Judgment : H. S. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 21-1-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/95 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma held the appellants guilty under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for ten (10) years under Section 304-B, I. P. C. and further sentenced them to undergo R. I. for three (3) years under Section 498-A, I. P. C. and directed both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that one Sarita Devi, daughter of Govind Modi, Informant, aged seventeen (17) years, was married to appellant Raj Kumar Modi two years ago. One year prior to the alleged date of occurrence, Sarita Devi had come from Hirodih (her sasural) to her Naihar and said that her in-laws are demanding colour T. V. and for that, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar) and husband always assault her and torture her and due to their torturing meted out to her by them, she has come to Naihar. The informant stated that he would give Colour T. V. as and when situation permits. Thereafter, the informant along with his daughter Sarita Devi and others went to his daughters sasural and said there that he would give T. V. when time would come. Thereupon, appellants Sarju Modi (Samdhi) and Sakuna Devi (Samdhan) asked the informant to go home, then informant returned with his men. Next day, he again went to see his daughter at Hirodih, he found everything correct and he had promised to give T. V. to his Samdhi and Samdhan. But on 30-3-1994, he got information from one Faudi Modi that his daughter has died. On getting this information, informant immediately went to sasural of his daughter and found her dead. He suspected that his daughter Sarita Devi has been murdered by the appellants because they always assaulted her for the demand of T. V. On the basis of the information of the informant, police registered a case bearing Jainagar P. S. Case No. 26/94 and police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. ( 3 ) FROM the trend of the statement of the appellants under Section 313, Cr. ( 3 ) FROM the trend of the statement of the appellants under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses, it appears that defence took a plea that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined as many as ten (10) witnesses to prove its case and the learned Court after considering the material on record - both oral and documentary - held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as aforesaid. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment on the following grounds :a) Learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses such as medical doctor, I. O. properly and has come to a wrong finding. b) There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and those witnesses who have come to support the prosecution case are interested ones and their evidence cannot be relied upon. c) There was no electrical connection in the village and demand of T. V. in the form of dowry is absurd. d) There is no evidence that soon before her death, Sarita Devi was subjected to cruelty as per provision of law. e) Appellants namely Raj Kumar Modi was living separate from the other appellants and was not at all concerned with the alleged offence. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is Ajay Kumar Burnwall. He has deposed that on 30-3-94 at about 8. 00 a. m. in the morning, he got information from Faudi Modi that his sister Sarita Devi has died and on that piece of information, he along with his father (P. W. 2), Ramchandra Modi, Bimlesh Modi went to the sasural of his sister Sarita at Hirodih and saw dead body of his sister lying on the cot. He further saw marks of assault on her left hand and mark of rope around her neck. He further deposed that his sister was married with Raj Kumar Modi some three years ago and after marriage, his sister lived in her sasural. He has further deposed that one month prior to the alleged date of occurrence i. e. 30-3-94, Raj Kumar Modi, Sarju Modi, Dinu Modi and wife of Sarju Modi demanded colour T. V. from his sister and for that, they tortured her. He has further deposed that one month prior to the alleged date of occurrence i. e. 30-3-94, Raj Kumar Modi, Sarju Modi, Dinu Modi and wife of Sarju Modi demanded colour T. V. from his sister and for that, they tortured her. He has further deposed that one month prior to her death, she fled away from her sasural and narrated the whole story. He further stated that after marriage, she lived in her sasural for some days peacefully and thereafter, her sasural people tortured her for T. V. He has further deposed that on hearing whole story from his sister, he along with his father (P. W. 8), Uncle Ramchandra Modi, Bimlesh Modi, Kedar Singh went to the sasural of his sister and assured her sasural people that T. V. would be supplied on receipt of money and the same day, they left his sister in her sasural. One month thereafter, her in-laws, husband and Dewar committed her murder. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 is Bimlesh Modi. He has deposed that Sangeeta alias Sarita Devi died in sasural. She was his niece. He further deposed that he along with Govind Modi, Ramchandra Modi and other persons of village went to the sasural of Sarita Devi and saw dead body of Sangeeta alias Sarita Devi lying on the surface. Her neck bore rope mark and there was mark of assault on her waist. He has further deposed that she was being tortured for colour T. V. and he has also deposed that one month prior to her death, Sarita Devi had fled from her sasural and came to her Naihar and narrated the whole story whereupon her father (P. W. 8), he along with others went to the sasural of Sarita Devi and promised to give colour T. V. on receipt of money. Thereafter, he got information of death of Sangeeta alias Sarita Devi. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 is Kedar Singh. He has been declared hostile. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 is Mahadeo Modi. He has deposed that at about 8. 00 a. m. , he heard hulla and went to the house of Sarju Modi where he saw the dead body of Sarita Devi lying on the Cot. He has further deposed that there were several persons and police was also there. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 is Mahadeo Modi. He has deposed that at about 8. 00 a. m. , he heard hulla and went to the house of Sarju Modi where he saw the dead body of Sarita Devi lying on the Cot. He has further deposed that there were several persons and police was also there. He is witness to the inquest report but he has further deposed that Sarita Devi had very cordial relation with her sasural people. He has admitted to have deposed before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P. C. and has stated that after answering the call of the nature, he was returning at about 4. 00 a. m. in the morning when he heard crying of daughter-in-law of Sarju Modi, then he gave a call to Sarju Modi but when no reply came from the house, then he left the place for his home. He has further deposed that later on he heard that Sarita Devi has died. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has so deposed under Section 164, Cr. P. C. at the instance of Bihari Modi. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 is Bhagwan Lal Modi. He has deposed that he had gone to Kandrapadhi in connection with a Panchayati and from there, he was returning to his home at 9. 15 a. m. then he met Mahendra, son of Mahaveer Modi who informed him that daughter-in-law of Sarju Modi, Sarita Devi has died but on query, he could not say as to how she died. He has further deposed that he went to the house of Sarju Modi and saw the dead body of Sarita Devi lying on the cot. He has further deposed that on query from the wife of Sarju Modi, she told that she is unable to say as to how Sarita Devi died and further disclosed that Sarju Modi had gone to Dhanbad and Raj Kumar Modi is in Hazaribagh. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 is a Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sarita Devi on 30-3-94 and found the following:-I. Froth was coming out from the mouth. ii. One abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left elbow joint. iii. There was bluish marks in the lumber region-31/2" x 1", 3" x 1", 2" x 1", 5" x 1", 4" x 1", 3" x 1". iv. ii. One abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left elbow joint. iii. There was bluish marks in the lumber region-31/2" x 1", 3" x 1", 2" x 1", 5" x 1", 4" x 1", 3" x 1". iv. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left ankle joint. v. On dissection 3rd and 4th cervical Vertebrae were found fractured. There was laceration on Larynx, Blood present in subcutaneous tissues around cervical vertebra, neck was moving round freely. vi. Spleen, liver, kidney and brain were congested. Heart - both chambers contained blood, stomach - digested food present, bladder was empty, Uterus Non-gravid. vii. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours. According to her, death occurred due to Asphyxia caused by strangulation. ( 12 ) P. W. 7 is Sarda Devi. She is mother of deceased Sarita Devi alias Sangeeta Devi. She has deposed more or less what P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 has stated in their deposition. She has admitted in para 9 of her deposition that there is no electricity at Hirodih but she says that T. V. operated by battery. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is Govind Modi (Informant) who is father of deceased Sarita Devi alias Sangeeta Devi. He has deposed same as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 has stated in their deposition. ( 14 ) P. W. 9 is Ramchandra Modi. He has deposed that two years ago, he came to know that sasural people of his niece Sarita Devi are demanding colour T. V. On this piece of information, he along with three others had gone to sasural of Sarita Devi and had explained sasural people that on improvement of situation, T. V. will be delivered. He has further deposed that one month thereafter, he came to know that Sarita Devi has died. On this piece of information, he went to Hirodih and found her lying dead. He did not see mark on her body. He has further deposed that he learned that due to colour T. V. , Sarju Modi, Raj Kumar Modi, Dinu Modi and Sakuna Modi has