Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the Criminal Appeal Nos. 124 of 2001 and 143 of 2001 arise out of same judgment. Hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 124 of 2001, Kunti Devi and Shambhu Pandit and the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 143 of 2001 Doman Pandit have been convicted under Sec.304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rl for 10 years. They were further convicted under Sec.328/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rl for 7 years and again further convicted for period of 5 years under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is that fardbeyan of the informant, Shiv Charan Pandit was recorded on 20.7.99 at about 5 P.M. before A.S.I. Anwarul Haque of Hisua PS. village-Dheori. According to him, his daughter Rekha Devi was married with Doman Pandit at village Dheori, P.S. Hisua, District-Nawada. The marriage was performed according to Hindu custom and rites five years ago. But her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband demanded gold in dowry since after her marriage and as a result of non-fulfilment of the said demand, the accused persons always tortured her. Sometimes they stopped supplying her food and assaulted her and, therefore, Rekha Devi used to flee-away to her fathers house at Giriyak and to narrate the incident for which several panchayati were held at Dheori. It has been submitted that 16 days ago the accused Shambhu Pandit took Rekha Devi to his house after a Panchayati settlement and assured the informant and other villagers that they would keep her properly. But in the evening at about 4 P.M. i.e. on 19.7.99 one relative, resident of village Budhaul of the informant informed the informant that his daughter was ill at Dheori. But in the evening at about 4 P.M. i.e. on 19.7.99 one relative, resident of village Budhaul of the informant informed the informant that his daughter was ill at Dheori. The informant accompanied his relative in order to reach Dheori but as it was raining and also it was about 7 P.M. in the evening, so he stayed in another village in the night and on the following morning he reached village Dheori at about 5 A.M. He found that his daughter Rekha Devi was unconscious and on question from villagers he learnt that Shambhu Pandit, his son Doman Pandit and the wife of Shambhu Pandit administered poison to Rekha Devi as gold in dowry was not supplied to them on their demand of dowry. It has further been submitted that the accused persons were not taking any effort for the treatment of Rekha Devi and he requested his Samdhi Shambhu Pandit to get Rekha Devi medically treated but the accused Shambhu Pandit simply gave assurance and in the meantime at about 11 A.M. Rekha Devi died. It has been submitted that wife of the informant and the wife of his younger brother who accompanied the informant to village Dheori started weeping and crying upon which the informant took them to his home village Giriyak and thereafter he again returned back to village Dheori alongwith his co-villager Baldeo Pandit, Ramchandra Pandit, Ramswaroop Pandit and others but learnt there that the dead body of Rekha Devi was disposed of with intention to disappear the evidence. On the basis of fardbeyan the Officer-in-Charge of Hisua P.S. drew the formal F.I.R. and handed over the investigation of the case to the A.S.I. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, and accordingly, congnizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses. 6. P.W. 1 is Rajo Pandit. P.W. 2 is Ramswarup Pandit. P.W. 3 is Ramchandra Pandit. RW. 4 is Bundi Rajbanshi. P.W. 5 is Shiv Charan Pandit and P.W. 6 is Anwarul Haque. 7. P.W. 5, Shiv Charan Pandit who is the informant of this case has fully supported the statement recorded in his fardbeyan. 6. P.W. 1 is Rajo Pandit. P.W. 2 is Ramswarup Pandit. P.W. 3 is Ramchandra Pandit. RW. 4 is Bundi Rajbanshi. P.W. 5 is Shiv Charan Pandit and P.W. 6 is Anwarul Haque. 7. P.W. 5, Shiv Charan Pandit who is the informant of this case has fully supported the statement recorded in his fardbeyan. According to him, his daughter Rekha Devi was married with Doman Pandit 5 years ago. After two years of her marriage her second marriage was performed and thereafter she used to live in her husband house. He has further stated that the accused Shambhu Pandit, his wife and Doman Pandit always assaulted his daughter and demanded ornaments and the same could not be given. The accused persons drove her from the house. According to him, his daughter often visited his house after being tortured and she used to say that the members of her in-laws used to threaten her to kill by poisoning in case the demand of ornaments is not fulfilled. It has also been submitted that the accused Shambhu Pandit reached in July, 1995 to her house when victim was at his house and assured him that he would keep his daughter properly, with all dignity. But only after 16 days one of the informants relative of village Dheori came to his house and told him that his daughter Rekha Devi was seriously ill. He accompanied his relative and tried to reach Dheori soon but as it was dark night and was also raining, he had to spent night at village Budhaul and reached village Dheori on the following morning and found that his daughter Rekha Devi was ill and was unconscious. Some villagers told him that the accused persons had administered poison to her. He has stated that accused Shambhu Pandit gave assurance for the treatment but Rekha Devi was not given any medical help and ultimately she died at about 11 P.M. He has also stated that his wife and his brothers wife started weeping and crying upon which he took them to village Giriyak and when he returned back to village Dheori with his co-villagers he found that the dead body of Rekha Devi was disposed of. He has also stated that the A.S.I of Hisua RS. reached there and he made his statement before him and his fardbeyan was recorded. He has also stated that the A.S.I of Hisua RS. reached there and he made his statement before him and his fardbeyan was recorded. Rajo Pandit (P.W. 1), Ramswaroop Pandit (P.W. 2), Ramchandra Pandit (P.W. 3) have also stated the similar facts in their examination-in-chief as stated by Shivcharan Pandit and they have fully corroborated his statements. 8. P.W. 4, Bundi Rajbanshi who is the resident of village Dheori has stated that Rekha Devi was married with Doman Pandit and she was residing in her husbands house. According to him, the accused Shambhu Pandit, the wife of Shambhu Pandit and Doman Pandit always used to quarrel with her for bringing golden chain and other articles in dowry. According to him he used to pacify the accused persons on several occasions but they did not mend. He has further stated that one year ago from the date of his deposition one day Rekha Devi came out crying from her house and told that she had been administered poison. His further statement is that he also found froth (Phen) coming out from her nose and mouth and he has stated that Rekha Devi told while crying that she was given poison by Shambhu Pandit, his wife and Doman Pandit. His further statement is that his house is situated after one field from the house of the accused persons. 