Judgement PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J. :- The appellant Ram Ranjan Maji has preferred this appeal being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 15th February, 1989 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Bankura convicting him under Section 498A/306, IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months under Section 306, IPC and to suffer R.I. for 3 months with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month under Section 498A, IPC with the direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. Narendra Nath Mondal of village Kodma under Indas P.S. of the district of Bankura lodged a written complaint with the O.C. Indas P.S. at 14-15 hrs. on 31-12-1985 . alleging that his second daughter Archana who was married to the appellant sometime in the month of Falgun, 1391 B.S. was subjected to physical and mental ill treatment and torture on demands of more dowry in the form of gold ornaments. On 5th of Pous 1392 B.S., he got an information that his daughter had been admitted in Bishnupur Hospital. He proceeded to the hospital and found that his daughter had been burnt. Attempts were made to get her cured and he had been to the hospital regularly but unfortunately she died in the afternoon of 30th December, 1985. It has been alleged in the FIR that his daughter's husband, mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law would regularly torture her cruelly and being unable to bear torture she was compelled to commit suicide. 3. On receipt of this ejahar the O.C., Indas P.S. registered Indas P.S. case No. 11/90 dated 31-12-1985 against the appellant Ram Ranjan Maji and three other persons under Section 498A/306, IPC and upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against them under the aforesaid sections of the law. 4. The learned trial Court framed charges against five accused persons including the present appellant under Section 498A, IPC and against the accused, Smt. Rajmoni Maji (mother-in-law) and Smt. Rekha Maji (sister-in-law) under Section 306 of the IPC. Upon trial, the learned Judge in the court below convicted the present appellant under Section 498A/306 of the IPC and sentenced him as above, acquitting the other four accused persons of the said charges. 5. Upon trial, the learned Judge in the court below convicted the present appellant under Section 498A/306 of the IPC and sentenced him as above, acquitting the other four accused persons of the said charges. 5. The defence case as has been gathered from the trends of cross-examination of the witnesses has been this that the complainant after the death of the victim Archana demanded back the ornaments given in the marriage by him and such demand having not been met with, the case has been falsely filed at the instance of some interested persons who were designedly inimical towards the accused. The further defence case is that the letters allegedly written by the victim to her parents and the letters allegedly written by the appellant to the complainant and his son were not in their respective hands and the instant death of the victim was purely an accident and not suicidal. 6. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and of them evidence of P.W. 5, Satyakinkar Sarkar, P.W.6, Narendra Nath Mondal (father of the deceased), P.W. 7, Smt. Janani Mondal (mother of the victim), P.W. 12, Ashoke Kumar Ghosh, a neighbour of the accused, P.W. 13, Billeswar Mondal (brother of the victim) and P.W. 18, Aparna Mondal (sister of the victim) merit consideration in view of the fact they have deposed about the victim being subjected to ill treatment and torture on account of demand of dowry. Before we proceed to consider the evidence of these four witnesses, we are to record that the peculiarity of the case is that in addition to the oral testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses there are certain documentary evidence which testified to the demand of dowry by the appellant. This documentary evidence shall be considered in the sequel. 7. P.W. 6, Narendra Nath Mondal says that in the marriage of his daughter with the appellant that took place on 15th Falgun, 1391 B.S. it was agreed by him that a cash of Rs.33,000/- inclusive of ornaments would be given as dowry but at the time of marriage he could not pay the entire dowry amount and he took time for one year for payment of Rs. 12,000/- which remained outstanding. 12,000/- which remained outstanding. After marriage his daughter had been to her in-laws' house and came back on the occasion of 'Asthomongala' ceremony with her husband and stayed in his house for one month and a half, and during the period of stay the husband would vary upon demand from him gold button and doubled the gift in the form of two sets of each item. As he expressed his inability, the appellant after making quarrel with him left for his house on 3rd Baisakh, 1392, B.S. From his house the appellant wrote a letter demanding payment of all dues on account of dowry by 14th Jaistha. The letter was marked Ext. 1. However, his youngest daughter Aparna accompanied the victim to her in laws' house and returning therefrom she reported to him that both she and the victim were denied food and very often the victim's husband, mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law would abuse her on account of non-payment of arrears amount of dowry. Further, whenever his son Billeswar (P.W. 13) and his another son-in-law, Achhudananda Bhunia would visit the deceased's matrimonial home they were abused by the appellant on account of the arrears of dowry. Then appellant sent two further letters - (1) to him and the other to P.W. 13, Ext. [1(a) and 1(b)]. His daughter also wrote letters to him Exts. 2, 2(a) and 2(b). 8. P.W. 5 who is a neighbour of the accused says in his evidence that the victim was treated with cruelty at her in-laws' house and was sometimes assaulted, and sometimes denied food by her husband, mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law on account of inability of P.W. 6 to pay off the dowry amount that allegedly remained outstanding. He further says that in the early morning on the date of the occurrence, the victim was driven out of the home by the appellant and his mother on account of damage of a spice grinding stone plate 9. P.W. 7, the mother of the victim gives the following evidence :- "It was the talk that Rs.32,000/- as dowry has to be given in the marriage. The whole amount could not be given at the time of marriage. Rs. 12,000/- was still due. After marriage she went to her husband's house and came back with her husband at the time of Astamangala and they stayed for about 1 1/2 months at our house. The whole amount could not be given at the time of marriage. Rs. 12,000/- was still due. After marriage she went to her husband's house and came back with her husband at the time of Astamangala and they stayed for about 1 1/2 months at our house. Ram demanded further 'Dan' (gift) and golden button and after quarrelling with us left for his house on 3rd Baisakh. Returning home he wrote letter to my son directing him to send his wife by 14th Jaistha with all the arrear dowry failing which she will be treated at his house like a maid servant. I sent her on 14th Jaistha. In Ashar she came. Ramranjan brought her and kept her. Throughout the month of Asar, she stayed at our house and on 5th Bhadra, Ram came to take her back. Despite our objection for the month of Bhadra he took his wife with him and went back to his house. My daughter and Ram came also at the time of Kalipuja in the month of Kartick. On 14th Agrahayan they went away. She used to report to me whenever she used to come that her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law Rekha used to abuse her for not giving the dowry (Objected to). I came to know about the bad treatment meted out to my daughter also from Aparna and my son. On 14th Pous, my daughter died due to burn injury information about which came to us on 5th Pous from Sunil Mondal. I went to Bishnupur Hospital. I stayed in the hospital for 5 days." 10. P.W. 12, also a resident of the village of the appellant, says that on 3rd Pous in the morning the victim was rebuked and abused by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, Balaram and Dhanurdhar as she broke a spice grinding stone plate of theirs saying why she was not dying when her father was still unable to pay the money on account of the marriage. 11. P.W. 13, the brother of the victim says that on 4th Pous the son of Mrityunjoy intimated to him that his sister had been burnt. On the next morning, she had been to the matrimonial house of his sister where the appellant was not found but other inmates of house did not tell him anything. 11. P.W. 13, the brother of the victim says that on 4th Pous the son of Mrityunjoy intimated to him that his sister had been burnt. On the next morning, she had been to the matrimonial house of his sister where the appellant was not found but other inmates of house did not tell him anything. Then the appellant's cousin brother Gunadhar Bit called him to his house and reported that she was burnt by fire and had been admitted in Gogra Hospital. He proceeded to Gogra Hospital and then to Bishnupur Hospital where he found his sister lying unconscious. He further deposed that his sister used to be treated cruelly, both physically and mentally. He had been to her in-laws' house on many occasions. His sister exchanged certain letters wherefrom it could be known the cause of torture. 12. P.W. 18, Aparna Mondal corroborates P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 13 saying that she visited her sister's matrimonial home on 14th Jaistha, 1391 B.S. (it would be 1392 B.S.) and stayed for three days. During 'Diragaman' she accompanies her sister to her matrimonial house and found her elder sister's husband, mother-in-law and elder sister-in-law abusing her sister over non-payment of dowry in the marriage. The accused persons would direct her elder sister to bring the presentations. 13. Before proceeding to the analysis of the evidence of the witnesses we are reminding ourselves of the legal position obtaining in the given situation. Unquestionably, the victim died an unnatural death within one year from the date of her marriage and in the context of the allegations that the victim was subjected to torture and cruelty on demands of dowry the following questions have to be addressed to:- (A) Whether the accused has committed the dowry death of the victim? (B) Whether the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative? (C) Whether such cruelty and harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry? (D) Whether such cruelty or harassment was 'soon before' her death? 14. (B) Whether the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative? (C) Whether such cruelty and harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry? (D) Whether such cruelty or harassment was 'soon before' her death? 14. The marriage life of the victim, as we have seen, lasted for only one year and evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 13 and P.W. 18, when closely analyzed would reveal in unmistakable terms that immediate after marriage when the victim along with her husband came to the house of P.W. 6 demand was placed by the appellant for payment of the amount on account of dowry in connection with marriage that fell outstanding. It has come out from evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 that a sum of Rs.33,000/- was the sum decided to be given in marriage but 12,000/- rupees had remained unpaid. Immediate after solemnization of marriage when the victim came with her husband in her father's house the husband reminded P.W. 6 of the payment of the dowry. When the appellant demanded gold button and double the gift of each set of item P.W. 6 expressed his inability whereafter picking up a quarrel with him the appellant left his home. It appears from cross-examination of P.W. 6 that by selling his lands and paddy he collected the amount of dowry that was paid in the marriage. It further appears from his cross-examination that gold ornaments that were given in the marriage were old and they were bangles, necklace and 'tagi'. But those ornaments were converted into new ornaments by his another son-in-law, Achhutananda. P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were cross-examined in great details but the basic matrix of the prosecution case as it appears from their oral testimonies and which are supported by P.W. 18 and P.W. 13 could not be demolished. It was argued on behalf of the appellant's learned counsel that if the appellant had really died on account of dowry demand she must have made statement to her parents but no such statement was forthcoming and furthermore P.W. 6 was so half-hearted in his attempt to prosecute the appellant that he did not prayer (sic) to go to Bishnupur Hospital so see his ailing daughter who survived for five days after the incident of burning. The argument is misplaced firstly because of the fact it does not appear from his evidence that the victim made any dying declaration in the hospital or that see could be able to make any statement to her mother as she was unconscious in the hospital. The question as to why the victim's mother who attended the victim in the hospital for five consecutive days could not hear anything from her daughter is misnomer because the daughter was unable to speak P.W. 6's attempt to prosecute the appellant and other in laws was not at all halfhearted as because as we find from evidence of P.W. 6 that he had been lying seriously ill on 4th of Pous when the news of her daughter's burning reached his house through a man of the village Gechho, and his son P.W. 13 was sent to the victim's matrimonial home on 5th of Pous of 1392 B.S. P.W. 6 was unable to visit his daughter in the hospital because of his illness as it repeatedly appears in his cross-examination. After his daughter's death he came to the police station at Indas and lodged the FIR. The suggestion of the defence that after the death of his daughter he demanded back the ornaments that were gifted in the marriage entails and affirms the prosecution case that some ornaments were given in the marriage as dowry. It was argued by the learned counsel for the defence that the demand of gold button and double the gift of each item by way of penalty was not mentioned in the FIR, and it was also not mentioned in the FIR that the appellant left his house on 3rd Baisakh, 1392 B.S. after picking up quarrel with him. Non-mentioning of such fact does not upset the prosecution case. In fact, the factum of torture and ill treatment on account of demand of dowry has been sufficiently mentioned in the FIR which must not be a replica of the entire evidence of the victim's father and mother. It is not denied in cross-examination that the victim along with her husband came a few days after marriage to the house of P.W. 6. It is not denied in cross-examination that the victim's husband left for his home on 3rd Baisakh. It is not denied in cross-examination that the victim along with her husband came a few days after marriage to the house of P.W. 6. It is not denied in cross-examination that the victim's husband left for his home on 3rd Baisakh. The argument of the learned advocate for the accused to the effect that as it appears from evidence of P.W. 6 that after 3rd Baisakh and before the death of the victim the appellant came to his house on three more occasions and P.W. 6 also has visited his daughter's house on two-three occasions is indicative of the fact that the victim's husband had good terms with P.W. 6 and the story of demand of dowry is unreal. The argument is not sustainable because mutual visit to each other's house in spite of persistent demand of dowry cannot be said to be unusual. What was said by P.W. 7 in her examination-in-chief has been reiterated by her in her cross-examination. She has said in her cross-examination that old ornaments weighing six bhories and a cash of Rs. 10,000/-were given in the marriage and the money was secured by selling lands. She has said that in the hospital her daughter was unable to speak. She has said that throughout day and night she stayed in the hospital for five days and her son also used to visit the hospital daily. She has said that sum of Rs.32,000/- was fixed inclusive of ornaments and cash. 15. In this connection evidence of P.W. 4, Pasupati Maji who resides adjacent to the house of the appellant is important because he says that having heard hue and cry emanating from the house of the appellant he entered there and found the appellant's wife lying in burnt condition on the varandah of the first floor. She was groaning in pain. He has said further that over the arrears of dowry money quarrel used to take place in the house. 16. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the defence that evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 12 must be discarded as they were having enmity with the appellant over property matters. She was groaning in pain. He has said further that over the arrears of dowry money quarrel used to take place in the house. 16. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the defence that evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 12 must be discarded as they were having enmity with the appellant over property matters. P.W. 4 was suggested in cross-examination that he was having grudge against the appellant as the appellant's kitchen was constructed by encroaching upon a little bit of his land and further the varandah of the appellant was also constructed by encroaching upon his land. It has been further suggested that Sishu Ranjan, the appellant's father had mortgaged his land to him and P.W. 4 was raising a dispute that the deed of mortgage was a deed of sale. P.W. 4 of course has said that it was a sale deed but cannot say what was the consideration of the deed. Similarly, so far as P.W. 5 is concerned, a civil suit was instituted against him by the other accused persons i.e. Balaram, Dhanurdhar in respect of a tank. P.W. 1-2 who is also a neighbour of the appellant was having a dispute over land against the accused Balaram. Now, even we discard the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W.5 and P.W. 12, the prosecution case does not suffer an inch; and indeed evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W. 12 is really not necessary for establishment of the prosecution case with regard to dowry death of the victim. For evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 13 and P.W. 14, even if they are relations of the victim, are self-sufficient and their evidence could not be demolished by any amount of lengthy cross-examination. Learned Advocate for the defence took recourse to the evidence of P.W. 14, Dr. Suphal Pal, private medical practitioner of Kotolpur. The patient was first brought to him at about 8-00 of 8-30 a.m. on 20th December, 1985 in his chamber by a married woman and two other men who included the patient's husband. He did not find that the saree which was worn by the patient was burnt The patient reported to him that at the time of doing household works she got fire. This piece of statement of the victim as made to P.W. 14 is but a myth and not the whole truth. He did not find that the saree which was worn by the patient was burnt The patient reported to him that at the time of doing household works she got fire. This piece of statement of the victim as made to P.W. 14 is but a myth and not the whole truth. Such alleged statement was made by the victim before P.W. 14 when her husband was himself present; and as such it cannot be said that she could muster enough courage to tell P.W. 14 in the presence of her husband that she attempted to commit suicide by burning because of dowry demand. The curious thing is that while the patient told P.W. 14 that while doing household work she got fire the persons who accompanied the patient told P.W. 14 that the patient tried to commit suicide by burning. Therefore, the theory of the patient catching fire in course of doing the household works is untenable. 17. Evidence of P.W. 16, Dr. Anaboidya Sen who held post-mortem examination on the body of the victim has been suitably interpreted by the defence to put forward the argument that the death was accidental. P.W. 16 found the following injuries :- "1. Extensive burn area from face to 2" above umblicus of anterior surface of the abdomen and also back; 2. Burn area - From the left lower abdomen to the left feet and also back. 3. Burn area - From the hip joint to right knee joint and also back; 4. Burn area - In both arms including shoulder joint; fore arms and hands of both surface; On dissection - Scalp intact and healthy. Membrane and brain congested. All the viscera congested. Both lungs oedematous. Kidney - Congested and haemorrhagic spot present. Uterus - Empty. On dissection of the burn area no haemorrhagic blood-clot present. The areas were red in colour dressing with M.C. Death in my opinion was due to soptic (sic) shock. Toximia and Broncho pneumonia as a result of burns. Ante-mortem. Accidental in nature." 18. It is argued that the doctor's evidence explicitly speaks of death being accidental and the doctor has assigned the reason that there was no smell of kerosene, or other inflammable lubricant was not found and most of the abdomen portion was not burnt. 19. Toximia and Broncho pneumonia as a result of burns. Ante-mortem. Accidental in nature." 18. It is argued that the doctor's evidence explicitly speaks of death being accidental and the doctor has assigned the reason that there was no smell of kerosene, or other inflammable lubricant was not found and most of the abdomen portion was not burnt. 19. It has to be said with reference to the evidence of P.W. 16 that the evidence of a medical man is an evidence of opinion not of a fact. Whether the victim died an unnatural death or not is not disputed. Death occurred unnaturally within a year of her marriage and there are plethora of evidence oral and documentary which speak in volume about the consistent and persistent demand of dowry by the appellant in connection with marriage. The doctor could not find any amount of smell of kerosene because we find from evidence of P.W. 14 that the victim's saree was changed and when she was brought to P.W. 16 there could not be any occasion to have a smell of kerosene. It is the claim of the appellant as emanating from the evidence of P.W. 14 that the victim attempted to commit suicide. Furthermore, P.W. 16 has said while being questioned by the prosecution as follows :- "I agree with the view as appearing at page 372 of the book on Medical Jurisprudence by RM. Jhala and V.B. Raju (4th Edition) to the effect that the extent furnishes an important clue as to the mode of burning as related to circumstantial evidence. The method of catching fire, the environments viz., the room, furniture and architecture of house, the clothing on the body of the burnt person should be consonant with extent of burns. Absence of corroboration raises a justifiable suspicion against the nature alleged. The extent also throws light on the nature of the burns, viz., suicidal, homicidal or accidental. In this regard, over and above extent and more than extent the situation has an important bearing. This situation as can be well comprehended, guides one to decide accessibility." 20. Let us turn to the documentary evidence which are a bunch of letters written by both the victim and the appellant. The appellant's letter (Ext. In this regard, over and above extent and more than extent the situation has an important bearing. This situation as can be well comprehended, guides one to decide accessibility." 20. Let us turn to the documentary evidence which are a bunch of letters written by both the victim and the appellant. The appellant's letter (Ext. 1) is dated 08-05-1985 addressed to P.W. 6 wherein he said "while sending your daughter, bear in mind about the payments which I was reminding you 15/20 days in advance. Please act according to your promise. If you fail to send the money then keep your daughter in your house for good, and if you send her back she would be treated like a maid servant". 21. Ext. 1 (b) is an inland letter addressed by the appellant to P.W. 6 on 19-07-1985. This letter unequivocally and in unambiguous language demands payment of dowry. It reads inter alia "If you fall to pay the money I would not go to bring your daughter. Let your daughter drop her tears in your house and I will not allow her to enter my house. If she is sent back, she would be driven out like a dog ****** if you were unable to pay the money you could have deferred the marriage". In this letter, the appellant was resenting non-payment of dowry promised to him and part of the dowry receipt was acknowledged and balance was demanded. In this letter, the accused wandered if the father of his wife did not have the money to pay why did he not throw his daughter in the river rather than giving her in marriage. 22. The appellant's letter to his brother-in-law (P.W. 13) is stamped dated 02-11-1985 wherein he has given ultimatum to P.W. 13 that "I would wait till the month of Falgun; if thereafter gold button and the money together with interest were not given then Archana would not be kept in his house. Let Archana drop her tears". 23. Ext. 2 is the letter dated 18th Bhadra by the victim to P.W. 13, her brother where she wrote that she was living in a very difficult situation. She stated that she knew that she would have been allowed to stay in her father's house for the rest of her life if that were possible. 23. Ext. 2 is the letter dated 18th Bhadra by the victim to P.W. 13, her brother where she wrote that she was living in a very difficult situation. She stated that she knew that she would have been allowed to stay in her father's house for the rest of her life if that were possible. She was able to write the letter because on that day in the morning her husband left for Dum Dum. 24. Ext. 2(a) is another letter dated 1st Ashar addressed to P.W. 6, another son-in-law Achhutananda Bhunia wherein she lamented that because of non-payment of dowry she was suffering a burning sensation round the clock and her father was not in a position to pay the dowry. It further reads that because of the suffering, she intended to commit suicide as she did not want to survive in the situation. 25. Then the last letter is Ext. 2(b) dated 18th Aghrayan by the victim to her brother P.W. 13 stating therein that the situation in her matrimonial house was very bad and explosive. All the time there were disputes. The necklace which they had sent was not shown to her, cash memo concerning the necklace had been lost and as such the gold contained in the necklace could not be ascertained which she requested her brother to intimate. 26. Man may lie but circumstances do not. There could not be any better case of dowry death as the series of letters of both the appellant and the victim written to P.W. 6, P.W. 13 and Achhutananda are more than expressive of demand of dowry by the appellant. The argument of the learned Defence Counsel that such letters were written in emotional tone by the appellant is summarily rejectable. 27. These letters were proved by P.W. 6 and P.W. 13. Suggestions were given to the witnesses that the letters said to have been written by the appellant were not the appellant's letter, although at the same time argument was advanced at the Bar that such letters of the appellant were the outcome of emotional burst. P.W. 15, Shri Rajani Kanta Das is an examiner of questioned documents attached to CID, West Bengal who examined two suicidal letters in Bengali, stamped and marked by him as 'a' and 'b'. P.W. 15, Shri Rajani Kanta Das is an examiner of questioned documents attached to CID, West Bengal who examined two suicidal letters in Bengali, stamped and marked by him as 'a' and 'b'. These letters were compared with two sheets marked 'x' and "y" for identification which was a khata said to contain standard writings in Bengali in the hand of Archana (victim) and he observed that the questioned writings and signatures marked 'a' and 'b' were agreeing with the standard writings marked 'c', 'c-1', 'c-2', 'c-3' and 'c-4'. One suicidal letter addressed by the victim to her husband says that 'none was responsible for her fate and now it was her turn to say good bye'. Another suicidal note addressed to the husband wishes the husband a happy life while bidding her husband farewell. It was argued by the learned Defence Counsel that the prosecution did not show the alleged suicidal notes to any of her relations like P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 13 and P.W. 18 so as to ascertain if the same was in the hand writing of the victim. It is further argued that it is dangerous to rely on the basis of the hand writing expert's report. The argument is misplaced firstly because of the fact that it is not that the prosecution case is entirely based on the report of the hand writing expert. It is a piece of evidence which even if discarded sufficiently brings home the charge against the appellant. Furthermore, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 13 and P.W. 18 were not in a position to know the existence of the suicidal notes because they were addressed to her husband and they were produced by P.W. 19, Ram Prasad Ghosh. Ram Prasad is a relation of the appellant who was declared hostile as he said that he did not hand over these notes to the I.O. Yet, he affirms his signature in Ext 6, the seizure list Ext. 6 reveals seizure of these two suicidal notes by the I.O as were produced by one Dhananjoy Bit in the presence of P.W. 19. It is the prosecution case that Dhananjoy Bit and P.W. 19 carried the notes to the police station and signature of Dhananjoy Bit also appears therein. That the suicidal notes were written by the victim addressed to her husband (Ext. 7 and Ext. It is the prosecution case that Dhananjoy Bit and P.W. 19 carried the notes to the police station and signature of Dhananjoy Bit also appears therein. That the suicidal notes were written by the victim addressed to her husband (Ext. 7 and Ext. 8) have been clearly stated by P.W. 15. P.W. 15 has given in details the reasons for his opinions which could not be rejected by any contra reasons. The letters to the husband, as has been rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, which are indeed notes of suicidal show eloquently the mental pressure which the victim was subjected to and such pressure reached its nadir that prompted her to decide to commit suicide. 28. Thus regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case as well as evidence of record the charges under Section 498A and Section 306 of the IPC against the appellant have been clearly established. The victim died an unnatural death in the matrimonial home and if the prosecution charges were not true it was then required of the appellant to say as to how and in what circumstances such unnatural death took place if at all it was not a dowry death. No such explanation is forthcoming. We are constrained to observe that the case could have squarely come under section 304B, IPC, but since the trial has been held under section 306, IPC, we do not propose to alter the charge. Suicide committed by the victim has been abetted by the appellant by consistent torture on demand of dowry. 29. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. At the last leg of the argument the learned Defence Counsel pleaded reduction of sentence on the ground that the appellant has now crossed 50 years and suffered mental anxiety, sufferings and strain. We have considered his submission and having regard to the submission we reduce the sentence to 8 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months on charge under Section 306, IPC and maintain the sentence on account of the charge under Section 498A IPC.Thus, while the conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is maintained sentence is modified to the extent as above and the appeal is allowed in part. 30. Both the sentences will run concurrently. 31. 30. Both the sentences will run concurrently. 31. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bankura within a fortnight from the date of this order failing which the learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall take appropriate steps for apprehension of the appellant so as to have the sentence executed in accordance with the law. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. 32. A copy of this order together with the LCR shall be sent to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bankura for information and necessary action. 33. The learned Registrar General of this court is directed to communicate forthwith operative part of the judgment to the concerned learned Trial Court under Rule 8, Chapter XI of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court for information and necessary action. 34. Urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. 35. I agree. Order accordingly.