JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The two appellants along with seven other accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 304B/34 and 201/34 IPC for causing intentional death of Sarita Devi within seven years of her marriage due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and in furtherance of common intention and for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder by throwing the dead body into a well with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment. 2. Learned Session Judge, Deoghar by the impugned judgment dated 24-9-96 in Session Case No. 173 of 1992 convicted only these two appellants for the offence under Section 304B and 201 IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 304B and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The rest of the accused persons were acquitted from all charges. 3. In short the prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant Hriday Narayan Mahto is that his sister Sarita Devi was married to the appellant No. 1. Damodar Verma one year ago. After the marriage the appellants and other in-laws started torturing her sister in connection with demand of dowry and they always forced her to bring money from her father and brother. They also threatened that if their demand was not fulfilled then she would be killed. The informant further alleged that on 26-5-91 Narayan I.e. the brother of the informant went to the in-laws place of his sister to bring her but she was not sent by the in-laws rather they started making demand for money. On 28-5-91 the informant himself went to the in-laws place of her sister to bring her sister and at that time he saw that his sister was being assaulted by the accused persons and even in his presence the mother-in-law (Appellant No. 2) assaulted his sister. The informant requested not the assault and promised to pay the dowry according to his capacity. He further alleged that on 29-5-91 he heard a rumour that his sister was traceless from her Sasural, then he along with other members of his family went to the in-laws place of his sister i.e. village Paharia and he found his sister missing. The informant requested not the assault and promised to pay the dowry according to his capacity. He further alleged that on 29-5-91 he heard a rumour that his sister was traceless from her Sasural, then he along with other members of his family went to the in-laws place of his sister i.e. village Paharia and he found his sister missing. On interrogation, the mother-in-law i.e. appellant No. 2 disclosed that the dead body of his sister was lying in irrigation well near Ajay river. On this information they went to that place and found that the dead body of his sister was floating in the well, then he reported the matter to the police and thereafter the police took out the dead body from the well, and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sent for Post-Mortem examination. 3. In order to establish the charges, in all ten witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution out of whom P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 are the formal witness and P.W. 10 is the Doctor who held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 1 is Hriday Narayan Mahto, the brother of the informant and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the witness who accompanied the informant to village Paharia on hearing the news of disappearance of the deceased. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are the witness on the point of ill treatment and demand of dowry by the accused persons. P.W. 6 is the father of the informant whereas P.W. 8 is the informant himself. 4. According to the Doctor P.W. 10 the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 1. Bruise over left mid-axilliary Line- 3 1/2" x 2" with fracture of 5th left rib with abrasion - 2 " x 1/2" below the bruise. 2. Abrasion - abdominal wall -6" x 1/4". 3. Abrasion-Sternum to abdominal wall - 18 " x 1/2". 4. Diffuse swelling - Right side of fact with Burise - 1/4" x 1/2". 5. Bruise - Left forearm- 3" x 1/2". 6. Bruise-forehead- above left eyebrow- 2" x 1 1/2". 7. Bruise-forehead-above right eyebrow - 1 1/2 " x 1". 8. Bruise- left side of neck- like ligature mark 6" x 1/4". 9. Blood-coming out from the nostrils. 4. Diffuse swelling - Right side of fact with Burise - 1/4" x 1/2". 5. Bruise - Left forearm- 3" x 1/2". 6. Bruise-forehead- above left eyebrow- 2" x 1 1/2". 7. Bruise-forehead-above right eyebrow - 1 1/2 " x 1". 8. Bruise- left side of neck- like ligature mark 6" x 1/4". 9. Blood-coming out from the nostrils. In the opinion of the Doctor death was due to the shock and haemorrage as a result of the above injuries specially injury No. 1 which was caused by hard and blunt substance. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the preceding paragraph. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned trial court held as under: (a) The medical version was clear and specific on the pint that the victim was subjected to merciless assault, as a result of which she died and thereafter her dead body was thrown into the well. (b) The marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant No. 1 Damodar three years, therefore, the death of the deceased took place within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstance. (c) From the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 it was established that the victim lady was being ill treated and soon before her death she was subjected to various types of torture due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. 