Judgment A.K.PRASAD, J. 1. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge of murdering Bijali Devi @ Janaki Devi for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand, and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment and order dated 13.7.1989 in S.T. No. 303 of 1987 passed by Sri Paras Nath Sinha, the then 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih. 2. Briefly put, the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2), is as under : The deceased, Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi, aged about 16 years, daughter of the informant (Durpatia Devi), PW-8, and Bishun Mistri (PW-5), was married to the appellant No. 3 (Bhuneshwar Mistri), a resident of village Ambadih, within the police station Bagodar, district Giridih, in the month of Baisakh, 1986. The other appellants (Nanhu Mistri and Reshami Devi) are her parents-in-law. After the marriage, the deceased started to live in her matrimonial home. On the occasion of Karma festival, preceding the occurrence (some time in September 1986), the deceased visited her parental home and never thereafter. She returned and continued to live with her husband and parents-in-law at her matrimonial home. Meanwhile, the informant sent several messengers for bringing her to her parental home, but the appellants Bhuneswar Mistry and (Nanhu Mistri) did not permit her to go, nor they allowed the messengers to meet her. The appellants (Nanhu Mistri) and Bhuneshwar Mistri) used to demand a radio-set in dowry. She was unable to fulfil the demand. In the evening, on 26.3.1987 she learnt that the appellants had killed Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi (deceased). The informant was alone in her house. She spent the night in tears and on the next morning, around 6.30 a.m. she went to village Ambadih and found that her daughter, Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi, was lying dead at her matrimonial home with wounds on her face and other parts of the body. On enquiry, made from the villagers, it transpired that the appellants had done Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi to death. The Sarpanch, Ambadih Gram Panchayat, despatched her dead body on his bullock-cart with the village Chowkidar and she too accompanied the Chowkidar with the dead body to the police station. She suspected that the murder has been committed between 11-12 a.m. on 26.3.1987. The Sarpanch, Ambadih Gram Panchayat, despatched her dead body on his bullock-cart with the village Chowkidar and she too accompanied the Chowkidar with the dead body to the police station. She suspected that the murder has been committed between 11-12 a.m. on 26.3.1987. She gave her fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) at the sub-police station, Saraiya, before the Police Officer, PW-10 (Jitendra Kumar). On the basis of the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2), the present case came to be instituted, formal first information report (Exhibit 3) was drawn up, investigation commenced, the investigating officer visited and inspected the spot, held inquest (Exhibit 4 is the Inquest Report) over the dead body, and sent it for post-mortem examination and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid in Court against the appellants. 3. The case was, ultimately, committed to the Court of Session by Sri S. Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih. 4. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. 5. The point which falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge to the appellants under Sections 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of its case. Out of them PW-7 is a hostile witness. The other PWs are PW-1 (Suresh Prasad Mistri), PW-3 (Guru Prasad Mistri), PW-2 (Dhaneshwar Mistri) the relatives of the deceased on the point of dowry demand. PW-5 (Bishun Mistri), father of the deceased PW-6 (Nageshwar Singh), the Sarpanch, PW-8 (Draupadi Devi), the informant and PW-9 (Sahdeo Dusadh) the Chowkidar PW-2 (Dr. Bhupendra Pd. Singh) held autopsy on the dead body. PW-10 (Jitendra Kumar) is the Investigating Officer. The defence on the other hand, did not examine any witness. 7. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court, held the appellants guilty of the charge under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Mr. PW-10 (Jitendra Kumar) is the Investigating Officer. The defence on the other hand, did not examine any witness. 7. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court, held the appellants guilty of the charge under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Mr. Setyendra Singh, learned Counsel, appearing as amicus-curiae on behalf of the appellants, has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that there is no direct evidence on the murder of the deceased and that the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are not made out and it has not been conclusively proved that the appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment and death cannot be said to be one of the dowry death. He further contended that there is no allegation of dowry demand in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) against the appellant (Reshmi Devi). 9. Learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 10. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is admitted fact that the deceased was married to appellant No. 3 (Bhuneshwar Mistri) about a year ago to the unfortunate occurrence. It is not in dispute that the other appellants are her parents-in-law and at the time of her death, she was living with the appellants in her matrimonial home. This is borne out by the unconverted testimony of PW-8 (Drupadi/Drupatia Devi), the informant, and the mother of the deceased, PW-6 (Nageshwar Singh) a co-villager of the appellants and the Sarpanch, PW-9 (Sahdeo Dusadh), the Chowkidar of P.O. Village Ambadih, PW-8 has further stated that when on the next morning, on getting information that Bijali Devi had been killed, she went to the house of the appellants, she found that dead body of her daughter was kept there on a cot and there were wounds on her person. The distance between village Bagodih and the P.O. village Ambadih is about three miles. PW-9 (Sahdeo Dusadh) the Chowkidar of the P.O. village has testified to the effect that he had found the dead body of Bijali Devi in the house of the appellants on a cot and there were wounds on her neck and Panjra. The distance between village Bagodih and the P.O. village Ambadih is about three miles. PW-9 (Sahdeo Dusadh) the Chowkidar of the P.O. village has testified to the effect that he had found the dead body of Bijali Devi in the house of the appellants on a cot and there were wounds on her neck and Panjra. The inquest report (Exhibit 4), prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW-10) on 27.3.1987 at noon, shows that there were marks of wound and scratches on the whole face, scratches on chest, thighs and on left neck with sign of bleeding from the nose of the deceased. PW-2 (Dr. Bhupendra Pd. Singh) has stated that on 28.3.1987 at 4 p.m. he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bijali Devi, which was swollen with peeling of skin at places and bleeding nose was seen, but no apparent external injury was detected and on dissection, he found that trachea, larynx, cornua of hyoid-bone, left 10th and 11th ribs were fractured and the left lung was lacerated, which were ante-mortem wounds. According to him, the fracture of ribs were caused by hard and blunt substance by pressing of lathi and the cause of death was as phyxia, as a result of throttling. He has further opined that the time elapsed since the death was about 48 hours of the post-mortem examination. Exhibit 1 is the post-mortem report in his pen. The medical evidence fits in with the prosecution case that Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi was done to death. A criticism has been made by Mr.Singh that the doctor did not find any external mark of injury on the person of the deceased and this is inconsistent with the testimony of the other PWs that there were external marks of wounds on the person of the deceased. The evidence of the doctor as well as the post-mortem report show that the dead body was in process of decomposition at the time of autopsy and so, no external mark of injury could be found. The above criticism made by Mr. Singh is devoid of merit. It is nobodys case that the death of Bijali Devi was accidental. The defence has offered no explanations as to when, how and in what manner the deceased suffered the wounds and had died. The above criticism made by Mr. Singh is devoid of merit. It is nobodys case that the death of Bijali Devi was accidental. The defence has offered no explanations as to when, how and in what manner the deceased suffered the wounds and had died. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to set out the ingredients/ essential facts, which the prosecution has to establish for proving the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, which are as follows : (i) that the death of the woman has been caused otherwise than under normal circumstances : (ii) that such death has occurred within seven years of her marriage and : (iii) the deceased (Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi) must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants and such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. The facts and evidence discussed above, establish beyond doubt that the death of Bijali Devi was caused by violent bodily injuries and it occurred otherwise than under the normal circumstances and that her death occurred within seven years of her marriage at her matrimonial home. 11. The crucial point which now falls for consideration is whether the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants. It is alleged in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) that the appellants (Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri) demanded a radio-set in dowry. PW-8 (Drupadi Devi) has testified to the effect that the deceased last visited her parental home on the occasion of Karma festival and when thereafter she sent PWs 1, 3 and 4 to bring her from her Sasural the appellants did not allow them to meet her, nor sent her to her parents for the reason that the demanded radio-set in dowry had not been given. She has explained that she did not report the matter to any one for the reason that she did not suspect that it would be the cause of her death at the hands of the appellants and she simply believed that they were applying pressure tactics. PW-5 (Bishun Mistri), father of the deceased, who has turned ascetic, has deposed that on the occasion of Karma festival his daughter with her husband had visited her parental home and they returned happily, but appellant (Bhuneshwar Mistri), his son-in-law, asked him to give Baja, (radio-set). PW-5 (Bishun Mistri), father of the deceased, who has turned ascetic, has deposed that on the occasion of Karma festival his daughter with her husband had visited her parental home and they returned happily, but appellant (Bhuneshwar Mistri), his son-in-law, asked him to give Baja, (radio-set). PWs 5 and 8, parents of the deceased are simple and straight forward witnesses. Their evidence give ring of truth. PW-1 (Suresh Pd. Mistri), cousin of the deceased PW-3 (Guru Pd. Mistri) her uncle and PW-4 (Dhaneswar Mistri), another cousin of the deceased, have stated that on different occasions at the behest of the informant (PW-8) they had been to the house of the appellants to bring the deceased back home, but they were not allowed by the appellants to meet her, nor she was permitted to accompany them to her parental home and the demand of radio-set as dowry was made by them. PWs 3 and 4 have named the appellants Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri, whereas PW-1 has named all the three appellants. Their evidence support the prosecution case against the appellants Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri that a radio-set was demanded in dowry by them and for its non-fulfilment, they did not allow them to meet the deceased, nor permitted her to accompany them to her parental home. Their evidence show that the deceased was harassed by the appellants-Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri, because the demand of dowry had not been fulfiled. As regards the appellant-Reshmi Devi, there is solitary testimony of PW-1 that she too had demanded radio-set as dowry item. No allegation of dowry demand has been made against her in the fardbeyan. So, in the circumstances, the involvement of appellant- Reshmi Devi with respect to the demand of dowry, is not established beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. But so far as the involvement of appellants-Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri is concerned that they demanded dowry and harassed the deceased for it, is established from the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5. Thus, the 3rd ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is proved against the appellants Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would be that the appellants-Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri caused the dowry death of Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi. The defence has led no evidence to rebut the presumption. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would be that the appellants-Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri caused the dowry death of Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi. The defence has led no evidence to rebut the presumption. The charge under Sections 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is well established against the appellants-Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri. Hence, the conviction of appellants 3 and 1 (Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri under Sections 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustained. Now coming to the sentence, there is no evidence to the actual part played by the appellants 3 and 1 (Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri) in causing the death of Bijali Devi alias Janaki Devi. At the time of the trial, appellant No. 1 (Nanhu Mistri) was aged about 50 years, whereas appellant No. 3 (Bhuneshwar Mistri) was aged about 25 years. Under the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment for life under Sections 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, awarded to appellants 3 and 1 (Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri) by the trial Court, is reduced to 10 years. In my considered view, the modified sentence awarded to them will meet the ends of justice. Appellant No. 1 (Reshmi Devi) is given benefit of reasonable doubt and is acquitted of the charge under Sections 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Her conviction and sentence is set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal of appellants 3 and 1 (Bhuneshwar Mistri and Nanhu Mistri respectively) is dismissed with the aforementioned modification in the order of sentence passed against them by the trial Court. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if they have served the period of sentence awarded to them to the extent indicated above in accordance with law, unless required in other case(s). So far as appeal of appellant No. 2 (Reshmi Devi) is concerned, it is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against her by the trial Court are set aside. She shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case(s). R.A.Sharma, J. 13 I agree. Appeal dismissed of Appellant Nos. 1 to 3. Appeals allowed of Appellant. 2.