GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J. ( 1 ) RAM Asrey has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence, in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1990 recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapurvide its order and judgment dated 9-4-1992, whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 498-N 304-B Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded 2 years rigorous imprisonment, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that Smt. Sukhrani was married to the appellant. For about two years the couple lived happily. Thereafter the appellant asked his wife to press her parents to give him one wrist watch and 2 bighas of agricultural land. Sukhrani told the appellant that her parents were unable to meet this demand. When Sukhrani told the appellant that her parents could not meet his demand he got enraged and started beatings and maltreating Sukhrani. On 16-4-1990 in the evening a boy went to the house of Bhagwan Din father of Sukhrani in village of Senjapur and told him that Sukhrani has committed suicide. Consequently on 16-4-1990 Bhagwan Din along with Karhiley, Ram Bharosey, Sunder Lal, Chandrabhal, Mullu Ram and Bharat went to the house of accused appellant Ram Asrey in Village, Narsinghpur where they came to know that on 5-4-1990 Ram Asrey had mercilessly beaten his daughter Sukthrani. Thereafter Sukhrani had gone away to Khalihan from where she returned back home at about 2 p. m. At about 3 p. m. Ram Asrey told the village people that his wife had committed suicide. Bhagwan Din found the dead body of his daughter Sukhrani lying in a room belonging to the accused Ram Asrey. ( 3 ) IT may be noted that on 15-4-1990 Shiv Kumar D. W. 2 had submitted a written First Information Report Ext. Kha. 1 at Police Station Kamlapur according to which wife of the appellant Ram Asrey had committed suicide when her family members in the fields. Consequently the police, after making necessary entries in the general diary, went to the place of the occurrence, prepared the inquest, examined the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination. Subsequently the Investigating Officer found letters Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 along with the acknowledgment slips Ext. 3 from the box of the accused. Consequently the police, after making necessary entries in the general diary, went to the place of the occurrence, prepared the inquest, examined the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination. Subsequently the Investigating Officer found letters Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 along with the acknowledgment slips Ext. 3 from the box of the accused. On the basis of the investigation charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B I. P. C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted whereafter the appellant was tried. ( 4 ) IN support of the prosecution case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Bhagwan Din, P. W. 2 Smt. Chhotkanni, P. W 3 Karhiley, P. W. 4 Sohan Lal, P. W. 5 Head Constable Siya Ram, P. W. 6 S. LB. B. Singh, P. W. 7 S. I. Sri Nath, P. W. 8 Dr. V. S. Bajpai and P. W. 9 Rajendra Kumar Singh by Supdt. of Police. Dr. V. S. Bajpai had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Smt. Sukhrani on 16-4-1990 and had found contusion 10 cms. x 4 cms. on the outer surface of left arm 9 cms. above the left elbow; one multiple abrasion in an area of 6. 5 cms. x 4 cms. on the inner surface of left elbow, one abrasion 5 cms. x 1cm on the back of left ear with contusion and one multiple contused abrasion in an area of 9cms. x 8 cms. on the front of neck The Doctor found the cause of death to be asphyxia. ( 5 ) THE accused denied the charge and stated that his wife had committed suicide. He examined D. W. 1 Han Shankar Pandey and D. W. 2 Shiv, Kumar, D. W. 1 is the Record keeper of Police Officer, Sitapur and D. W. 2 had proved the written report, Ext. Kha. 1 scribed by P. W. 2. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the fact that unnatural death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage and on the basis of Exts. Kha. 1 scribed by P. W. 2. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the fact that unnatural death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage and on the basis of Exts. 1 and 2, the registered notices sent by Ram Asrey to the deceased, as also on the basis of the evidence of Bhagwan Din and Sohan Lal came to the conclusion that Sukhrani was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as has been mentioned earlier. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned Addi. Govt. Advocate. Learned Counsel for the appellant, instead of arguing the appeal on merit, said that even if the legal presumption was against the appellant which he bad not been able to rebut in view of the facts established in this case it could be gathered that Smt. Sukhrani after being given a beating by him had returned home from the field and had committed suicide. Accordingly his contention is that the charge proved against the appellant, at the best, could hot be Under S. 304-B I. P. C. but it should be actually a case, where the conviction under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, should have been recorded. In any case his contention is that seven yearts rigorous imprisonment to the appellant under S. 304-B I. P. C. was excessive and in the facts and circumstances of this case 5 years rigorous imprisonment should have served the ends of justice. ( 8 ) I have heard learned Govt. Advocate also on this point. I feel that even if the argument, that the appellant should have been held guilty under Sec. 306 Indian Penal Code may not be considered, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 304-B Indian Penal Code to the appellant who has been in jail for quite sometime, can be reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that if it be so, he would not press this appeal on any other ground. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A and 304-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that if it be so, he would not press this appeal on any other ground. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A and 304-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained. The sentence awarded under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are also maintained. However sentence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code is reduced from seven yearst rigorous imprisonment to five years rigorous imprisonment. All the three sentences are directed to run concurrently. With this modification in the sentence the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as modified by this order. Appeal allowed partly. .