Order Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 12.12.2001 and order of sentence dated 15.12.2001 passed by Sri William Minj, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No. 417 of 1998 by which judgment he found all the appellants guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. 3. The prosecution case started on the basis of the first information report given by the informant P. W. 1, Haradhan Grahacharya father of the deceased girl, stating therein that the daughter Reeta Acharya @ Babita Devi was married to Manik Acharya, appellant No.1, son of Ashok Acharya, Village-Mohal, P.S.-Chas in the Hindu Rites and Customs on 3rd March, 1997. He stated that at the time of marriage, she had brought rupees eleven thousand and Rs. 2,500/- worth ornaments, cloth and utensils, worth Rs. 5,000/- and after marriage, she started living in her husband's house at Dist.-Bokaro-P.S. Chandankiary at Village-Mohal. He further stated that just after three months of the marriage, the appellant Manik Acharya, his mother, Bhawani Acharya, brother, Becharam Acharya and sisters Bulu Acharya and Chinta Acharya started demanding colour T.V. and Hero Honda Motorcycle in the Dowry and started torturing his daughter. When his daughter stated that her father is a poor man and he could not fulfill the demand of further dowry, then she was assaulted by the accused persons. On her complaint, the informant went to the 'sasural' of his daughter and wanted to solve the matter but the accused persons continued the torture and threatened that they will kill her if the demands are not fulfilled and actually on 27.3.1998, she was done to death by pouring kerosene oil and putting fire on her body. Subsequently, he was informed about the death of his daughter. When he went to the Police Station then they refused to take the F.I.R. and asked him to go to Chandankiary police station and that P.S. also refused, then he lodged the written complaint, sending a copy to S.P. and D.C. 4. Subsequently, he was informed about the death of his daughter. When he went to the Police Station then they refused to take the F.I.R. and asked him to go to Chandankiary police station and that P.S. also refused, then he lodged the written complaint, sending a copy to S.P. and D.C. 4. On the basis of the said written report, the case under 304B of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against all the five accused persons under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code showing the accused Ashok Acharya as dead. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case and since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Session and lastly the case was tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, who found them guilty as aforesaid. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and all the prosecution witnesses namely P.W. 1 Haradhan Grahacharya, the informant and the father of the victim, P.W. 2 Nehari Grahacharya mother' of the deceased, P .W. 3 Dulal Acharya, uncle of the victim lady P.W. 4 Guhiram Grahacharya, another uncle of the deceased, have all stated that the demand of T.V, and motorcycle was made by the appellant No.1 Manik Acharya and rest of the accused who are mother-in-law, brother in-law and sister-in-law have nothing to do with the same. P.W. 1 has clearly stated that it was only the husband fy1anik Acharya, who was mainly making the demands and as such no case of demand of dowry and dowry death is made out against other appellants and thus they deserve to be acquitted from the charges leveled against them. He further submitted that by the evidence of the defence witnesses and also the evidence of the Doctor, it is clear that the victim Rita Acharya died accidentally when her sari caught fire by the 'Dhibri' and as such there is no evidence that she died a homicidal dowry death, committed by the appellants hence they deserve to be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses and that of the post mortem report as proved by the Doctor PW. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses and that of the post mortem report as proved by the Doctor PW. 6, it is clear that all the appellants were supporting the husband Manik Acharya in his demand of dowry of T.V. and Hero Honda Motorcycle and they had tortured the girl just before her death and post mortem report shows that she was burnt alive. It is not accidental death by catching fire from a 'Dhibri' and as such the appellants do not deserve any sympathy and they were rightly convicted by the Trial Court. 7. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that in order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 Haradhan Grahacharya, the informant and the father is of the victim, P.W. 2 Nehari Grahacharya mother of the deceased, PW. 3 Dulal Acharya, uncle of the victim lady P.W. 4 Guhiram Grahacharya, P.W. 5, Devendar Prasad, Investigating Officer of the case, P.W. 6, Dr. Sharda Pd. Sinha, who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased. 8. The defense has also examined three witnesses to prove their defence. They are D.W.1, Dr. P.P. Dutta, Medical Practitioner D.W.2 is Deepak Kumar Chakraverty, D.W.3 is Baidyanath Acharya. 9. The prosecution case as given by the informant, P.W. 1 in his written report has fully been supported by him in court and he has stated that after marriage on 3.3.1997, the victim girl went with her husband to her matrimonial house and stayed there peacefully for three months. Thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and sister in-law started torturing her and assaulting her and said that they had demanded a colour T.V. and Motorcycle when he went to her 'sasural, hearing that she is being assaulted by her in-laws for more dowry, then her in-laws did not allow him to enter their house and asked him to stay in the house of his 'Bhagina'. Subsequently his son-in-law Manik came with his daughter and refused to send her to her father's house and assaulted her in his presence. She stated that her husband was demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle and Colour T.V. and assaulted her regularly. Subsequently his son-in-law Manik came with his daughter and refused to send her to her father's house and assaulted her in his presence. She stated that her husband was demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle and Colour T.V. and assaulted her regularly. In January, 1998, her husband and mother-in-law came to his house with his daughter and left her daughter there and said that until and unless he makes arrangement for colour T.V. and Motorcycle, they will not accept the girl, so sent her alongwith dowry demanded. However, after one month, in February, he brought his daughter to the village of his son-in-law and approached the Sarpanch and Mukhiya. The Sarpanch of the Mohal village, called the accused persons and asked them not to demand further dowry, then in their presence, he gave his daughter in the 'jimma' of Maniks's father and came back. After one month in March, he was informed by the police that his daughter is dead. Then he alongwith his wife and others went to Village-Mohal and came to know that the body of his daughter has been sent for the post-mortem examination. After seeing the dead body, he became unconscious when it was brought back. Subsequently, he went to the police station but they refused to register the case, then on 1.4.1998, he gave a written report to the police station. He proved the written report as Exhibit-1, and had identified the accused in court. In cross-examination, he stated in 1997, in 'Srawan' (Sawan) month when she stated that her husband and in-laws are torturing her for not bringing Hero Honda Motorcycle and T.V. After three months, when he went to the Sasural of the daughter in the month of 'Chait' and lastly he came in 'Baisakh' and he came to know that Rita has committed suicide and when he went to father-in-law of Rita, she was present there and she asked him to go away otherwise her in-laws will assault him also. In cross-examination, in para-15, he stated that when he came to know that her daughter is dead and when he found that her dead body was not there, then the in-laws told him that she died due to burn injury. In cross-examination, in para-15, he stated that when he came to know that her daughter is dead and when he found that her dead body was not there, then the in-laws told him that she died due to burn injury. After seeing the dead body, he went to Alambag outpost but they refused to take complain, and when he came back to his home and again went to the police station with a written report, they asked him to go to Chandankiary Police Station and when he went to Chandankiary Police Station, they again sent him back to Alambag Police Station and lastly the written report was accepted. The prosecution witness No.2, Nehari Grahacharya has also supported the prosecution case and stated that her daughter was married according to Hindu Rites about three years ago and they had given Rupees eleven thousand cash, ornaments worth Rs. 25,000/- and utensils at the time of marriage, but after three months of the marriage, the accused persons started demanding a colour T. V. and a motorcycle and torturing her daughter since the father of the deceased is poor, he could not fulfill the demand of the appellants and her in-laws and hence her in-laws specially the 'Nan ad' and 'Devar’ started torturing her daughter and in the month of 'Chait, two years back, police gave information that her daughter is dead. When she went with her husband and other family members to the house of her daughter and saw the dead body. She identified the accused persons in court. In her cross-examination, she stated that she stated before the police that whenever the daughter came, then her in-laws were torturing her for not bringing T.V. and motorcycle. She stated in her cross-examination at para-14 that after three days she went to the police station with her husband, since the police also refused to take F.I.R. and asked her husband to come with his wife. Earlier police had threatened her husband that he was making a false allegation. The P.W. 3, Dulal Acharya have also supported the prosecution case and stated the occurrence took place on 27.3.1998, Rita Acharya was married with Manik Acharya in 1997, she went to her Sasural after the marriage but after four to five months of the marriage, they started demanding colour T.V. and motorcycle and started torturing her. The P.W. 3, Dulal Acharya have also supported the prosecution case and stated the occurrence took place on 27.3.1998, Rita Acharya was married with Manik Acharya in 1997, she went to her Sasural after the marriage but after four to five months of the marriage, they started demanding colour T.V. and motorcycle and started torturing her. On 28.3.1998, he was informed by his brother that Rita has reported dead and when he alongwith his brother and sister-in-law went to the Sasural of Rita and saw her dead body. He stated that he has given his statement before the police and identified the accused in court. In his cross-examination he stated that, from the father of the victim girl he came to know that he used to be regularly tortured for not bringing dowry. Only one month back when the father could not give the dowry in presence of the panchayat of village, she was kept in the sasural. P.W. 4, Guhiram Grahacharya is also another brother of the informant and he also stated that the victim girl Rita was married to the accused according to Hindu rites. She was living in her sasural and when she came after two or three months to her 'maike', she stated that her in-law & are torturing her for not bringing motorcycle and colour T.V. She also stated that her in-laws say that if the dowry does not come, then they will kill her. On 28.3.1998, when the police informed them that Rita had died, then he also went with his brother to his daughter's house, Rita and saw her dead body. In his cross-examination in para-5, he stated that her in-laws assaulted her and threatened her to commit her murder if the dowry is not brought. P.W. 5, Devendra Prasad, officer incharge of Amlabad Police Outpost, stated that at 10 A.M on 28.3.1998, on the information given by the chawkidar, he went to Village-Mohal and on the statement of Manik Acharaya, that his wife has got injured by fire and she being treated in the village. He recorded the Sanha No. 448, dated 28.3.1998. On the basis of sanha, registered an U.D. Case No. 5 of 1998 and started investigation. He prepared an inquest report of the deceased in presence of two independent witnesses and sent the dead body to post mortem examination. He recorded the Sanha No. 448, dated 28.3.1998. On the basis of sanha, registered an U.D. Case No. 5 of 1998 and started investigation. He prepared an inquest report of the deceased in presence of two independent witnesses and sent the dead body to post mortem examination. He took further statement of the accused Manik Acharya and also examined other witnesses. He stated that on 1.4.1998, the father of the deceased came to the O.P. and gave a written F.I.R. On the basis of the said F.I.R., he registered a case under Section 304B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation; he proved the written report which was marked as Exhibit-1. He also proved the writing from the said written report as Exhibit-2. Thereafter, since the investigation was given to him, he closed the U.D. case and started investigation of the case under Section 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code and after examination, the other witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet in the case. In para-5, he stated that the entire body of the victim girl was burnt and her skin had pilled out and had bristles over her body. After getting supervision of the Superior Officers, he submitted charge-sheet in the case. He stated inpara-11 that he found the accused Manik Acharya lives on the eastern side room of the house and in the same house on the western side, other accused persons live. P.W. 6, the Doctor Sharda Prasad Sinha, has proved post mortem report of the victim girl which was conducted by Dr. Chandreshwar Choudhary who was then the Deputy Superintendent of Sub-Division Hospital, Chas in the year 1998 and proved the same as Ext. 2. 10. The defense has also examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 is Dr. F.P. Dutta. who stated that on 27.3.1998, he was called by appellant Manik Acharya and he stated that his wife had got fire. He came to see her and she stated that from 'Dhibri', she got fire in her Sari. He gave her first aid and asked the appellant Manik to take her to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated at para-5 that the government hospital is at a distance of five to six kilometers from his clinic and the road was good and at para-8, he stated that the victim girl had second degree burnt injury. He gave her first aid and asked the appellant Manik to take her to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated at para-5 that the government hospital is at a distance of five to six kilometers from his clinic and the road was good and at para-8, he stated that the victim girl had second degree burnt injury. D.W. 2, Dipak Kumar Chakraverty stated that his wife had gone to see the victim girl Rita and she stated that Rita got fire from a 'Dhibri' in her sari which caused injury. When she asked, Rita told him that she got fire from a lantern. He also stated that the injured Rita Acharya was taken to private nursing home at Mahulbani. The clinic belonged to A.K. Jha who treated Rita and sent her back to home. She came to her house and died. D.W. 3, Baidyanath Acharya has also stated same in para - 3 that Rita Devi died as she got fire from a 'Dhibri' 11. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidences as discussed above, I find that all the prosecution witnesses mainly, P.W. 1,' Haradhan Grahacharya, P.W. 2 Nehari Grahachaya, P.W. 3 Dulal Acharya and P.W. 4 Guhiram Acharya have clearly stated that the victim girl was married with the appellant Manik Acharya on 3.3.1997 and she went to her Sasural to live with him. They lived peacefully for three months and thereafter they started torturing her for not bringing colour T.V. and motorcycle. As per P.W. 1, the torture was continued till last. As he stated in Para-2 that in January, 1,'998, the accused Manik Acharya and his mother Bhawani Acharya brought her to his house and said that until and unless he make5 arrangements for T.V. and motorcycle the should not send his daughter to their house. He also stated that when he f3iled in arrangement of T.V. and motercycle in February, 1998, he took his daughter to her sasural, Village Mohal and contacted the Upmukhia and Surpanch of village and narrated them, that the torture being committed for dowry by the accused persons and when the surpunch called the accused persons and after making them understand not to do so and gave his daughter in the ‘jimma' of her father-in-law, father of the accused Manik, but on the next Monday on 28.3.1998, he was informed' that she, was Jane to death. She died of burn injury. 12. The defence has tried to submit by adducing three D.Ws that, the victim died accidentally and it was not, an homicidal death as she got fire from a Dhibri. But from post mortem report, Exhibit-1 proved by P.W. 6, it is proved that the deceased had 90% burn injury of whole body. Her eyes and mouth were closed, pupils had dilated, singeing of hairs, patialu chipptee of figures of hands. There was foul smell of Kay-oil coming from her entire body. Whole body Was burnt 90%, charring and cooked by severe burn. 13. Thus post mortem .report totally falsifies the claim of the' defence that she got some burn from a 'Dhibri' and her sari got fire. A 'Dhibri' has got small quantity of Kay-oil but the doctor found that her entire body was smelling with koy-oil and the whole body was charred, cooked by burn injuries, even her hairs was singed, which shows that she was burnt by pouring kerosene oil upon her body. The claim of the defence witnesses D.W. 1, D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 that' they came and asked from the victim girl and she stated that she got fire by 'Dhibri'. cannot be believed, since the injury found by the post mortem report shows that she could not even speak. Moreover, the defence witnesses have also proved the fact that the accused persons even after seeing that she had 90% burn injury cal fed only a private doctor, D.W.1 F.P. Dutta and in spite of his direction, that immediately took her to a big hospital, they failed to take -her to any hospital. 14. D.W.1, in para-5 stated that there is Government hospital With good' road just five kilometers from his clinic but the victim vas not taken to the Government Hospital rather as per the evidences of 13.W.2 Deepak Kumar Chaukrobarty, the.victim was taken far away to Mahulbani to a private nursing home of Dr. A.K. Jha and when she was sent back to her house, she died. Thus, the evidence of post mortem report. A.K. Jha and when she was sent back to her house, she died. Thus, the evidence of post mortem report. Exhibit-2 and statement of the defence witnesses proved the fact that after seeing that the daughter-in-law got 90% burn injury, they failed to take her to any Government Hospital, which was nearby and only tried to create some show of treatment by calling a private doctor and taking her to a private nursing home, which shows their guilty mind. 15. As such in my opinion, it is a clear case of homicidal death and the victim girl was done to death for not bringing proper dowry within seven years of her marriage. 16. Learned course for the appellant has submitted that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. but on the evidence of P.W. 5, Devendra Prasad and that of P. W. 1, it is clear that the Investigating Officer, at the instance of the appellants registered a U.D. case on the basis of the fardbeyan given by Manik Acharya and he started investigation immediately, recorded the evidences of witnesses of his family and Doctor and he was about to close the case by saying that the death was an accidental death, when he was forced by this written report, since the copy of the written report was sent to D.C. and S.P. and high Officers. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1, informant, that on the date of death, he had gone to Alambad Police Station and the Investigating Officer, P.W. 5 refused to register the case. Then he went to his house and got the written F.I.R. typed and again came to police station after sending copy of the written F.I.R. to higher officers, then only the Investigating Officer P.W. 5 record the F.I.R. and investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. The informant has fully explained the delay of three days. 17. As stated above, I find all the appellants guilty for the charges framed against them since the victim girl died within one year of her marriage by 90% bum injury and no proper medical treatment was even given to her by the appellants and there is evidence of demand of dowry just one month before her death. 18. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution case fully proved the charges against the appellants and rightly convicted them. 18. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution case fully proved the charges against the appellants and rightly convicted them. I find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is confirmed. 19. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 20. It is stated that the appellant No.1 Manik Acharya has already served out the sentence and he has been released, the court will verify the same and as far as Appellants No.2 to 5 are concerned, all of them are on bail and thus their bail bond are cancelled, the trial court will issue warrant of arrest against them for serve out the sentence.