JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J Both these criminal appeals i.e Cr. Appeal No. 335/2001 filed by appellant, Anirudh Manjhi and Cr. Appeal No. 184/2001 filed by appellant, Ram Bilash Manjhi, Ram Prit Manhjhi and Bigni Devi arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sri Rameshwar Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, Palamu at Dlatonganj in Sessions Trial No. 34/97 by which judgment he convicted all the appellants under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 2 years for charges under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of the first information report given by Satyendra Manjhi (P.W.9) on 4.7.1996 at 10.30 a.m. In his written complaint, the informant has stated that his sister was married to Anirudh Manjhi son of Kailash Manjhi, whenever she used to go to her house she used to complain that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and Dever used to torture her and used to say that she is black coloured and she also should bring a she-buffalo in dowry. It is stated that her husband, Anirudh Manjhi and father-in-law, Ram Bilas Manjhi also demanded a she-buffalo from the informant. On 2. 7.1997 witness, Govind Paswan (P.W.6) came and informed the informant and his father that his sister is hospitalized. Then his father went to Panki on bicycle with the informant. From Panki his father went to Udaypura on foot. He saw the accused persons are trying to burn his sister. They were convinced, that the accused persons have committed the murder of his sister and are burning the dead body without informing the informant and his father. 3. On the basis of the said F.I.R. police registered a case under Section 304B read with Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against all the four accused persons. The court below after taking cognizance of the case, committed the case to the court of Sessions. From the sessions court the case was transferred to the trial court where the trial was held after the accused persons were charged. 5. During trial the prosecution examined 11 prosecution witnesses. The court below after taking cognizance of the case, committed the case to the court of Sessions. From the sessions court the case was transferred to the trial court where the trial was held after the accused persons were charged. 5. During trial the prosecution examined 11 prosecution witnesses. P.W.1, Tetari Devi, is mother of the deceased. P.W.2, Munni Manjhi, is father of the deceased. P.W.3, Tulshi Paswan, is cousin brother of the deceased. P.W.,4, Damodar Manjhi is also brother of the deceased. P.W.5, Urmila Devi. P.W. 6, Govind Paswan, P.W.7, Arjun Ram and P.W.8, Satyendra Mistry is co-villager, but they have not fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.9, Satyendra Manjhi is the informant. P.W. 10 is Investigating Officer, Vijoy Kumar Singh. P.W. 11, Narayan Paswan. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the finding of the learned trial court is bad in law and fit to be set aside since for conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be proximity between the torture for demand of dowry and occurrence. Witnesses have stated that when the victim lady, Jasmati Devi had come in the last Holy she stated that she was being tortured for demand of dowry, but there is no evidence that she was tortured for dowry immediately before the occurrence and hence the conviction and sentence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable and fit to be set aside. He has further submitted that P. W. 4 had developed the prosecution case. Initially, the demand was made by the husband one by one they include the father-in-law and mother-in-law and ‘Devar’ also. He further submitted that the hostile witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 5, 6, 7,8 and 11 have supported the case of the defence that she died of diarrhea and hence the trial court should have accepted the version of the defence and acquitted all the accused persons. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no force in the argument of the defence counsel since it has come in the evidence that she had come to her house just before the occurrence on 4.3.1996 and after returning from her Naihar she was done to death on 2.7.1996, so there is proximity in the torture for dowry and her death which occurred within 7 years of her marriage. The hostile witnesses referred by the appellant are all the neighbours of the accused and they had stated before the Investigating Officer that she died due to drowning and as such the finding of conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is well founded. 8. After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, I find that the prosecution case is supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9. P.W. 1, Tetri Devi, mother of the deceased has stated that her daughter was married 1 ½ years ago with the accused, Anirudh Manjhi and after marriage they used to torture her and used to demand a she-buffalo in dowry. Last time she had came in Holy and told that her husband is demanding a she-buffalo and he assaults her everyday and if it is not given he will kill her. He also used to call her black coloured lady. She stated that she could not give a she-buffalo to the accused persons, hence after committing her murder they threw her body in the well. In her cross-examination, she also stated that in the last Holy when she came she stated that she is being tortured for demand of a she-buffalo in dowry. P.W. 2, Munni Manjhi (father of the deceased) has also stated that his daughter, Jasmati Devi was married two years back with the accused, Anirudh Manjhi. His son-in-law and his father in law used to demand a she-buffalo in dowry and used to say that if buffalo is not given they will assault her. Last time when she came in holy she told that if she-buffalo is not given then her husband and father-in-law will kill her. He stated that on the date of occurrence from Udaipur Govind Paswan came and informed that his daughter is serious in the hospital. He immediately rushed with him to Panki, but she was not found in the hospital and he learnt that the accused persons are burning the dead body of his daughter at Udaypur. They also learnt that the dead body was brought out from a well which is west of their house, when his son came then he lodged the case. In his cross-examination, he stated at para 4 that all three accused persons were demanding a she-buffalo otherwise they will kill her. They also learnt that the dead body was brought out from a well which is west of their house, when his son came then he lodged the case. In his cross-examination, he stated at para 4 that all three accused persons were demanding a she-buffalo otherwise they will kill her. P.W.3, Tulshi Paswan stated that his sister was married with accused, Anirudh Manjhi and last time he met her in the Holy on 4.3.96 when she told she will go to her sasural as accused, Ram Bilash Manjhi her father-in-law and her mother-in-law, Bigni Devi are demanding a she-buffalo and if it is not given they will commit her murder. She was not ready to go to her sasural, as she afraid that she will be was done to death by them, since she-buffalo in dowry was not given to the accused persons. In cross-examination, he stated that he said she usually comes to his house in holiday or whenever she is required. At para 3, cross-examination, he stated that Jasmati Devi told him about the torture in her sasural and his wife was also present there. He also stated that after the information to the police, the police came at the place of occurrence at 6.30 in the evening and the Investigating Officer seized the ash. P.W.4, Damodar Manjhi has also supported the prosecution case and stated that his sister Jasmait Devi was married to Anirudh Manjhi about 2 ½ years back and whenever she came to her house she stated that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to torture her as she was black and used to demand a she-buffalo in dowry. Last time when she came in holy she again stated that if she-buffalo is not given, she will be killed by her in-laws. Since, they failed to give she-buffalo she was killed . P.W. 9 is the informant, he has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that his sister was married about three years back with accused Anirudh Manjhi, son of Ram Bilash Manjhi of village Udaipur whenever she came to her house, she said that she was being tortured by her in-laws for demand of she-buffalo. P.W. 9 is the informant, he has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that his sister was married about three years back with accused Anirudh Manjhi, son of Ram Bilash Manjhi of village Udaipur whenever she came to her house, she said that she was being tortured by her in-laws for demand of she-buffalo. In the last holy, when she came she said that if she-buffalo is not given they will kill her, but he sent her back to her sasural where just after three months she was done to death by them. On the date of occurrence gotia informed that his sister is serious and water is being administered to her, but when they reached there they found her sister is being burnt near a river. On inquiry, they said that while taking the water from the well her sister fell down and died. The well from where no body was recovered was not used for taking water, but only used for cultivation and patwan. Subsequently, they lodged the case before the police. Since, the entire prosecution he has not supported the case . 9. Thus, from the evidences of P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and 9, it is clear that just after her marriage two three years back with the accused, Anirudh Manjhi, since the victim lady was dark coloured as she was being tortured and assaulted and all the accused persons were demanding a she-buffalo from her father’s house. The victim lady died on 2.7.96 and just three months back when she came in holy on 4.3.1996 she told that a she-buffalo is not given she will be killed by the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution by the evidence of these five witnesses proved beyond reasonable doubt that she used to be tortured by the accused persons for dowry after her marriage till her unnatural death. 10. The appellants have argued that the witnesses of the village Udaipura where the accused persons were residing, have all stated in Court that she died of diarrhoea when they were examined as P.W. 5, Urmila Devi, P.W.6, Govind Paswan, P.W. 7, Arjun Ram, P.W. 8, Satyendra Mistry. 10. The appellants have argued that the witnesses of the village Udaipura where the accused persons were residing, have all stated in Court that she died of diarrhoea when they were examined as P.W. 5, Urmila Devi, P.W.6, Govind Paswan, P.W. 7, Arjun Ram, P.W. 8, Satyendra Mistry. It appears that all these four witnesses P.W. 5 to P.W. 8 belonged to the village Udaipura and they have stated that the deceased, Jasmati Devi died of diarrhea, but the fact is that all these witnesses have stated before the I.O, P.W. 10, Vijoy Kumar Singh that she died due to drowning and her dead body was recovered from the well. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W. 10 and he stated in paras 9 & 10 that witness, Urmila Devi stated before him that Jasmati Devi fell in the well due to which she died. Witness, Govind Paswasn also stated that she fell in the well due to which she died. The aforesaid statement was also confronted to the witnesses. Thus statement of witnesses from the village of the accused make the case more doubtful and it creates doubt that there is some secrecy with regard to the death of the deceased. The villagers stated before the Court that she died of diarrhoea, but all the witnesses P.W. 5 to P.W. 8 stated before the Investigating Officer that she died due to drowning in the well. 11. In such a situation, I find that the finding of the trial court that the victim lady who used to be tortured by the appellants for dowry as also for her black colour , was done to death for not bringing proper dowry and she died a unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. The defence has failed to explain the cause of death as they have not examined any witness in defence. 12. In such a situation, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence which prove the case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code since without giving any information to the father and brother of the deceased she was burnt in absence of her family member, which also proved the guilty mind of the accused persons. 13. I find no merit in these appeals, which is accordingly dismissed. 14. The appellants are on bail. 13. I find no merit in these appeals, which is accordingly dismissed. 14. The appellants are on bail. The learned trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against them. It is submitted by the learned advocate for appellant, Anirudh Manjhi in Cr. Appeal No. 335 of 2001 that he has served out the full sentence and others have remained in jail for 19 months. The trial court shall verify the same before issuing warrant of arrest for serving the sentences.