committed her murder. ( 15 ) P. W. 10 is I. O. Dular Sah. He was, on relevant date and time of the alleged occurrence, Officer-in-charge of the Jainagar P. S. He registered a case on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Govind Modi. ( 15 ) P. W. 10 is I. O. Dular Sah. He was, on relevant date and time of the alleged occurrence, Officer-in-charge of the Jainagar P. S. He registered a case on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Govind Modi. He has further deposed that he inspected the P. O. which is the house of appellants Sarju Modi. According to him, P. O. is a double storeyed house facing north and main entrance is double faced room and after that, there is courtyard. On the southern room of this courtyard, he found the dead body. He has further deposed that he found mark on the body caused by Danda assault and abrasion on the elbow of the left hand. He has further deposed that he seized a packet containing powder and two pieces of biscuits from the bedroom of the deceased. ( 16 ) ACCORDING to doctor, Sarita Devi died as a result of Asphyxia caused by strangulation. It means that she was strangulated to death. It further appears from perusal of post-mortem report (Ext. 2) that she i. e. Sarita Devi had ante-mortem injuries on her person and this shows that she was before strangulation, assaulted also. It further appears that although in the post-mortem examination, her age has been given as 17 years and in the fardbeyan also, her age has been given as 17 years and a girl of 17 years although a minor who cannot be strangulated to death by one person. Further, she was assaulted and, therefore, she was not in such a condition as to be overpowered by one person. This could have been possible when one is asleep but she was not in that position because she had been assaulted also and her 3rd and 4th ribs had fractured. She must have strangulated to death by more than one person. This fact goes to show that some other persons were also there who all combined together, strangulated her to death. ( 17 ) A plea has been taken that there cannot be a demand of T. V. because there was no electricity in the village where appellants reside but P. W. 7 has stated that T. V. operated by battery also and this is a fact that in most of the places where electricity is not available, Televisions sets are operated by battery. Therefore, this plea is not tenable. Therefore, this plea is not tenable. ( 18 ) NO cogent evidence has been brought on behalf of the appellant-Raj Kumar Modi that he was living separate from the other appellants and so, not at all concerned with the alleged offence. ( 19 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and since Sarita Devi was in her sasural where she died, naturally all witnesses, if thereby any, will be sasural people. But since all sasural people who were present there, involved in the occurrence. Therefore, there cannot be any eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. But there is consistent evidence like P. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 7, P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 that Sarita Devi was being subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. In such a case, only interested witnesses come to support the case and those who supported the case at the initial stage of investigation, with the passage of time, turned hostile and do not come to support the case and turned hostile. But the question is whether the witnesses who are though interested and their evidence be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested persons. In the instant case, admittedly as per finding of the doctor (P. W. 6), Sarita Devi died as a result of Asphyxia due to strangulation and death had occurred in an unnatural way. Death cannot be said to be natural and death in the circumstances must be due to some ulterior reason, because in most unnatural way, Sarita Devi has died and witnesses though related to her are coming and saying that for the sake of dowry, she has been murdered, is a fact which cannot be denied. Due to her dying in unnatural way, doctor not only found death due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation but also found ante-mortem injuries such as Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on left elbow joint and on dissection 3rd and 4th Cervical Vertebrae were found fractured. Therefore, before her death, she was also assaulted and a lady of age of 17 years and 18 years cannot sustain assault by an aged women but was helpless before so many persons. Therefore, from the very injuries, it is quite clear that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Therefore, before her death, she was also assaulted and a lady of age of 17 years and 18 years cannot sustain assault by an aged women but was helpless before so many persons. Therefore, from the very injuries, it is quite clear that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. ( 20 ) FROM the discussion made above, I find and hold that all the appellants together committed murder of Sarita Devi and prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. ( 21 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .