JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.8.2000 passed by Sri Bishwanath Prasad Singh, Sessions Jude, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1996 by which judgment all the appellants have been found guilty for the offence u/s 304B, 498A and 201 of the I.P.C and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years u/s 304B, R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, however no separate sentence was passed u/s 201 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence that the victim lady was subjected to torture for dowry after her marriage nor there is any evidence that till before her death she was tortured for dowry. In that view of the matter conviction of the appellants is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Further, it has been submitted that prosecution case was started after a long delay of 2 1/2 months. In that view of the matter, it appears that the prosecution case is false and concocted and has been lodged only as a after thought. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has supported the prosecution case and stated that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that death was due to demand of dowry and constant torture and the victim lady died an unnatural death by catching fire within 4 years of her marriage and as such all the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the complaint filed by the informant/complaint, Abdul Jabbar-P.W.3 on 5.9.1994 stating therein that his daughter Shahzadi Khatoon was married with the accused, Md. Salim about 4 years back on 5.5.1990 and at the time of marriage he had given gold and silver ornaments and other utensils to her and after marriage she started living with the accused persons in her sasural. It is stated that after 7 months of her marriage, accused persons started demanding Rs. Salim about 4 years back on 5.5.1990 and at the time of marriage he had given gold and silver ornaments and other utensils to her and after marriage she started living with the accused persons in her sasural. It is stated that after 7 months of her marriage, accused persons started demanding Rs. 16,000/- cash and also a colour television as further dowry and stateted torturing his daughter. Then she made a complaint to Md. Shahbuddin on 2.12.1990 and asked to inform her father that she is being tortured for Rs. 16000 and colour T.V. Then P.W.2, Md. Shahbuddin wrote a letter to him which he got at Pannagarh on 8.12.1990. In return he gave a letter to Md. Shahbuddin to tell his son-in-law not to torture, since, he will see that the demands are fulfilled. Then P.W.2, Md. Shahbuddin went to the sasural of the daughter of the informant with the letter. Then they kept silent for sometime. Thereafter, a female child was born to the daughter of the informant-Shahzadi Khatoon and they kept his daughter properly for 1 1/2 years, but after that period they again started torturing her. Then the victim lady again made compliant to Md. Mukhtar Alam, who again informed him. Then he wrote a letter to Md. Mukhtar Alam that his wife is seriously ill and she is under treatment at Pannagarh and he cannot come immediately. Then he reached her sasural on 2.9.1994 and wanted to meet his daughter. Then on inquiry in the village, he got the information that his daughter has been burnt to death. On 22.6.1994 he went to the police station but found her in-laws siting there, then he went to the court and tiled this complaint. 6. The complaint was forwarded to the police u/s 156 Cr.P.C for registration and police registered the same and started investigation and subsequently, filed charge sheet in the case u/s 304B, 498A and 201 of the I.P.C. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, Learned C.J.M. committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, who found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. It appears that in course of examination the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1 is Rubeda Khatoon P.W.2 is Shahbuddin P.W.3 is Abdul Jabbar, Informant of the case. P.W.4 is Md. Ibrar P.W.5 is Mustari. 7. It appears that in course of examination the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1 is Rubeda Khatoon P.W.2 is Shahbuddin P.W.3 is Abdul Jabbar, Informant of the case. P.W.4 is Md. Ibrar P.W.5 is Mustari. Begum P.W.6 is Md. Murtaza Alam P.W.7 is Md. Akhyar Khan, I.O. of the case. P.W.8 is Uday Shankar Prasad, formal witness who has proved the filing of complaint as annexure 2. 8. The complainant-informant, Abdul Jabbar examined as P.W.3 has stated in the court that his daughter was married with the accused Md. Salim on 5.5.1990 and within 4 years she died in her sasural on 22.6.1994. He has stated after her marriage, she was residing in her husband's house, but after few months of her marriage, husband and other members started demanding dowry and also started assaulting her. They used to demand Rs. 16,000 cash and a colour T.V. She made complaint to her cousin, Shahbuddin, who came to Pannagarh and informed him that in-laws of Shahjadi Khatoon are demanding Rs. 16000 and colour T.V. Since, his wife was ill, hence he wrote a letter that he will fulfill the demand alter sometime. Thereafter, his daughter gave birth to a female child. After that they kept her properly for one year and again demanded money. Then she made complaint to Md. Murtaza Alam, who informed him at Pannagarh. Then he gave a letter to him to ask his son-in-law that he will come and fulfill his demand. On 2.9.1994 he came to meet his daughter, then her in laws stated that he cannot meet her. On inquiry he came to know that she died out of burning on 22.6.1994 itself. Then he went to the police station where he found his samdhi is sitting. Thereafter, he went to the court arid filed the complaint. He identified his signature in the complaint petition as armexure-1. In cross examination, he admitted that previously he used to reside at the village Guma, but presently he has got nothing there, since he in service at Pannagarh. 9. Prosecution case is also supported by the evidence of P.W.1, Rubeda Khatoon, who is the maternal aunt of the victim girl. She has stated that Shahjadi Khatoon was the daughter of her sister. Shahjadi was married with the accused Md. Salim just 4 years before her death. 9. Prosecution case is also supported by the evidence of P.W.1, Rubeda Khatoon, who is the maternal aunt of the victim girl. She has stated that Shahjadi Khatoon was the daughter of her sister. Shahjadi was married with the accused Md. Salim just 4 years before her death. Her parents reside in Bengal where her father is in service. She has stated that her house is just after 3/4 house of the sasural of Shahjadi. She stated that just after 3 months of Shahjadi's marriage, her husband and in-laws started demanding colour T.V. and 16,000 cash and started torturing the victim girl. Then she informed about the torture to her son. Then her son informed her father. Her father wrote a letter to her husband that he will fulfill the demand after sometime. She has further stated that on the date of occurrence hearing hulla of fight in the house, she came to the victim lady's sasural at about 9-10 p.m when she heard that the victim has caught fire and when she went near her, she stated that due to dowry she has been burnt. P.W.1 has identified the accused persons in the court. In her cross examination, in para 7 she has stated that she has not stated to the police whether the victim herself put fire or somebody else put lire on her. In para 9 she stated that she has not stated before the police that parents; of the victim lives at Andal. Other witnesses namely, P.W.2 Md. Shahbuddin, P.W.5 Mustari Begum have supported the prosecution case that the victim used to be tortured by the accused persons. The Investigating Officer, P.W.7 has also supported the prosecution case. However, in his cross examination he has stated that witness, Rubeda Begam has stated that she does not know who put fire on her. He has also stated that Rubena begum has not stated before him that victim's husband used to demand colour T.V. and Rs. 16,000. 10. The defence has also examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 is Maulvi Ali Bakhsh D.W.2 is Md. Alauddin Mian D.W.3 is Sattar Khan D.W. 1 has stated that on the date of Muharram, he heard that Sahjadi had died due to burn. He has stated that he heard that she put fire on her body. 16,000. 10. The defence has also examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 is Maulvi Ali Bakhsh D.W.2 is Md. Alauddin Mian D.W.3 is Sattar Khan D.W. 1 has stated that on the date of Muharram, he heard that Sahjadi had died due to burn. He has stated that he heard that she put fire on her body. He was also trying to say that her father and brother were present at the time of her burial. D.W.2 has stated that she had died out of burn and she herself put fire on her. Similar thing was stated by D.W.3. 11. Thus, after perusal of the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses, I find that no doubt that there is delay in lodging in the F.I.R., since the complainant was trying to give explanation that just before the occurrence he was informed by P.W.6 that his Samdhi and son-in-law had again started torturing his daughter for dowry, wherein he also informed that his wife is ill and he will come immediately after she recovered and when he came to see his daughter on 2.9.1994, he could not meet her then he was informed by his villagers and relatives that she was burnt to death on 22.6.1994. There is no specific allegation of torture against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law namely Mel. Rashid Khan, Shairuh Nisha and Md. Alam. The allegation are just general in nature that they were demanding dowry. It appears from the evidences of the witnesses that victim's own maternal aunt was residing just 3/4 houses away from her sasural and she has also not given any specific allegation of torture against the in laws. General demand of colour T.V. and money was made by the son-in-law i.e. the husband since, the T.V. was to be used by him and Rs. 16,000/-, if requires was also for his personal purpose and business or other thing. 12. In that view of the matter, since there is delay in lodging the complaint and since there is no specific allegation against the in-laws namely Md. Rashid Khan, Shairuh Nisha and Md. Alam, they are given benefit of doubt in the case and acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 13. However, since there are sufficient evidence that the husband, appellant No. 1, Md. Salim @ Sallu was demanding Rs. Rashid Khan, Shairuh Nisha and Md. Alam, they are given benefit of doubt in the case and acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 13. However, since there are sufficient evidence that the husband, appellant No. 1, Md. Salim @ Sallu was demanding Rs. 16,000 and a colour T.V. as dowry and he was regularly assaulting and torturing his wife for the same and since, the victim died an unnatural death within 4 years of her marriage by putting file on herself or somebody put fire on her, hence the appellant No. 1 namely Md. Salim @ Sallu has rightly been convicted. As a result of which his conviction and sentence is hereby confirmed. 14. In the result, appellant No. 2, 3 and 4 namely Md. Rashid Khan, Shairuh Nisha and Md. Alam are acquitted from the charges giving benefit of doubt. Since, they are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bond. Further, the sentence of appellant No. 1 Md. Salim @ Sallu is confirmed. Since, he is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled. Learned Trial Court is directed to issue non bailable warrant of arrest against him for serving out the sentence. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.