the house of the
appellants, his sister told him that appellant No.1 used to
consume liquor and used to quarrel with her. She also told
him that they immediately took her, otherwise appellant No.1
will kill her.
20. There are some contradictions and omissions in the
statements of the witnesses with their previous statements
recorded by the police (Exs.D/1 to D/3). Shiv Kumar Tiwari
(PW-3), father of the deceased, has deposed that after 15
days of marriage of his daughter, appellants No.1 and 2 came
to his village and demanded Rs.50,000/-, but this evidence
does not find place in his previous statement (Ex.P/2). This
part has not been supported by other witnesses, but other
witnesses have deposed that after receiving telephone call,
he went to the house of the appellants where he met with the
appellants. Statement of Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-2) reveals
that demand of Rs.50,000/- was between appellants No.1 and 2,
but he has exaggerated and tried to involve appellant No.3
who is wife of appellant No.2.
21. Incident took place between 2 months and 8 days of the
marriage of deceased Neera Tiwari within a short span of her
marriage and first demand of motor-cycle by appellants No.1
and 2 even before the marriage shows tendency of demand of
dowry by appellants No.1 and 2 which they continued even
after marriage till the death of the deceased. The deceased
has committed suicide in the house of the appellants on the
day of Raksha Bandhan festival. Evidence of day-to-
day conversation, demand or cruelty made by the husband and
his relatives are not normally possible.
22. While dealing with the question of death soon before her
death, the Apex Court in the matter of Baldev Singh v. State
of Punjab4 has held that implies not much interval between
concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question, there
must be proximate and live link between the two. Para 13 of
the said judgment reads as under:-
“13. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that
there must be material to show that soon before
her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the
possibility of a natural or accidental death so as
to bring it within the purview of `death occurring
otherwise than in normal circumstances’. The
expression `soon before’ is very relevant where
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-
B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is
obliged to show that soon before the occurrence
there was cruelty or harassment and only in that
case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard
has to be led by the prosecution. `Soon before’ is
a relative term and it would depend upon the
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down as to what would
constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.
It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed
period, and that brings in the importance of a
proximity test both for the proof of an offence of
dowry death as well as for raising a presumption
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The
expression `soon before her death’ used in the
substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of
the Evidence Act is present with the idea of
proximity test. No definite period has been
indicated and the expression `soon before’ is not
defined. A reference to the expression `soon
before’ used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of
the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a
court may presume that a man who is in the
possession of goods `soon after the theft is
either the thief or has received the goods knowing
them to be stolen, unless he can account for his
possession’. The determination of the period which
can come within the term `soon before’ is left to
be determined by the courts, depending upon facts
and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however,
to indicate that the expression `soon before’
would normally imply that the interval should not
be much between the concerned cruelty or
harassment and the death in question. There must
be existence of a proximate and live link between
the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and
the concerned death. If alleged incident of
cruelty is remote in time and has become stale
enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the
woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.”
23. In the present case, dowry was demanded prior to
marriage by appellants No. 1 and 2 shows their greediness.
Shiv Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) has specifically deposed that
all the appellants have demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- after
marriage. Shiv Kumar Tiwari was responsible person for giving
dowry or to satisfy the demand, but in Hindu Family, normally
discussion take place with male members. In discussion or
demand of dowry by mother-in-law of the deceased to father of
the deceased is not common. The evidence of Shiv Kumar Tiwari
relating to demand of dowry by appellant No.3 is not
supported by other independent sources, but statement reveals
that appellants No. 1 and 2 have firstly demanded motor-cycle
and subsequently they demanded Rs.50,000/- and within short
span of time the deceased committed suicide and that too on
the festival of Raksha Bandan in the house of the appellants.
24. In these circumstances, the only inference can be drawn
that the appellants No.1 and 2 have committed cruelty and
torture upon the deceased in connection with demand of dowry
and as a result of such demand, no option except to end her
life was left and she has taken drastic action for end of her
life. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is
sufficient for drawing inference of dowry death against
appellant No.1 Shailendra Kumar @ Shailu Tiwari (husband of
the deceased) and appellant No.2 Jawla Prasad (father-in-law
of the deceased), but evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference of
commission of dowry death against appellant No.3 Smt.Shashi
Tiwari. The suspicion, however, great cannot take place of
evidence and only on the ground of suspicion, the conviction
of appellant No.3 is not sustainable.
25. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the
Court below have convicted and sentenced the appellants as
aforementioned. Conviction of appellants No.1 and 2 are
sustainable under the law. As relates to the conviction of
appellant No.3, her conviction is not based on reliable and
clinching evidence. Her conviction is not sustainable under
the law.
26. As regards the question of appellants No.1 and 2 is
concerned, First Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the
appellants No.1 and 2 rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
Taking into consideration the death of bride within 2 months
and 8 days of her marriage, sentence awarded to appellants
No.1 and 2 is just and proper. I do not find any scope for
interference in the judgment impugned.
27. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.
Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 namely, Shailendra
Kumar @ Shailu Tiwari (husband of the deceased) and appellant
No.2 namely, Jawla Prasad (father-in-law of the deceased) are
hereby maintained, however, conviction and sentence of
appellant No.3 namely, Smt.Shashi Tiwari is hereby set aside.
She is acquitted of the charge of Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code. She is in custody. She be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
J U D G E