husband who makes such a demand. When the parents and other brothers of the husband were residing separately, there can be no demand of dowry by them. Learned counsel argued that this contention has also been upheld by the trial court, while holding that the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC are completely missing. According to learned counsel for the appellants, Dilbagh Singh along with his wife Jaiwanti was residing in one room of the ancestral house in village Bahu Akbarpur and they wanted to take possession of another room, which could not have been given to one brother in partition. Therefore, while Jaiwanti accidentally caught fire, she falsely implicated all the family members of her in-laws, giving clean chit to her husband. Learned counsel further argued that a bare reading of the dying declaration clearly indicates that the said statement is totally vague, sketchy and doubtful. It reads that at 7.00 PM, she was not quarreling, her Jeth' and Jethani' were quarreling with her. They were demanding Rs.15,000/- from her. They have beatings to her husband. Her parents-in-law were also demanding money. Her Jeth' and Jethani' and the parents-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. Her husband is innocent. Learned counsel argued that in the said statement, the deceased did not mention name of any of the accused. She was having two Jeths' and two Jethanis'. She used the words Jeth' and Jethani' singularly. It is not clear to whom she had referred to in the statement. The dispute was with regard to Rs. 15,000/-. It has been stated that husband of the deceased was given beatings, but her husband while appearing in the witness box did