9. P.W. 6 is Anwarul Haque the I.O. of this case. According to him, he was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police posted in Hisua P.S. on 20.7.99 and he went to village Dheori on the order of the Officer-in-Charge where he recorded the fardbeyan of Shiv Charan Pandit and Ramswaroop Pandit, Baldeo Pandit all put their L.T.I. He has proved the said fardbeyan (Ext.1). He has further proved the endorsement made by Paras Nath Singh the Officer-in-Charge of Hisua P.S. on the fardbeyan i.e. Exhibit- 1/1. He has also proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 2). He has stated that the Officer-in-Charge of Hisua P.S. handed over the investigation of the case to him and in that course he recorded re-statement of the informant and visited the place of occurrence. Since it was dark night and it was also raining he inspected the place of occurrence following day. He has given full description about the place of occurrence. He did not find accused persons at their residence. 10. Since it was dark night and it was also raining he inspected the place of occurrence following day. He has given full description about the place of occurrence. He did not find accused persons at their residence. 10. Defence has also examined two witnesses, D.W. 1 Prabhu Paswan and D.W. 2 Rameshwar Chaurasiya. 11. According to D.W. 1, he knows the accused Shambhu Pandit and Doman Pandit who are co-villagers and his house is adjacent to the house of Shambhu Pandit and Doman Pandit. He has stated that the marriage of Doman Pandit was performed at Giriyak. According to him, Doman Pandit, his mother and Shambhu Pandit never assaulted Rekha Devi and there was no demand of dowry. He has further stated that the wife of Doman Pandit died due to diarrhoea and information was sent to the informant about the illness of wife of Doman Pandit. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in his presence the deceased Rekha Devi was not treated by any of the doctor. He was informed by Shambhu Pandit that she died because of Diarrhoea. 12. D.W. 2 Rameshwar Chaurasiya has stated that he is acquainted with Shambhu Pandit, Doman Pandit the wife of Shambhu Pandit. According to him, Doman Pandit was married at Giriyak. The wife of Doman Pandit was never assaulted by Doman Pandit and Shambhu Pandit. He has also stated that the wife of Doman Pandit died because of Diarrhoea." He has further stated that there was no demand of dowry by Doman Pandit and Shambhu Pandit. At the time of her death in cremation her family members and the family members of accused Shambhu Pandit were present and they also participated in the cremation. In his cross-examination he has stated that he heard about their participation of cremation from others. According to him, he does not know the persons of the family of in-laws of Doman Pandit. He has stated that he has visited, the house of Shambhu Pandit and he saw that Rekha Devi was alive but was unconscious. He did not see any doctor there and Rekha Devi was never treated by the doctor. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charge against the appellants as there is no evidence that Rekha Devi was poisoned by the accused persons. He did not see any doctor there and Rekha Devi was never treated by the doctor. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charge against the appellants as there is no evidence that Rekha Devi was poisoned by the accused persons. It has further been submitted that there is also complete absence of evidence that from where the informant learnt about that his daughter Rekha Devi was administered poison and she died. It has further been submitted that there is no evidence of demand of dowry and cruelty by the appellants. There is lack of linking of the chain of evidence leading to the guilt of the accused. It has also been submitted that the material witnesses have not been examined and the witnesses who have supported the case are hearsay witnesses. It has lastly been submitted that the appellants have not committed the alleged offence rather Rekha Devi died a natural death due to diarrhoea. It has also been submitted that the person who informed the informant about the illness of the deceased Rekha Devi was not examined. It also creates serious doubt over the prosecution case and these points the Court below ought to have considered and benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants and they should have been acquitted. 14. In a case under Sec.304B of the Indian Penal Code there are three main ingredients that the death should be within seven years of the marriage, it should be in such a circumstance that must be other than natural situation and there must be evidence of cruelty and harassment just before the alleged death. In such cases it is for the accused to prove his innocence and to explain that how the deceased died. In such cases accused persons have to prove their innocence. The case in hand the death of cause within seven years of marriage and as alleged it was not in the normal circumstances. In this case, no post mortem was held and it was due to negligence of the informant who allegedly claims that after the death of victim he took his wife and his brother, who started weeping on death of his daughter Rekha Devi to his village and in the meantime, the dead body was diposed of. In this case, no post mortem was held and it was due to negligence of the informant who allegedly claims that after the death of victim he took his wife and his brother, who started weeping on death of his daughter Rekha Devi to his village and in the meantime, the dead body was diposed of. On the point of torture and demand of dowry the informant has stated that whenever she used to come her fathers place she complainted about the demand of dowry and torture. On that count, in this case although two defence witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence to prove the innocence of the accused persons. But from their evidence the Court found that they were not fully acquainted about the occurrence. Both the defence witnesses have also stated that no doctor was called and the deceased was never treated by the doctor. On the basis of evidence on record the Court below has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sec.304B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction passed by the Court below is hereby upheld. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have remained in custody more than seven years as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellants. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period they have remained in custody for more than seven years, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the sentences of the appellants are reduced to the period they have already undergone in jail custody. With the aforesaid modification in their sentence, these two appeals are dismissed. 16. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi has as sisted this Court as Amicus Curiae. He will be paid his remuneration from the Council of Legal Aid and Advice.