JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Appellant No. 1 stands convicted u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. She has also been convicted u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with the defaulting clause. She 'has been further convicted u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- with the defaulting clause. All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant No. 2 who is husband of Appellant No. 1 has been convicted u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with the defaulting clause. 2. The Appellants as well as their son Bibekananda and daughter Nibedita were placed on trial in the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack to face charges under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian penal Code read with Section 34 thereof and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The other two accused persons, namely, Bibekananda and Nibedita have been acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Prahallad Chandra Parija (P.W. 1) gave his daughter Prabjna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in marriage on 14.7.1984 to Bibekananda (since acquitted), son of the Appellants. At the time of negotiation of the marriage, the Appellants demanded from P.W.l, scooter, refrigerator, and television set, gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas, utensils, cash of Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry. P.W.l, however, gave cash of Rs. 15,000/- gold ornaments weighing 8 totals towards dowry and promised to comply with the demand of scooter, television set, etc. within one year after the marriage. After the marriage the deceased continued to live in her father-in-law's house, but as the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was being ill-treated by the Appellants and other members of their family. The deceased had to bear the burden of torture and wrote letter to her mother requesting to meet the demand of do wry forth with. On 17.12.1994, P. WI could know from his nephew (P.W5) that the deceased had been hospitalized at S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack for burn injuries. The deceased had to bear the burden of torture and wrote letter to her mother requesting to meet the demand of do wry forth with. On 17.12.1994, P. WI could know from his nephew (P.W5) that the deceased had been hospitalized at S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack for burn injuries. He immediately rushed to the hospital and found that although her entire body was burnt, she was able to talk at times. She told him that she was burnt by her in-law's family. That night at about 7 to 8 p.m. She, however, died. He lodged F.I.R. at Jagatsinghpur police station. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet and the Appellants along with their son and daughter were placed on trial which has ended in the conviction as aforesaid. 4. The plea of the Appellants was one of denial. 5. The Appellants and co-accused (since acquitted) were charged under Sections 302/34 and 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code but found Appellant No. 1- Soudamini guilty u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and convicted her there under. 6. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W1 is the father of the deceases. P.W. 2 is the uncle of P.W l. P.W3. is a distant relation of P.W. 1. P.W.4. is the son of P.W.l. P.W5. is the nephew of P.W.l. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination ever the dead-body of the deceased. P. Ws. 7 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.8 is a seizure witness. Defense examined two witnesses on its behalf. P.W. 1 is the doctor who admitted the deceases in the Emergency Ward and P.W.2 is the treating surgeon of the deceased. 7. There is no direct evidence as to the cause of the death. Prosecution relied upon the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the version of dying declaration as narrated by these witnesses on the ground that the deceases was not in a position to give any statement because of the burn injuries on her. Prosecution relied upon the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased before P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the version of dying declaration as narrated by these witnesses on the ground that the deceases was not in a position to give any statement because of the burn injuries on her. P.W1 is the doctor who submitted the deceases in the Emergency ward of the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. He stated that on 17.12.1994 at about 7.30 a.m. she was admitted in Female Surgical Word (Bed No. 154, P.W.2 is the attending surgeon. He stated that on that day" (17.12.1994) he examined the deceased at about 8 a.m. At that time she was talking irrelevantly. She was drowsy and the percentage of her burns was 95% and there was no urination after she was burnt. He further stated that the patient was not in a clear state of mind at the time of the examination. She was not in normal state of mind on account of which she was talking irrelevantly. He also stated that in case of no urination for a long period blood urea and cretonne would go on increasing which would affect the other systems including the central nervous system. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is doubtful whether the patient was in a fit state of mind to speak about the cause of her death. P.W.1 stated that at the time of making statement by the deceased, some members of the medical staff were present. But the prosecution did not examine any of them. In view of aforesaid evidence the testimony of P. Ws 1,4 and 5 that the deceased made dying declaration before them cannot be accepted. 