Judgment C.M.PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 30.11.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V. Patna passed in Sessions Trial No. 580 of 1992 whereby each of the three appellants has been convicted under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years, R.I. for one year and R.I. for six months respectively. It may be mentioned here that the mother-in-law, Sushila Devi had also been convicted and she was also the appellant under this appeal but she died during appeal and vide order dated 23.4.2007 this appeal abated against her. 2. The prosecution commenced with the written report dated 12.3.1991 (Ext.1) of informant Delip Kumar (P.W.3) addressed to Officer-in-Charge, Kadamkuan P.S., Patna. The informant stated in his written report that his younger sister Mina Devi (deceased) was married to Birendra Sao (appellant) of Mohalla Mosallahpur P.S. Kadamkuan on 28.4.1985. The marriage was performed in the house of his (informants) Nana (maternal grand-father) late Fagu Sao because his (informants) father late Prem Chand Sao had died earlier during his (informants) childhood leaving behind him (P.W.1) and the Nana had brought them up. The marriage of the deceased had been arranged by his Nana and Mamas and a dowry of 5 Bhars of gold and cash of Rs. 12000/- had been argeed to be paid at the time of marriage. His Nana and Mamas had given 5 Bhars of gold and cash of Rs. 7000/- and balance of Rs. 5000/- had remained to be paid. The informant further alleged that for the balance dues of Rs. 5000/- her (deceaseds) husband (appellant) Birendra Sao was always asking her (deceased) to get the amount paid by her Nana and the deceased requested to leave that amount saying that her widow mother was poor and was unable to pay the amount and on this the husband (appellant) Birendra Sao used to beat her (deceased) due to nonpayment. He also alleged that for the due amount of Rs. 5000/- Shankar Sao (appellant), his wife (appellant) Shila Devi and mother (deceased appellant Shushiia Devi) always used to taunt and say ill words to her (deceased). He also alleged that for the due amount of Rs. 5000/- Shankar Sao (appellant), his wife (appellant) Shila Devi and mother (deceased appellant Shushiia Devi) always used to taunt and say ill words to her (deceased). It was also alleged that whenever he (informant) or his family members used to go to the deceaseds sasural and met her she (deceased) asked to arrange and pay the money even by taking loan or by any other means because in case of non-payment of the same the Sasural people were threatening to kill her and perform another marriage of the husband. 3. The informant further alleged that ordinarily he used to go and meet his sister (deceased) at her Sasural every month and that whenever he met her she said to pay the amount or take her to her mother because she was apprehending that she might be killed due to non-payment of unpaid dowry money. He further said that he was working as compounder and any how he could meet his both ends meet. He had always requested his Bahnoi (Birendra Sao) and the other accused not to beat his sister (deceased) for the money because the part of the dowry money could not be paid due to their poverty. But he had never expected that the accused persons would kill his sister due to non-payment of the same. His Bahnoi Birendra Sao and his brother Shankar Sao were working as motor mechanic and they were joint in mess and residence. His (informants) sister (deceased) was quite healthy and she had no disease. The informant continued to state in his written statement that in the last Holi festival when he had met her (deceased) she had earnestly requested him to take her from the Sasural else she would be killed. He further said that on 11.3.1991 he went to his sister (deceaseds) Sasural to meet her and he saw Shankar Sao who was there. He requested him (Shankar Sao) to meet him (informant) his sister (deceased) but Shankar Sao kept mum and he did not speak anything and he (informant) requested him several times for the same then he (Shankar Sao) replied that his sister (deceased) had fled away from the house two days back. Hearing this he (informant) replied that his sister can never flee away from her Sasural. Hearing this he (informant) replied that his sister can never flee away from her Sasural. In the meantime, her (deceaseds) Gotni (Shila Devi) and mother-in-law, Sushila Devi (deceased appellant) came there and when he (informant) requested them to meet him his sister (deceased) they also gave the same reply that she (deceased) had fled away from the house. He (informant) suspected that due to non-payment of dowry they had killed his sister. In the meantime his Bahnoi (Birendra Sao) also came there and on being asked he also kept mum but on being asked repeatedly he replied that his sister (deceased) had died and he (Birendra Sao) had cremated her. He (informant) told them that if his sister had died why they did not inform him before cremating her and saying so he left the house. Thereafter he enquired from the residents of that locality and learnt that on 3.3.1991 the appellants had assaulted his sister (deceased) badly as a result of which she died and thereafter with the help of others they had cremated the dead body. The informant prayed for taking action against the culprits and on the basis of his written statement. F.i.R. was registered and investigation commenced and on conclusion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted and the appellant were put on trial and they were convicted and sentenced as above. 4. As many as five witnesses were examined by prosecution. The accused/ appellants also examined one defence witness. P.W.1 Chinta Devi is mother of the victim. P.Ws. 2 Rajendra Prasad and 3 Diiip Kumar Sao are the brothers of the victim, P.W.4 Basudeo Gupta and P.W.5 Moti Lal Gupta are the mamas of the victim but the P.W.5 has turned hostile to the prosecution. 5. D.W.1 Satish Kumar is the witnesses examined by the accused/appellant. 6. PW.1 Chinta Deve deposed that her daughter Meena Devi (deceased) had been married to Birendra Sao (appellant) in the month of Baisakh about six years before the date of occurrence. She further deposed that at the time of marriage. her husband had died and the marriage had been arranged and performed by her father and brothers. 6. PW.1 Chinta Deve deposed that her daughter Meena Devi (deceased) had been married to Birendra Sao (appellant) in the month of Baisakh about six years before the date of occurrence. She further deposed that at the time of marriage. her husband had died and the marriage had been arranged and performed by her father and brothers. She further deposed that in the marriage 5 Bhars of gold and 12000/- cash money had been agreed to be paid but at the time or marriage only 5 Bhars gold and 7000/- rupees had been given and the rest money could not be given. She further deposed that after marriage her daughter (deceased) went to her Sasural and that she and her sons used to visit deceaseds Sasural but they did not find the deceased happy there and that the deceased used to tell them to pay the balance money of Rs. 5000/- and if not paid anything untoward could happen to her. This witness also deposed that due to non-payment of balance money of Rs. 5000/ - the accused persons used to beat and torture her (deceased). The mother (P.W.1) also deposed that she wanted to bring her daughter back to her but the Sasural people did not send her saving that she will not be allowed to go unless the balance money is paid to them. She also deposed that her son Dilip Kumar (PW.3) had gone to meet his sister (deceased) 8-9 days after the occurrence but he returned and informed that the husband mother-in-law, Gotni and Baisur of the deceased had killed the deceased and had cremated the dead body. She learnt that the accused persons had killed the deceased in the night of 3.3.1991. The P.W.1 further deposed that learning this, she along with her son went to deceaseds Sasural but none of the family members was present there and she learnt from the neighbours that the accused persons had killed the deceased and disposed of the dead body. The mother also deposed that her daughter (deceased) was quite healthy and she had no disease. She also deposed that the Sasural people had not informed her about the death of the deceased. At para-4 of her evidence she deposed that in the marriage of the deceased her Mamas has met the expenses. The mother also deposed that her daughter (deceased) was quite healthy and she had no disease. She also deposed that the Sasural people had not informed her about the death of the deceased. At para-4 of her evidence she deposed that in the marriage of the deceased her Mamas has met the expenses. In her cross-examination at para-5 she deposed that in the Dashkarm of the deceased in her Sasural her sons had gone there but nobody from deceased Sasural had invited them. She further deposed at para-7 that she usually used to go to deceaseds Sasural but she never found her happy there and learnt that the Sasural people were harassing her. She denied the defence suggestion that after death of the deceased she had demanded the ornaments and clothes of the deceased in Shradh ceremony and that due to non-returning of those things to her she filed a false case against the accused persons. Thus, the P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased fully supported the case of prosecution that due to nonpayment of balance dowry of Rs. 5000/- the husband, mother-in-law, Gotni and Bhaisur of the deceased were harassing the deceased and the accused persons did not allow her to bring her daughter to her house saying that she will not be allowed to go unless the balance dowry of Rs. 5000/- is paid to them. 7. P.W. 2 Rajendra Prasad Sao is the mama of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased had been brought up by his father because the deceaseds father had died. He further deposed that he and his brother had arranged and performed the marriage of the deceased on 28.4.1985 to appellant Birendra Sao. He continued to depose that in the marriage payment of 5 Bhars of gold and 12000/- cash money was agreed but at the time of marriage only 5 Bhars gold and a cash of Rs. 7000/ had been paid and Rs. 5000/- had remained to be paid. He further deposed that after marriage the deceased went to her Sasural but she did not come back to him. He deposed that deceaseds brother Dilip Kumar Sao always used to go to the deceaseds Sasural and meet her there and that the deceased had told him that due to non-payment of Rs. 5000/- had remained to be paid. He further deposed that after marriage the deceased went to her Sasural but she did not come back to him. He deposed that deceaseds brother Dilip Kumar Sao always used to go to the deceaseds Sasural and meet her there and that the deceased had told him that due to non-payment of Rs. 5000/- she was being harassed and tortured and that she also apprehended that she would be killed if the money was not paid. The P.W.2 deposed that he himself had not gone to deceaseds Sasural during her life time and that he went there after the occurrence and that when he went there Birendra Sao and Shankar Sao (appellants) told him that his sister (deceased) had fled away from the house. But on enquiry from the residents of that locality he learnt that the appellants had killed the deceased on 3.3.1991 and they had disposed of the dead body. He also deposed that he had never learnt about the deceased becoming ill and thus he means to say that the deceased was keeping good health. At para-2 of his cross-examination he deposed that he had no outsider witness about the demand of Rs. 5000/- by Shankar Sao and Birendra Sao (appellants). Learned counsel for the appellants argued that about demand of Rs. 5000/- as the balance amount of dowry any independent witness has not been examined and that only family members have been examined. But in such case, it is common knowledge that the demand is made from the family members and the family members only will have the knowledge and such matters are not openly discussed with any villagers out side the family so the natural and probable witness on this point will be the family members only. This witness has further deposed that 4-5 days after the occurrence he had gone to deceaseds Sasural and had enquired from the people of that locality and had learnt that the accused persons had killed the deceased and cremated her dead body. He also deposed that he had remained for about 4-5 days in that locality. Thus this witness also deposes in support of the case of prosecution. 8. He also deposed that he had remained for about 4-5 days in that locality. Thus this witness also deposes in support of the case of prosecution. 8. P.W.3 Dilip Kumar, the brother of the deceased and the informant of this case deposes that his widow mother was living in his Nanihal and that his Nana and mamas had arranged and performed the marriage of his sister Meena Devi (deceased) with Birendra Sao (appellant) in the year 1985. He further deposed that a sum of rupees five-seven thousand had remained to be paid after the marriage. He further deposed that after marriage of the deceased he used to go to her Sasural but due to non-payment of dowry money he was not allowed by the accused persons to meet his sister (deceased) but surreptitiously he managed to meet his sister and that whenever he met to her she always asked to take her from there saving that due to non-payment of dowry money the Sasural people would kill her. He further deposed that lastly he had met his sister (deceased) in the year 1991. 7-8 days prior to Holi and at that time also she had (deceased) requested to take her away from there and she had also said that the Sasural people were planning to kill her. He further deposed that he had gone to deceaseds Sasural ten days after the occurrence and somebody told him there that she (deceased) had fled away from the house. He further deposed that when he repeatedly asked her (deceaseds) mother-in-law she did not say anything and his Bahnoi disclosed that the deceased had died and the dead body had been disposed of. He also deposed that he had not been informed about the death of the deceased. He identified his writing and signature on the written report which was marked Ext. 1. In the cross-examination he deposed that he was living at his Nanas house from his childhood. He further deposed at para-25 that he had not informed any authority of his sisters complain made to him. He identified his writing and signature on the written report which was marked Ext. 1. In the cross-examination he deposed that he was living at his Nanas house from his childhood. He further deposed at para-25 that he had not informed