JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 10.10.2007 passed by Shri Satya Prakash, District and Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 428 of 2005, by which judgment, he found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 304 (B)/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He convicted the appellant for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 304 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, he directed both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The Prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by the informant Anil Tiwary (P.W.2) to the Superintendent of Police, Giridih on 08.05.2005 stating therein that he is a resident of Village-Dangradih, P.S.-Chatra, District-Chatra and his sister Arati Devi aged about 20 years was married with Sunil Tiwary, the accused, on 13.03.2004 at village Malda, P.S.-Gawan, District-Giridih. At the time of marriage cash of Rs. 31,000/-along with gold ornaments and other articles were also given. He stated that at the time of marriage, his brother-in-laws and in-laws of his sister demanded a motorcycle which, due to his poverty, he could not give. Soon after the marriage, his sister went to sasural, but her in-laws used to torture her for not bringing motorcycle with her. In the falgun of 2005, when he reached the sasural of his sister, she came with him to his house and she stated that she is being tortured for dowry since they have failed to give motorcycle. She has also stated that if motorcycle is not given, she will be killed. 3. He stated further that at the time of Holi, his brother Sunil Tiwary came and he had a fight with them for not giving a motorcycle. When his father stated that he will sell his land and give him motorcycle within one year, since the lands were also not sold at that time, then his brother-in-law left with the deceased Arati Devi for Malda four days before the occurrence. His father had gone to the village Malda with Jitendra Tiwary and Shivdeo Tiwary, where the deceased, Arati Devi narrated her torture for not giving the motorcycle. His father had gone to the village Malda with Jitendra Tiwary and Shivdeo Tiwary, where the deceased, Arati Devi narrated her torture for not giving the motorcycle. The in-laws of his sister told his father that if motorcycle is not given, then see the result within 15 days. Suddenly, on 05.05.2005, Gawan Police informed that the elder daughter of Shivdeo Tiwary has died by hanging. On this information, they went to village Malda on 06.05.2005 and came to know that on 04.05.2005 Sunil Tiwary, Nakul Tiwary and his wife and uncle-in-law, Tribhuwan Tiwary, Janaki Tiwary and Sukit Tiwary had committed murder of his sister. He also come to know that by giving false information to the police they have burnt the dead body also. He also stated that the place of occurrence where his sister hanged herself is such a low roof room that if a man stand, his head will touch the roof and a person cannot commit suicide by hanging there. He also came to know that there was a sign of assault on the dead body in the neck, ear-drum and even hands were swollen and as such he had got full claim that his sister was tortured to death and false case of hanging is reported. 4. On the basis of the said written report, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih written the matter at Gawan Police Station where a case for the offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation police submitted a charge sheet against the accused Sunil Tiwary and kept the investigation pending for the other accused persons. 5. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned magistrate after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and lastly the case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Giridih and the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. 5. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned magistrate after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and lastly the case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Giridih and the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the prosecution has examined six witnesses, but witnesses have failed to prove that the victim lady was tortured for dowry just before her death and as such, as per Section 113 (A) (B) of the Evidence Act, there is no evidence that due to their torture she committed suicide and hence the conviction of the appellant is bad and fit to be set aside. There is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. Moreover, it has been stated that earlier there was no report lodged for demand of dowry. 7. It is further submitted that it will appear from the evidence of P.W.6, Investigating Officer that he after registered a U.D. Case made investigation and he recorded the statement of the witnesses, but he failed to bring such statement either in the case diary or in the court. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has failed to investigate properly by making the map of the place of occurrence and taking photograph of place of occurrence and as such the prosecution has failed to prove the charges and the appellant is only fit to be acquitted. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that by the evidences of P.W.2, 3 and 4, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim lady used to be tortured and assaulted for not bringing motorcycle and the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.3 proved the fact that it is not a case of suicidal death, but it is a case of homicidal death. The victim lady was done to death by the accused persons including the appellant and subsequently they attempted to make a case of suicide by hanging. Hence, the appellant, who is husband and who was with the victim girl at the place of occurrence has rightly been found guilty and convicted. 9. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Hence, the appellant, who is husband and who was with the victim girl at the place of occurrence has rightly been found guilty and convicted. 9. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has examined six witnesses. P.W.1 is Arjun Tiwary, co-villager of the appellant, Sunil Tiwary. P.W.2 is Anil Tiwary, the informant of this case. P.W.3 is Dr. B.N. Das, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is Rajdeo Tiwari who is the uncle of the deceased. P.W.5 is Ramashis Tiwary who is also the uncle of the deceased and P.W.6 is Yogendra Paswan who is the Investigating Officer. 10. Although, P.W.1, Arjun Tiwary has been declared hostile since he stated in his Examination-in-Chief at Para 2 that Arati Kumar died by hanging herself except that he heard nothing. During the cross-examination, at Para 15, he has stated that the deceased has some illicit relationship with one Jitender Tiwary, due to which the in-laws were against her. He also admitted in Para 18 that on the night of occurrence, Arati Kumari was alone with the accused, Sunil Tiwary in the same house and all other inmates had gone to attend some marriage. By Para 19, he stated that due to suspicion on the character of the deceased her husband Sunil Tiwary and his brother-in-law Janaki Tiwary committed the murder of the victim girl. 11. As far as evidence of P.W.2 is concerned, he is the informant and fully supported the prosecution case and he stated that he had given the written report to the S.P., Giridih. He proved the said report written by him and signed by him as Ext.2. He further stated that his sister was married with Sunil Tiwary, the accused on 13.03.2004 and right from the time of marriage there was a demand of motorcycle by the accused, Sunil Tiwary and his family members and after marriage they used to torture his sister for not bringing motorcycle. He stated that whenever he went to sasural of his sister, the appellant and his parents used to fight with him for not giving the motorcycle. He stated that 15 days before the death of his sister, she had told him that if motorcycle is not given, she will be done to death, since, her in-laws were always assaulting her. He stated that whenever he went to sasural of his sister, the appellant and his parents used to fight with him for not giving the motorcycle. He stated that 15 days before the death of his sister, she had told him that if motorcycle is not given, she will be done to death, since, her in-laws were always assaulting her. He also stated that during holi of the same year, when his sister came to his house, there also she made complaint that she is being assaulted regularly by her in-laws for not bringing the motorcycle and when his brother-in-law, the accused, Sunil Tiwary came, he also had fight with them and lastly on their assurance, he left the house with the deceased on 04.05.2005. He heard that his sister is dead and he went to sasural of his sister, but her dead body was not there. Then, they went to police station. There he was informed that the dead body has been burnt, then on enquiry from the villagers, he came to know that his sister was assaulted to death. Then, again he came to police station, but the police refused to register a case, then he went to S.P., Giridih and give a written report. He identified the accused in the court. In his cross examination, at Para 3, he stated that on 05.05.2005 itself, he had gone to the police station and wanted to lodge the F.I.R., but the Daroga refused to accept the same. Then, he went to S.P., Giridih on 08.05.2005 and lodge the F.I.R. In his cross examination, he has stated that he had passed his intermediate examination in 1994 and he also stated that the marriage of his sister took place in Bhadra Kali temple near Chatra and the marriage was conducted by Pandit Pradeep Pandey. 12. P.W.3 is Dr. B.N. Das, who has proved the postmortem report as Ext.3. He stated that on 05.05.2005, he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Arati Devi, wife of the Sunil Tiwary, appellant. The dead body was brought and identified by Chowkidar Latif Mian and Hanif Rajwar, both are the chowkidar of police station. He found the following injuries: i. Swelling 4”X1” over posterior part of skull. ii. Multiple small abrasion marks all over neck more over posterior part. iii. Bruise 5”X1/2” over left buttock. iv. The dead body was brought and identified by Chowkidar Latif Mian and Hanif Rajwar, both are the chowkidar of police station. He found the following injuries: i. Swelling 4”X1” over posterior part of skull. ii. Multiple small abrasion marks all over neck more over posterior part. iii. Bruise 5”X1/2” over left buttock. iv. Bruise 6”X1/2” over right side posterior part of chest. v. Abrassion 5”X1/2” over right thigh. vi. Abrassion 4”X1/2” over left leg. vii. Ligature mark over neck-well defined depressed situated lowdown in the neck below hyoid cartriledge-Encircling the whole neck horizontally and completely-The base of the ligature mark was pale with raddish and ecchymosed margins. viii. Abrassion with exohymosis also present in the adjacent skin of the ligature mark. The doctor opined all the above injuries were antemortem in nature. On dissection, the doctor found the following injuries: i. Skull intact, brain congested. ii. Sucutaneous tissue of neck extravasion of blood was present under the ligature mark with laceration of adjacent muscles of the neck. iii. Thyroid bone thyroid cartriledge, larynx and traches fractured, congested and contained froathy mucous. iv. 4th, 5th ribs right side chest fractured. v. Heart empty, lungs congested, urinary bladder empty. uterous small and nongravit. 13. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours by the postmortem examination. 14. In the cross examination of P.W.3, Dr. B.N. Das, he stated that a copy of inquest report was also sent with the dead body, which was written in Column 5 that “Gardan me aage ki or chhilaya hua daag jaisa anya koi bahya jakhm nahi paya gaya”, but he has report and mentioned it in the postmortem report what he found on the dead body as external injury. 15. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the uncles of the deceased and both of them corroborated P.W.2 and submitted that there was demand of motorcycle and the victim girl used to be tortured by the appellant, Sunil Tiwary and his family pressed for the same. They have also stated in their cross examination that after knowing about death of their niece, they have gone to Malda and they had also gone to the police station and given statement to the police, but they did not show the dead body at the police station. 16. They have also stated in their cross examination that after knowing about death of their niece, they have gone to Malda and they had also gone to the police station and given statement to the police, but they did not show the dead body at the police station. 16. P.W.6, Yogendra Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 10.05.2005, he received the written report from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, which was written by Anil Tiwary S/o Sukhdeo Tiwary, Village-Dagaradih, P.S.-Chatra, Dist.-Chatra. On the basis of the said report, the Officer-in-Charge, Ganesh Kumar Singh registered the Gama P.S. Case No. 29 of 2005 and gave him the case for investigation. At Para 2 of deposition, he stated that earlier he had registered U.D. Case No. 03 of 2005 on 05.05.2005 and he had prepared the inquest report of the victim girl with carbon copy which he proved as Ext. 4. He also proved formal F.I.R. as Ext. 5. He stated that he subsequently recorded the evidence of informant, Anil Tiwary. He also recorded the statement of Rajdeo Tiwary, Ramashis Tiwary and Jitendra Tiwary. He also made inspection of the place of occurrence which he had made earlier also. Then, he registered a U.D. Case No. 3 of 2005. He had recovered the dead body of the victim which was kept on a cot in the angan of the house of the accused Sunil Tiwary. 17. Thereafter, he obtained the postmortem report and after the supervision of the superior authority, he submitted a charge sheet against the accused, Sunil Tiwary and got the investigation pending against other accused persons. In the cross examination, he stated that he had not recorded the case under U.D. Case No. 03 of 2005, although, he had taken evidences of some witnesses of the U.D. Case. In Para 9 and 10, he stated that the witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.4 have neither stated that the appellant used to torture the victim girl for not bringing motorcycle nor they stated that whenever Sunil Tiwary came to the house of informant and used to demand motorcycle. 18. In Para 9 and 10, he stated that the witnesses P.W.5 and P.W.4 have neither stated that the appellant used to torture the victim girl for not bringing motorcycle nor they stated that whenever Sunil Tiwary came to the house of informant and used to demand motorcycle. 