JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. All the three appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.3.2000 and 23.3.2000 respectively passed by Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 405 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appellants stand convicted under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years each. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant No. 1 Gulab Chand Mahto was married with Anju Devi in the year 1995. As per informant PW 11 Tularam Mahto after the marriage the deceased Anju Devi was being ill treated and tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demands, resulting in her committing suicide on 18.5.1997. The informant asserted in the fardbeyan dated 18.5.1997 that in the morning his son-in-law appellant No. 1 has informed him that the deceased was missing from the house after which he went in search of the deceased to the house of the appellants who were absconding. The informant came to learn from unknown persons that a dead body was lying on the railway track near Gausala bridge and identified the dead body belong to his daughter Anju Devi. 3. The informant reported the matter to Dhanbad G.R.P. which registered G.R.P. Dhanbad case No. 25 of 1997 under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and investigated the case, to finally submit charge-sheet against all the appellants. The case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial where the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad framed charge against all the appellants on 17.3.1998 under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants had pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. However, after examining the witnesses, the learned trial Court found and held all of them guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve RI for 8 years each. 4. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the contradictions available in the evidence of the witnesses. Sri M.B. Lal, learned Counsel for the appellants stressed before me that the investigation was not properly conducted and none of the probable witnesses of village Maheshpur P.S. Rajganj, Katras have been examined in support of the allegations that dowry demands were made. Sri M.B. Lal, learned Counsel for the appellants stressed before me that the investigation was not properly conducted and none of the probable witnesses of village Maheshpur P.S. Rajganj, Katras have been examined in support of the allegations that dowry demands were made. Sri M.B. Lal further stressed that the mother of the deceased has admitted that there was cordial relation between the deceased and the appellants. As such, the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the appellant No. 1 has remained in custody from May, 1997 whereas appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have remained in custody after conviction from March, 2000. Therefore, they have already served the period of sentence passed against them. 5. Learned APP opposed stressing that the conviction is proper and deserves to be maintained. 6. I have gone through the materials on record. The prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses in support of its case. The recovery of dead body of the deceased Anju Devi from railway track has been proved beyond doubts by PWs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12. Anju Devi died due to impact of force caused by railway wheels has been proved by PW 2 Dr. Binod Kumar who conducted the post-mortem on her dead body vide Exts. 2 and 2/A. The deceased was subjected to dowry demands has been proved by PWs 1, 5, 9 and 10. These witnesses have asserted specifically that the deceased was ill-treated for non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The recovery of the dead body from railway track has not been explained by the defence. The appellant Gulab Chand Mahto and other appellants have specifically mentioned in their statement under Section 313 of the Cr PC that they did not know how Anju Devi died though denying that she was ever tortured for dowry. 7. The deceased was residing with the appellants after her marriage is not disputed. She met her ends on railway track is also not disputed. Even if the defence version is accepted that she committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, makes the appellants liable to explain under what circumstances the suicide was committed. There is specific allegation that the appellants were demanding Rs. 20,000/- as dowry after which she committed suicide. 8. The learned trial Court has written long judgment of 27 typed pages and discussed all these things. There is specific allegation that the appellants were demanding Rs. 20,000/- as dowry after which she committed suicide. 8. The learned trial Court has written long judgment of 27 typed pages and discussed all these things. I do not find any substance in the suggestion made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove the dowry demands resulting in death of Anju Devi. This fact has been proved beyond doubt that Anju died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Witness Nos. 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 have supported the prosecution allegation that demands of Rs. 20,000/- were made by the appellants soon before her death. However, in the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find that the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained as Anju Devi has committed suicide. Therefore, the conviction under Section 304B/34 is converted into under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellants for 8 years and appellant No. 1 has remained in custody for 10 years, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are in custody for last seven years continuously. 9. Having regards to all these facts and circumstances, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone. In this manner, this appeal is found without merit and dismissed with modification of sentence. The appellants if not required in any other case are directed to be released at once.