any authority of his sisters complain made to him. He denied the defence suggestion that on the date of Dashkarm of his sister (deceased) he had gone to her Sasural house and he had demanded her ornaments and clothes and that due to non returning of those articles he filed the case falsely Thus the informant supports the prosecution story on the material particulars of the case. 9. P.W.4 Pasudeo Gupta is the mama of the deceased and he deposed that the marriage of the deceased had been performed with appellant Birendra Sao in the year 1985. He further deposed that money and articles had been given in the marriage and that something had remained to be paid. He further deposed that after marriage he used to meet his Bhagini (deceased) but on meeting he felt that the deceased was not happy and she (deceased) told him that she was feeling trouble in her Sasural. He also deposed that his sister (mother of the deceased) was a poor widow and that the marriage of the deceased had been performed by her (deceaseds) Nana. He further stated that the Sasural people had killed his Bhagini (deceased) in the year 1992 and they had cremated the dead body without informing him. He further deposed that after the occurrence he along with his brothers had gone to deceaseds Sasural and he has denied the defence suggestion that on the date of Daskaram of the deceased he had demanded back the articles of the deceased and due to non returning of the same he filed this case falsely. Thus this witness also said about the torture and harassment meted to the deceased due to non-payment of the remaining dowry money. 10. P.W.5 Moti Lal Gupta is also the Mama of the deceased but he has turned hostile to the prosecution. He deposed that he did not remember that if any part of the dowry money had remained to be paid or the deceased had ever complained to him anything against her Sasural people. But in cross-examination by the learned A.P.P. he admits that he had stated before the 1.0. He deposed that he did not remember that if any part of the dowry money had remained to be paid or the deceased had ever complained to him anything against her Sasural people. But in cross-examination by the learned A.P.P. he admits that he had stated before the 1.0. that a sum of rupees 5000/- had remained to be paid towards dowry. He also admitted at para- 11 that he had stated before the I.O. about beating of the deceased but he had said so as he had heard like this. At para-14 of his cross-examination he deposed that he had separated from his family since 1962 and was living separate. At para-16 he further deposed that the expenditure in the marriage of Meena Devi (deceased) was done by his father and other brothers. Thus it appears that this witness who though a Mama of the deceased had separated from the family long past and was living separate and he had also not made any expentiture in the deceaseds marriage. So it is natural that he was not closely associated with the deceased and he had no knowledge about the torture and harassment related to the deceased due to non-fulfilment of the remaining part of dowry money. 11. During hearing the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out to some minor discrepancy about the number of days the witnesses have said about visiting the deceaseds Sasural after her death. But this is a minor contradiction and this does not go to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. 12. D.W. Satish Kumar has deposed that the deceased (wife of Birendra Sao) had died of disease and thus the defence has sought to establish through the evidence of this witness that the deceased had died a natural death. But this witness (D.W.1) stated at para-5 of the cross-examination that he had no concern with the affairs to Birendra Sao. He also deposed at para-7 that he did not know when the wife (deceased) of Birendra Sao had died. Thus this witness has no knowledge about time of the death of the deceased. This witness says that the deceased had died of the disease but not even a single chit of paper has been filed by the defence to show that the deceased had been given treatment for any disease or purchase of any medicine regarding her treatment. Thus this witness has no knowledge about time of the death of the deceased. This witness says that the deceased had died of the disease but not even a single chit of paper has been filed by the defence to show that the deceased had been given treatment for any disease or purchase of any medicine regarding her treatment. In such view of the matters the testimony of the D.W.1 does not inspire any confidence and it appears that this witness has been set up only to say about the defence case which is not worthy of any credence. This witness has brought on record the photo copy of death certificate of the deceased issued by the Municipal Corporation and it has been marked X for identification but the death certificate has also not been legally