7. In order to prove the charge of demand of dowry, the prosecution besides relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 also pressed into service the two letters (Exts. 2 and 4) written by the deceased. The defense, in fact; did not dispute the writing in these letters. In fact relies on this letter to say that there is no mention of demand of dowry therein. Let me first examine the evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard. 2 and 4) written by the deceased. The defense, in fact; did not dispute the writing in these letters. In fact relies on this letter to say that there is no mention of demand of dowry therein. Let me first examine the evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard. There is no dispute that the marriage of the deceased with Bibekananda took place on 14.7.1994.' P.W. 1 in his evidence stated that the Appellant No. 2 (Bichitrananda) demanded for the marriage Rs. 20,000/-, one television set, refrigerator, scooter, ten tolas of gold ornaments out of which 8 tolas gold ornaments cash of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 2000/- was paid on the day of betrothal towards dress and the balance amount of Rs. 13.000/was paid prior to the marriage. After the marriage, he had been to the house of the Appellants and his daughter asked his as to why the balance amount had not been paid, He promised Appellant No. 2 that the same would be paid in due course. He had proved the two letters (Exts. 2 and 3) written by the deceased. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not stated before the Mangalabag Police that the Appellant No. 2 defended Rs. 20,000/-, television set, refrigerator, scooter, ten tolas of gold ornament, out of which 8 tolas of gold ornaments, cash of Rs. 15,000/- and other articles were given. The Investigating Officer P.W. 91 was the Sub-Inspector of Jagatsinghpur Police Station where the F.I.R. was lodged. The previous statement, if any, made by P.W. 1 before the Mangalabag Police was not confronted to his. Therefore, the omission/ contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 1 are of little consequence. P.W. 2, the uncle of P.W. 1, stated that there was demand of cash of Rs. 20,000/- and a television set by Appellant No. 2 during the time of betrothal. In his cross-examination nothing was brought out to discredit the aforesaid statement. P.W. 3 and 4 similarly deposed regarding demand of dowry by Appellant No. 2 in the shape of cash, television, scooter, refrigerator, etc. and nothing was brought out in their cross-examination to reject their testimony on this point. Let me now examine the two letters (Exts. 2 and 3). Ext. 2 is dated 5.8. 1994 written by the deceased to her mother. and nothing was brought out in their cross-examination to reject their testimony on this point. Let me now examine the two letters (Exts. 2 and 3). Ext. 2 is dated 5.8. 1994 written by the deceased to her mother. On reading of the said letter, it would appear that the mother-In-law of the deceased, i.e. Appellant No. 1 was ill-treating her. She had bee accusing that had her son married elsewhere he could have brought dowry to a,great extent. The contents of that letter are touching and revealing. She had not made any allegation of demand of dowry against any other members of her husband's family except her mother-in-law, The deceased had requested her mother to fulfill the demand at an early date because her mother-in-law was cruel to her and her behavior towards her was unbecoming due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The second letter (Ext. 3) is dated 1.11.1994 addressed to her mother just about a couple of weeks before her death. The contents of that letter also indicate that due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand, her mother-in-law (appellant No. 2) was misbehaving and ill-treating her. In these two letters the deceased had given out her mind that she might commit suicide. In the face of the evidence indicated above, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case of dowry demand against the Appellants who have been rightly convicted u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Appellant No. 1 has also been convicted u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Session.".Judge. In view of the evidence indicated above, I have no hesitation to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty due to no fulfillment of demand of dowry and, therefore, Appellant No. l's conviction u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted with. 8. So far as conviction of Appellant No. 1 u/s 204B of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it may be stated that there was no specific charge against any of the accused persons there under. In fact, charge was framed against them u/s 302/24, I.P.C. but they have been acquitted of the said charge. Since charge was framed for a higher major offence against Appellant No. 1, she could be convicted for minor or lesser offence. In fact, charge was framed against them u/s 302/24, I.P.C. but they have been acquitted of the said charge. Since charge was framed for a higher major offence against Appellant No. 1, she could be convicted for minor or lesser offence. Nothing has been brought out to show that the Appellant No. 1 is in any way prejudiced because of her conviction u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of a charge there under. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is a substantive provision creating an offence of dowry death. In order to attract the application of Section 304B, the prosecution is obliged to establish- (j) the death of woman was caused by burns or badly injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (ii) she have been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relations of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty should not be for or in connection with demand for dowry. The death of the deceased in the present case is not under normal circumstance. She died of burn injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has hold that she committed suicide. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the deceased took place on 14.7.1994 and she died on 17.12.1994, i.e., within seven years of her marriage. It has already been found that she was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, a clear case of dowry death has been made out and Appellant No. 1 has rightly been found guilty u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. For reasons stated above, there is no merit in this appeal. 10. For conviction u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the said sentence is, however, reduced to the minimum of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with the modification of the sentence, as indicated above. Final Result : Dismissed