18. Thus, after going through the entire prosecution evidences, it is clear that the informant, P.W.2 as well as P.W.4 and P.W.5 have stated that there was a demand of motorcycle by the accused Sunil Tiwary and his family members were also supported him in this. They have stated that right from the time of marriage, the accused Sunil Tiwary and his family members used to torture her for not bringing motorcycle with her and whenever they went to the house of the victim girl, she used to complain that she is being tortured since they are not giving the motorcycle. P.W.2 has further stated that just after 15 days before her death, he had gone to meet his sister, when she complaint that if motorcycle is not given, she will be done to death. The victim girl complained that they are regularly assaulting her for motorcycle. P.W.2 has stated in his written report also that ten days before the occurrence, his father Sukhdeo Tiwary had also gone to the sasural of his sister and his sister had stated before him also that if motorcycle is not given, she will be done to death. Her in-laws also told him that if motorcycle is not given within 15 days, he will get result in 15 days and then within 15 days they (P.W.2, complainant, his father and uncles, P.W.4 and P.W.5) got the news on 05.05.2005 that the victim girl has died. 19. Both the defence has tried to say that the victim girl died due to hanging, but no evidence was given in the trial of the prosecution case by the defence. Not a single witness has been brought to prove that the victim girl had committed suicide or died by natural death. It is also apparent that the victim girl was married on 13.03.2004 and just after one year due to persistent demand of dowry and continuous torture for not bringing the same, there was complaint of torture after few more days and ten days before her death for not giving motorcycle as dowry. 20. It is also apparent that the victim girl was married on 13.03.2004 and just after one year due to persistent demand of dowry and continuous torture for not bringing the same, there was complaint of torture after few more days and ten days before her death for not giving motorcycle as dowry. 20. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it is ample clear from the evidences discussed above from the argument that the informant, P.W.2 and the witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 had gone to the police station to lodge the F.I.R., but the F.I.R. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer, who had already recorded a U.D. Case at the instance of the accused persons and the F.I.R. which was written on that very date was subsequently placed before S.P., Giridih, who sent the same back to the police station for registering the case and then only the case was registered and investigation started. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. as the investigating officer was trying to save the accused, Sunil Tiwary, hence the delay was caused. Thus, I find no merit in this argument of learned counsel for the appellant. 21. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier there was no report with regard to the demand of dowry is concerned, it is quiet natural in India that in every house, parents want to save the marriage of their daughter and in this case also if no complaint was lodged earlier, it was not unnatural as per the conduct of this country where every father and brother wants to save the marriage of their daughter/sister and they may attempt to sale their land and give the motorcycle to save the life of their daughter/sister and also to save her marriage. Thus, I find no merit in this argument of learned counsel for the appellant also. 22. The evidence of P.W.3, Dr. B.N. Das, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on the same date of occurrence i.e. on 05.05.2005, which revealed that the victim lady was badly assaulted, even her 4th, 5th and 6th ribs of right side chest were fractured. 22. The evidence of P.W.3, Dr. B.N. Das, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on the same date of occurrence i.e. on 05.05.2005, which revealed that the victim lady was badly assaulted, even her 4th, 5th and 6th ribs of right side chest were fractured. She had injuries on her neck, she had injuries on her skull, she had injuries on her lungs and before strangulating her to death, she was assaulted badly. P.W.1, Arjun Tiwary, resident of the village Malda, who turned hostile, has also admitted in Para 18 of the deposition that in the night of occurrence, the victim girl was alone with the accused, Sunil Tiwary and other witnesses have gone to attend some marriage. Thus, none, except the accused, Sunil Tiwary had opportunity to commit the murder of the victim girl either for not bringing the motorcycle as dowry with her or due to the suspicion that she has some illicit relations with anybody else (as deposed by P.W.1, Arjun Tiwary in Para 10). It was a homicidal death within seven years of her marriage and since there is consistent evidence that there was a demand of motorcycle in dowry due to which, she used to be tortured continuously till her death. 23. In that view of the matter, in my opinion also, learned trial court rightly found the accused, Sunil Tiwary guilty for the offence under Sections 304B/34 and also under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. I find no merit in this appeal, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is uphold. The appellant is already in custody since 27.07.2005, because his bail was refused by this Court.