proved and the original death certificate of the deceased has not been brought on record. Moreover such death certificates are issued by the Muncipal Corporation where death register is maintained. Moreover even in the Photo copy of the death certificate cause of death has not been mentioned. The defence has suggested the prosecution witness that on the Dashkarm of the deceased her brother and mamas had come and they had demanded deceaseds ornaments and clothes and that when it was not given to them they had lodged a false case against them. The prosecution witness denied the suggestions and the defence has not brought any evidence to prove the suggestions. Thus the suggestions are of no avail to the defence because it was not substantial through reliable evidence. 13. Thus considering the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I find that prosecution has been able to prove that after the marriage, a sum of Rs. 5000/- remained to be paid towards dowry and that due to non-payment of the amount the deceased had been tortured and harassed and the evidence of the mother (P.W.1) shows that she wanted to bring her daughter (deceased) but the Sasural people had not agreed saving that she will not be allowed to go till the due dowry money was paid to them. 14. 14. The evidence of the witnesses who are the mother, brother and mamas of the deceased established that whenever they met the deceased she complained of ill treatment at the hands of the sasural people and she had also requested for taking her from there as she was apprehending that she might be killed due to non-payment of unpaid dowry amount of Rs. 5000/-. The deeased was quite hale and hearty but suddently she died and her dead body was cremated and no information was given to her mother brother or Mamas who had performed the marriage. 15. These circumstances simply established that the deceased had died under abnormal circumstances and the deceased had been meted to torture and harassment before her death due to nonfulfiiment of the demand of Rs. 5000/- as the unpaid portion of the dowry. 16. The appellant Birendra Sao is the husband and Shankar Sao is the Bhaisur of the deceased and there is evidence that these two appellants had tortured and harassed the deceased due to non-fulfulment of demand of Rs. 5000/- which had remained due towards unpaid portion of the dowry money and the deceased had apprehended that she might be killed at the hands of these people. The deceased had died under abnormal circumstances and deceaseds in laws had not informed the deceaseds mother, brother or Mamas about her death. The evidence of the mother that she wanted to bring her daughter from her Sasural but she was not allowed to bring her daughter because the due amount of Rs. 5000/- towards dowry had not been paid. 17. Thus under these facts and circumstances that there are sufficient materials to prove the charge under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against these two appellants namely Birendra Sao and Shankar Sao they deserved to be convicted for the offence. Therefore. I find that they have been rightly convicted by the Trial Court on the above count and the sentence given to them is also proper and justified. Therefore the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the Trial Court to these two appellants is confirmed. 18. So far the appellant Shila Devi who is the Gotni of the deceased is concerned, there is general and omnibus allegation against her. Therefore the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the Trial Court to these two appellants is confirmed. 18. So far the appellant Shila Devi who is the Gotni of the deceased is concerned, there is general and omnibus allegation against her. In the written statement (Ext.1) the informant said that the wife of Shankar Sao (appellant Shila Devi) used to taunt to the deceased and say ill words to her due to non-payment of remaining part of the dowry. But this allegation has not been substantiated during evidence of any witness produced in Court. Besides this torture and harassment to the deceased as per evidence of P.W.1 (mother) was also on this count that when she wanted to bring her daughter from her Sasural the Sasural people did not allow to bring her till the balance dowry money is paid. Here the male members of the family namely, the husband (Birendra Sao), Bhaisur (Shankar Sao) were incharge and had control over the family and the appellant Shila Devi had no control in this regard. 19. Considering these facts and circumstances. I feel that the appellant Shila Devi is entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence giving benefit of doubt she is acquitted of the charges. The conviction and sentence as passed by the Trial Court with respect to the appellant Shila Devi is hereby set aside. She is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond executed by her. 20. In the result this appeal is allowed in part.