Judgment By Court.- The sale appellant Pragesh Munda @ Yogesh Munda has preferred this appeal against the orders of conviction and sentence .dated 22.8.2000 passed by 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 514 of 1999 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was married with deceased Meena Devi sister of the informant Bal Krishna Munda. According to prosecution, the relation between the appellant and the deceased was quite well but after sometime the appellant started to demand money for television etc. as dowry from the father-in-law who was employed in Kedala colliery. This led to bitter relationship and ill treatment committed by the appellant upon the deceased. Futher story of the prosecution is that on 7th July, 1999 the appellant has gone to in-laws house where the deceased was present. It is also stated that on that day the appellant brought back his wife to his home at village Jirawar. According to the informant the appellant has thrashed his wife while returning and out of disgust, his wife pourk Oil on her body in the afternoon at about 3 p.m. and put herself on fire. The house inmates broken the door but in the meantime Meena Devi was burnt completely, she was brought to RMCH hospital and subjected to treatment. However, Meena Devi breathed her last at about 3 a.m. on 8th July, 1999. Ormanjhi Police was called and statement of Bal Krishna Munda was recorded at RMCH, Ranchi at 2.30 p.m. on 8th July, 1999, on the basis of which Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 59 of 1999 was registered under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Police investigated the case and finally submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 11th July, 1999. 3. The case was committed to the court of session where he was charged under section 304(B) on 26.11.1999. The lower court after examining the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses ultimately found the appellant guilty under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced him to serve R.I. for 10 years by impugned judgment dated 22.8.2000. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that learned lower court has committed errors on record. The lower court after examining the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses ultimately found the appellant guilty under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced him to serve R.I. for 10 years by impugned judgment dated 22.8.2000. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that learned lower court has committed errors on record. It is also asserted that relationship between appellant and deceased was all along cordial and no occasion arose for demand of dowry as in Schedule Tribe, custom of dowry is not prevailing. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased has herself put on fire for reasons unknown because torture for dowry demand has not been proved with any positive evidence. It is also submitted that P.W 3-4 house inmates have stated that the relationship was cordial between the appellant and the deceased. 5. According to learned counsel out of 10 witnesses P.W 1 is brother of the deceased, while P.W 2 and P.W 9 are mother and father of the deceased. They have only supported the prosecution story• in part because they could not be an eyewitness of the occurrence dated 7.7.99. According to learned counsel, P.W 3 brother of the appellant, P.W 4, P.W 6 and P.W 7 are co-villagers and have not supported the prosecution story. It is also submitted that out of this wedlock one son was born that shows that there was good relation between the husband and the wife. It is also asserted that information of the incident was given to the informant and father of the deceased by the father of the appellant that shows that there was no such strained relationship between the deceased and appellant. Therefore, the conviction on the basis of so-called dowry demands has not been proved, as such, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 6. The learned APP appearing for the State opposed this contention on the grounds that the death of the deceased Meena Devi took place in unnatural circumstances within 2 and 1/2 years of the marriage with the appellant. It is also pointed out that it is proved that when he came from his wife's house, he gave thrashing to her before the occurrence. Therefore, the presumption that she committed suicide due to torture or for dowry demand is available with the prosecution. 7. It is also pointed out that it is proved that when he came from his wife's house, he gave thrashing to her before the occurrence. Therefore, the presumption that she committed suicide due to torture or for dowry demand is available with the prosecution. 7. I have gone through the entire evidence available on the records. This fact remains undisputed that Meena Devi died with extensive burn injuries vide Ext. 2 proved by P.W 5 Dr. Tulsi Mahto of RMCH. It is also asserted that the incident took place within seven years of the marriage. The brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law have alleged that the appellant used to demand money for television etc. as dowry. There may not be any eye-witness of the actual offences from the family of the deceased and the probable witness house inmates of the appellant house have been examined but turned hostile. In such view of the fact where the deceased was found dead with burn injury in unnatural circumstances within seven years of the marriage, presumption goes in favour of the prosecution. It was of the duty of the defence to explain under what circumstances she committed suicide which is not available on the record. The evil of dowry demands resulting in torture upon the females is one of the reasons for committing suicide in our society. 8. The witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 supported the prosecution story that the appellant used to demand money for purchase of television etc. It has been also brought on record that when money was denied Meena Devi was used to be tortured and ill-treated. The defence has cross- examined these witnesses in which P.W. 1 vide para 10 has admitted that on the date of occurrence the appellant has taken away deceased thrashing her. The first information further alleges that the appellant has fled away from hospital. P.W 2 mother-in-law of the appellant has asserted vide para 2 that just before the occurrence the appellant has demanded money for television etc. P.W. 6 Jagarnath Munda has also supported the prosecution version. During cross-examination he asserted vide para 6 that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was not good for last one and half years. P.W 2 mother-in-law of the appellant has asserted vide para 2 that just before the occurrence the appellant has demanded money for television etc. P.W. 6 Jagarnath Munda has also supported the prosecution version. During cross-examination he asserted vide para 6 that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was not good for last one and half years. P.W. 7 Bharat Mahto has also supported the prosecution version while P.W. 9 Jhagru Munda, the father of the deceasd, has supported the prosecution version. He has been examined by the court under section 311 Cr.P.C. as essential witness to arrive at truth asserted that the appellant used to demand money for T.V. etc. This witness has given details that appellant used to quarrel for TV money with him also. He has not been examined by the Police but the learned lower court found it proper to examine him as court witness just to ascertain the truth regarding dowry demand etc. which is proper in the present facts. He has been cross-examined at length by the defence in which he admitted that earlier the relationship between the deceased and the son-in-law was good, however, he denied that the allegation of dowry demand were made falsely. The witnesses examined in defence are formal in nature and appear to be not interested but tutored because they have asserted that relation between the deceased and the appellant was quite well and they never, saw the appellant demanding money from father-in-law. It is not probable that the appellant could have demanded money in presence of the witnesses who are co-villagers. 9. Having regard to the above mentioned facts, I find that the prosecution version with presumption in favour of the prosecution as unnatural death taking place within seven years of the marriage alongwith allegation that appellant used to demand money for' television etc. has been sufficiently proved. As such, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned lower court is accordingly affirmed. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant Pragesh Munda @ Yogesh Munda has already remained in custody for more than six years and nine months till today and in such cases where the deceased committed herself suicide minimum sentence of seven years may be sufficient. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant Pragesh Munda @ Yogesh Munda has already remained in custody for more than six years and nine months till today and in such cases where the deceased committed herself suicide minimum sentence of seven years may be sufficient. The learned lower court has sentenced the appellant to serve RI for 10 years. 11. In the present facts when no overt act is alleged against the appellant to caused burn injuries to the deceased, I am of the opinion that minimum sentence prescribed under the law of seven years may serve the purpose. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence. The appellant is sentenced to serve RI for seven years. The appellant may be set at liberty after completion of the term.