Judgment SHYAM KISHRORE SHARMA, J. 1. None appeared for appellants despite repeated call. Mr. Ali Mozaffar,Advocate submits that he is willing to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. His prayer is allowed. Heard Mr.Ali Mozaffar, Amicus curiae and the learned A.P.P. This appeal on behalf of the appellants. Bibhisan Ravi Das, Shibu Das, Suma Devi and Churan Das is against the Judgment and order dated 19.4.2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Case No.97 of 1999 convicting the appellants under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years, and under Sec. 498A of I.P.C. sentencing them to R.I. for 3 years but no separate sentence was passed under Sec. 342 of I.P.C. The appellants were acquitted from the charge u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution Pairu Devi was married with appellant no.4, Churan Das, five years prior to the date of occurrence. On the eve of marriage silver ornaments worth Rs.2100/- was granted. She enjoyed her initial days of her conjugal life. After some days her husband went Kolkata for livelihood and after departure her torture and mental agony Was started at the hands of the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. After her husband returned from Kolkata he insisted her to bring colour T.V. and Rs.10,000/- cash from her parents. Plea of inability resulting her in abuse. She was sent to her mothers house.On the intervention of some persons she again started to live with her husband. But on 1st and 2nd June of 1998 in the night all the accused persons assaulted her, gagged her mouth by putting cloths, closed the room and sprinkled kerosene oil on her body, lit her. On her cry people of vicinity came and she was rescued. On getting information her mother and brother came to her in-laws took her for Refral Hospital,Bounsi for treatment. 3. Police Registered a case under sections 341,342,504,498A and 307 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the statement of the victim, Pairu Devi.After investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under sections 341,342,504,498A and 307 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition to which they pleaded their innocence. 4. 3. Police Registered a case under sections 341,342,504,498A and 307 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the statement of the victim, Pairu Devi.After investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under sections 341,342,504,498A and 307 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition to which they pleaded their innocence. 4. The defence of the appellants was that the victim lady was cooking food and at that time accidently caught fire and on account of which she was burnt and she was taken to hospital where here mother and the brother came and they filed a false case against the appellants. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. P.W.I Badri Das is the brother . of the victim lady.P.W.2 Mahabatia Devi is the mother of the victim lady. P.W.3 Binod Das is the Mousa of the victim lady. P.W.4 Pairu Devi is the victim and the informant herself. P.W.5 Ram Das is the brother-in-law of the victim. P.W.7 Paria @ Jharia Devi is the Bhabhi of the victim lady. P.W. 8 is Hakim Harijan. P.W. 9 is Binod Das. P.W.10 Jeetendra Nath is the doctor and P.W. 11 is Kanchan Kumar Sharma. P.W.I to 7 are are material witnesses of the occurrence whereas P.W.8 has been declared hostil as he has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated the victim in the hospital has stated about the burn injuries found on the person of the victim lady and has also proved the injury report. P.W. 11 Kanchan Kumar Sharma is a formal witness who has proved the fard beyan and formal F.I.R. After trial the appellants were held guilty under sections 307,498A and 342 of the I.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charge under sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant of the case 13 the victim lady. According to her evidence she was married with Churan Das. She got her payal and one ring of gold on the eve of her marriage. She went to her house of in-laws and started conjugal life. Subsequently the accused persons demanded cash of Rs.10,000/-,she expressed her inability to fullfil their demand. Thereafter they started assaulting her and she had to take shelter in her mothers house. Aftter being neglected she filed a case before the court. She went to her house of in-laws and started conjugal life. Subsequently the accused persons demanded cash of Rs.10,000/-,she expressed her inability to fullfil their demand. Thereafter they started assaulting her and she had to take shelter in her mothers house. Aftter being neglected she filed a case before the court. Some local persons convened panchayati and brought the matter settled and thereafter she went with her husband to live in his house. One day after going to the house of her husband just after passing mid night all the accused persons started assaulting her. Her husband ordered to kill her. She started weeping. Her husband gagged her mouth with the help of cloths. Her cry was suppressed. In the meanwhile one of the co-accused who is mother of her husband sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and she was set on fire by appellant no. 4, her husband as a result of which she got burn injury. She raised alarm. Her cry invited neighbouring people who came there and saved her life. Binod Das, P.W. 9 informed this to mother and brother of the victim who came and thereafter she was brought to Bounsi Hospital wwhere the police came and took her statement and the statement was read then she found correct and put her L.T.I, on the same. 6. P.W.I, Badri Das brother of the victim lady, P.W.2, Mahabatia Devi, mother of the victim, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6,P.W.7 and P.W.9 all have stated that there was marriage of the victim with the appellant no.4. At the time of her marriage she was granted some ornaments but subsequently the accused persons started assaulting her due to which she had to come to her parents house. She filed a case which was compromised at the intervention of punches. Immediately after settlement she was taken back to her in-laws house by her husband and on one night she was. burnt. The evidence is consistent on this point. Though they have been cross- examined at length but nothing has come which can discredit the testimony of any of the witnesses. 7. P.W. 10 has examined Pairu Devi the victim lady on 2.6.1998 at 9.30 A.M. and found the following injuries on her eperson:- 1. Bruise on front of chest and whole abdomen. 2. Bruise on anterior part of neck. 3. Bruise on left upper limb. 4. Bruise on right front of thigh. 5. 7. P.W. 10 has examined Pairu Devi the victim lady on 2.6.1998 at 9.30 A.M. and found the following injuries on her eperson:- 1. Bruise on front of chest and whole abdomen. 2. Bruise on anterior part of neck. 3. Bruise on left upper limb. 4. Bruise on right front of thigh. 5. Complaint of pain on whole body. 6. Patient restless. He has stated in his evidence that the injury was within 24 hours and the miuries were caused by dry heat and it was grievous in nature and the total burn was 40% approximately. The injury report is on the record which is Ext.1. 8. It has been submitted that the accused persons have been implicated in this pase on account of enemity. 9. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. No doubt occurrence had taken place in village Kusmaha but the people of Kusmahja village has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution who are resident of the place of occurrence village. This has been explained by the prosecution as P.W.4 came to her sasural then the accused persons began to demand dowry. On her expressing inability in fullfiling their demand she was set on fire but any how she could be saved by neighbouring people. She was brought to the Hospital. P.Ws.5,6 and 7 who are relatives of the informant only know about the factum of the occurrence. So the witnesses are of only family and non-examination of witness of the P.O. village is well explained in the facts and circumstances of the case as in dowry cases victim or nor family members are concerned and not the co-villagers. 10. Another argument is that the I.O. was not examined which caused prejudice to the case. 11. The witnesses are consistent and supported the case. So non-examination of the appellants has not caused prejudice to the case. 12. After going through the facts and circumstances of the, case I come to the conclusion and hold that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt So, the judgment of conviction and sentence requires no interference. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no. 1 has remained in custody for about 6 and half years. Appellant no. 2 about whom some overt act has been alleged has also remained in custody for about three years. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no. 1 has remained in custody for about 6 and half years. Appellant no. 2 about whom some overt act has been alleged has also remained in custody for about three years. She is lady of advanced age but no specific role under sec. 307 of I.P.C. has been attributed to them. They also remained in custody for long. So, the period undergone by them may be deemed to be sufficient punishment. 14. I think this is a case in which lady was burnt and the court was right in convicting the accused persons. 15. Considering the fact that the occurrence is of about one decade, the appellants have remained in custody either during trial or investigation for considerably longer time , I modify the sentence the period undergone by the appellants. 16. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. One of the appellants, Churan Das, is still in custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Let a copy of the Judgment be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellants.