Judgment : LAKSHMAN URAON, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th September, 1999 and 28th September, 1999 respectively, passed by Sri Han Deo Prasad, learned 1st Additions Sessions Judge Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1995, whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code whereas no separate sentence was passed under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is based on the written information, submitted by the informant Sumitra Devi (PW 6), alleging therein, that his daughter Smt. Indra Devi was married with this appellant Munna Lal Mcdi in the year, 1989. It is further alleged that her father-in-law Kati Mcdi, mother-in-law, Nanad Sunita Devi and Bhasiur Dilip Lal Mcdi always used to assault Smt. Indra Devi for demand of Rs. 10,000. 00 towards dowry. They had threatened her not to remain in her in-laws house, unless the said amount is paid. On 2/5/10/1993 the informant gave Rs. 5,000. 00 to this appellant Munna Lal Mcdi alongwith utensils and golden chain. On 28/11/1993 Dilip Mcdi informed the informant that her daughter had fallen down from the roof and her right leg was broken. The informant sent her son Bhim Lal Modi to enquire into the matter. He was informed that his sister died due to burning. The informant suspected that all the members of her in laws had burnt Smt. Indira Devi to death, due to non-fulfillment of Rs. 10,000. 00 as dowry. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, framed charges under Sections 302/34, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Dilip Kumar Burnwal, Manoj Kumar Burnwal, Kuti Modi alias Janardan Burnwal, Radha Devi and Sunita Kumari. In course of trial, Kati Modi alias Janardan Burnwal died whereas other co-accused Dilip Kumar Burnwal, Radha Devi and Sunita Kumari were acquitted, giving them the benefit of doubt. On the other hand, this appellant Manoj Kumar Burnwal was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. In course of trial, Kati Modi alias Janardan Burnwal died whereas other co-accused Dilip Kumar Burnwal, Radha Devi and Sunita Kumari were acquitted, giving them the benefit of doubt. On the other hand, this appellant Manoj Kumar Burnwal was convicted and sentenced, as stated above. ( 3 ) ASSAILING the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 28/11/1999 the appellant informed the Officer-incharge, Jamtara Police Station, that on 27/11/1993 while his wife Indira Devi was boiling milk on stove, she sustained burn injuries. He had his father were not present there. On information, he came and with the help of the villagers, took his wife Indira Devi for treatment to Sub-Divisional Hospital. Jamtara, where the succumbed to her injuries. On his fardbeyan U. D. Case No. 15 of 1993 (Ext. A) was registered. The appellant, thereafter, informed his in-laws, who immediately rushed to see Indira Devi. On 29/11/1993. Jhati Lal Burnwal, father of the deceased Indira Devi, in his fardbeyan, alleged that his daughter was burnt to death only due to non-fulfillment of dowry, amounting to Rs. 10,000. 00. He also alleged that his daughter was being assaulted for demand of dowry. ( 4 ) THE neighbours of the appellant, who are PW5 4, 7 and 12 have not supported the prosecution case. They had seen the deceased having sustained the burn injuries. They have deposed that the deceased set herself on fire after closing the door from inside and sustained burn injuries. PW 10 who is father of the deceased has deposed that appellant never demanded Rs. 10. 000/- as dowry from him nor he demanded the said amount from his daughter in his presence. There is no other witness to support the allegation regarding torture for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. PW 6, the informant, has deposed that her daughter informed her regarding demand of Rs. 5,000/- by this appellant. The informant had gone to the police station but the police officials did not institute, any case. Then she field a case in the Court Ext. 2 is a letter alleged to have been written by the deceased Indira but this letter does not disclose anything regarding torture and cruelty meted to her due to non fulfillment of dowry. The informant had gone to the police station but the police officials did not institute, any case. Then she field a case in the Court Ext. 2 is a letter alleged to have been written by the deceased Indira but this letter does not disclose anything regarding torture and cruelty meted to her due to non fulfillment of dowry. This letter was not handed over to the police in course of investigation rather all of a sudden in course of evidence it was produced in Court without postal seal of Jamtara. On the letter, the postal seal bears the Post Office of Kanda. Vradhman dated 27/11/1999, which is the village of the informant itself. The said letter has been written and signed in different ink, which was wrongly relied upon by the learned Court below, while convicting this appellant only on the basis of this letter alleged to have been written by the deceased to her father. There is also delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court. The Defence Witnesses, who are the appellant (PW 1) and his brother Dilip Kumar Burnwwal (OW 2), have taken a plea that Indra sustained burn injury on 27/11/1993, while she was boiling milk on a stove, which gets support from the evidence of PW5 4, 7 and 12 who are independent neighbouring witnesses of the village. On these grounds, it has been urged that the appellant deserves acquittal. ( 5 ) REFUTING the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant the learned APP has submitted that the learned Court below has rightly convicted this appellant relying on the evidence of the informant Sumitra Devi (PW 6 ). Bhim Lal Burnwal (PW 7 ). Shankar Prasad (PW 1) and the Doctor (PW 3), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Indira Devi. The learned Court below has minutely considered all the evidence that within five years of her marriage. Indra Devi was being tortured and was subjected to cruelty for Rs. 10,000. 00 only towards demand of dowry and ultimately she was burnt to death by sprinkling kerosene oil. The learned counsel has rightly convicted and sentenced this appellant, while acquitting the others as there is no mention of cruelty and torture meted to her by other cc- accused in her letter (Ext. 2), addressed to her father Jhari Lal Burnwal. ( 6 ) EXT. The learned counsel has rightly convicted and sentenced this appellant, while acquitting the others as there is no mention of cruelty and torture meted to her by other cc- accused in her letter (Ext. 2), addressed to her father Jhari Lal Burnwal. ( 6 ) EXT. 2 is the letter, written by Munni Devi (Deceased), addressed to her parent, alleging therein, that her husband demanded Rs. 5,000. 