6. Mr. Deepak Bharti, learned Amicus Curiae who appeared on behalf of the appellants submitted that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants was bad in law since the prosecution could not establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submitted that on the basis of same set of evidence, the trial court acquitted the other seven accused persons and therefore, he committed wrong in convicting these two appellants relying on the same evidence which were not relied upon by the trial court while acquitting the other accused. It was further argues that the Investigating Officer was not examined on behalf of the prosecution and, therefore, the defence was seriously prejudiced because the contradictions in the evidence of the P.Ws could not be brought on record by drawing attention of the Investigating Officer. It was further argues that the Investigating Officer was not examined on behalf of the prosecution and, therefore, the defence was seriously prejudiced because the contradictions in the evidence of the P.Ws could not be brought on record by drawing attention of the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that all the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and, therefore, on the basis of testimony of these interested witnesses, the appellants ought not to have been convicted. 7. The informant P.W. 8 has stated in his evidence that the deceased i.e. his sister Sarita Devi was married to Damodar Mahto of village Paharia (the appellant No. 1) and she used to live with her husband at her in-laws place. Her in-laws use to pick up quarrels with her and also used to assault her. They regularly demanded cash by way of dowry from her. He further stated that on 26-5-91 his brother Narayan (P.W. 1) had gone to village Paharia to bring back his sister but she was not sent by the in-laws and they also demanded money. On 28-5-91 the informant himself went to the in-laws place of his sister and saw his sister being assaulted by the appellants. When he protested, they started abusing him and also became ready to assaulting. At this the informant fled away from there and narrated the occurrence to his father. On 29-5-91 he got information that his sister was missing from her Sasural and then he proceeded to Village Paharia along with 5-6 persons. After interrogation, Tara Devi, the mother-in-law the appellant No. 2 disclosed that the dead body of the deceased Sarita Devi was lying in the irrigation well near Ajay river. On this information he with co-villagers proceeded towards the well and then found that the dead body of his sister floating in the well. Then he reported the matter to the police who took out the dead body from the well. The informant specifically stated that he found several injuries on the person of the deceased. 8. P.W. 1 the brother of the deceased has fully corroborated the statement of the informant about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Damodar and also on the point of ill treatment and torture as well as on the point of demand of dowry. 8. P.W. 1 the brother of the deceased has fully corroborated the statement of the informant about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Damodar and also on the point of ill treatment and torture as well as on the point of demand of dowry. P.W. 6 the father of the deceased also stated that the accused persons including the appellants use to torture his daughter for demand of dowry. He also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 8. 9. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the witnesses who had accompanied the informant on hearing the news of disappearance of the deceased. They have also stated about the torture and ill treatment upon the deceased at the hands of the appellants. It is not that the trial court disbelieved the statements of the P.Ws for acquitting the other co-accused rather since no specific allegations of commission of any overt act was made by the prosecution witnesses against the rest of the seven accused persons and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly acquitted them from the charges leveled against them. From the evidence of prosecution witness I find that they have been cross examined at length but nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant nor it has been shown as to how the defence was prejudiced due to non examination of the Investigating Officer. There is no vital contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witness. Therefore, in my opinion none examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution cannot be said to have caused any prejudiced to the appellants. The most important thing is the application of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Here in the present case the deceased was admittedly living at her in-laws place i.e. with the appellants and she died unnatural death in abnormal circumstance at her in-laws place, therefore, the onus did lie on the appellants to rebut the presumption of the commission of causing dowry death as envisaged under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act which the defence totally failed to do. 10. In view of the discussion and the findings above, I hold that the prosecution proved the charges against these two appellants and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the charge under Section 304B and 201 IPC. 10. In view of the discussion and the findings above, I hold that the prosecution proved the charges against these two appellants and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the charge under Section 304B and 201 IPC. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I find that the sentence awarded by the trial court is also not excessive. 11. In the result by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant who are on bail are directed to be taken in custody forthwith to serve out the sentence and their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.