00 as dowry, whose character is bad. He used to assault her along with the other in-laws. She apprehended that her husband will kill her. Her Bhaisur has snatched all her ornaments. Ext. A is the fardbeyan of this appellant recorded on 28/11/1993 at about 8. 45 a. m. at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamtara, who has deposed that this wife Munni alias Manju Devi and one year daughter Pinky were at home. He was informed at 5. 00 p. m. while he was in the market, regarding burn injuries, sustained by his wife. He returned home and took her to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamtara, with the help of the villagers, where she died. Ext. 6 is the inquest report, which also shows that the deceased Munni alias Manju Devi, wife of this appellant, died due to burning. Ext. 7 is the Production-cum-seizure list in respect of inlandletter, which is in the pen and signature of the deceased, addressed to her father. PW 1 Shankar Prasad was informed by the deceased Indra that she was being tortured by her in-laws, only due to dowry. The parents of Indra were misinformed that Indra sustained injury due to fall from the roof but actually she sustained injury due to burning. He has identified the letter (Ext. 2), written by the deceased. PW 2 Ashok Burnwal and PW 6 Sumitra Devi (informant) have also deposed that the deceased was being tortured and assaulted only for non-fulfillment of Rs. 10,000. 00. PW 10 Jhari Lal Burnwal, father of the deceased, has not deposed anything and he has been tendered. DW5 1 and 2 have deposed that the wife of the appellant sustained burn injuries while boiling milk and succumbed to the injuries. The other Village independent witnesses i. e. , PW 4,7 and 12, who are neighbours, have also deposed that the deceased bolted the door from inside and set her on fire. DW5 1 and 2 have deposed that the wife of the appellant sustained burn injuries while boiling milk and succumbed to the injuries. The other Village independent witnesses i. e. , PW 4,7 and 12, who are neighbours, have also deposed that the deceased bolted the door from inside and set her on fire. The villagers rushed there pushed the door and found Indra Devi completely burnt i. e. , 85 to 90 percent. She was taken to Hospital where she died. PW 3 Dr. Ashok Kumar on 28/11/1993 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Munni alias Manju Devi (Indra ). wife of this appellant, and found 85 to 90 percent deep burn injuries. The body was badly destructed and smell of kerosene oil was coming come from the burn injuries. There was no any other injury or fracture of bone on the body. The deceased died as a result of deep burn in juries since 12 to 24 hours from the time of the post-mortem examination, which was held on 28. 11. 1993 at 12. 30 p. m. and post-mortem Report (Ext. 3) was prepared. ( 7 ) WHEN considered the evidence of the witnesses, there is no doubt regarding commission of suicide by the deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her air fire. One year child was outside the room who was crying. Inside the room the deceased bolted herself and at herself on fire, resulting 85 to 90 percent burn resulting her death soon thereafter in the Hospital. The cause of death is that she was being assaulted and tortured by her husband (appellant) and others only for Rs. 10,000. 00 as dowry. She had written in land letter (Ext. 2), addressed to her father, that her husband demanded Rs. 5,000. 00 and assaulted her. The other in-laws-also used to assault her. Her Bhaisur had taken all her ornaments. All these are the circumstances, which lead that soon before the death due to burn injuries, Munni alias Manju Devi (Indra) was subjected to torture and cruelty only for Rs. 10,000. 00. Once the informant (PW 6) gave Rs. 5,000. 00 besides utensils and golden chain to this appellant. Even then her daughter was subjected to cruelty and torture for Rs. 10,000. 00 more. 10,000. 00. Once the informant (PW 6) gave Rs. 5,000. 00 besides utensils and golden chain to this appellant. Even then her daughter was subjected to cruelty and torture for Rs. 10,000. 00 more. She was misinformed by the in-laws that Indra Devi her daughter sustained injury due to fall from the roof but when the son of the informant went there, he found his sister completely burnt who succumbed to her injuries. When considered all the evidence. I find that the death is definitely suicidal death committed by the deceased herself by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body, leaving one female child outside the room. At that time neither her husband (the appellant) nor her father-in-law mother-in-law and other inmates were present. Out of frustration as she was used to be assaulted and tortured for Rs. 10,000. 00 by this appellant and others she committed suicide. Moreover, the ornaments were also taken away by her Bhaisur. These are the evidence of physical and mental torture subjecting her to cruelty and torture, resulting commission of suicide by her in her in-laws house within five years of her marriage. This appellant is the husband of the deceased, who had played active role in assaulting and subjecting to torture and cruelty to his wife Munni alias Manju Devi (Indra), only for Rs. 10,000. 00 towards demand of dowry. Due to poverty, the informant and her husband could not provide the said amount, resulting commission of suicide by her daughter and for which this appellant is the only persons, to be held responsible. When considered all these evidence, adduced by the prosecution and the defence, I find that of course it was a suicidal death of Munni alias Manju Devi (Indra) but the cause of such suicidal death was this appellant, who can not be spared from his responsibility to maintain his wife and protect her in case of miseries. The learned Court below has considered all the pros and cons meticulously and has rightly convicted this appellant under Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Court below has considered all the pros and cons meticulously and has rightly convicted this appellant under Section 304b of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) WHEN considered pros and cons of the prosecution case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I find this appeal devoid of any merit. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below, which requires any interference. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and he is ordered to surrender in the Court below to serve the remaining part of his sentence. The learned Court below is also directed to take all coercive steps to apprehend this appellant to serve his remaining part of sentence. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .