JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. No body appears on behalf of the appellants on repeated call. Than, on the request of the Court Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate, argued the case as amicus curie on behalf of the appellants. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.2.2000 and order of sentence dated 16.2.2000 passed by Sri Dhruv Narayan Upadhyay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 1995, by which judgment he found the appellant No. 1, Mangar Mahto guilty u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and he was in custody since 19.10.95 to 17.3.97. He was sentenced to period already undergone by him. The learned trial court found the appellant No. 2, Nand Lal Mahto guilty u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default further to undergo S.I. for 3 months. He also found appellant No. 2, Nand Lal Mahto guilty u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default further to undergo S.I. for one month. The learned trial court also found the appellant No. 3, Himiya Devi guilty u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and considering her age and being a lady the court sentenced her to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default further to undergo 3 months S.I. He further found her guilty u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for 1 year and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default further to undergo 1 month. The trial court is directed all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants as amicus curie that although the witnesses have tried to say that the date of occurrence itself i.e. on 27.7.1995, the informant and the witnesses had gone to the place of occurrence i.e. in-laws' house of the victim Kaushilya Devi for her Bidai and in presence of them she was assaulted by the accused persons, but since no F.I.R. of any such assault was lodged by them. It is difficult to believe that immediately before her death she was subjected to cruelty or demand of dowry and as such their convictions u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, is bad in law and only fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient evidence to prove that right after her marriage there was demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand the victim was used to be tortured and assaulted by the accused-appellants which continued till the last date and the prosecution had no time to inform about the assault because immediately after the assault when they returned their home they got information she has been done to death and as such the appellants have rightly been convicted under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report given by P.W.4-Horil Mahto father of the deceased, Kaushilya Devi stating therein that his daughter was married with the accused, Nandlal Mahto in the year 1990 and after her marriage her husband and her in-laws' started demanding Rs. 5000/- as dowry, but since he was not in a position to give Rs.5000/- as he had already spent to his capacity in the marriage, but they started assaulting and torturing her. He further stated that in the year 1994 she gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, they again started demanding dowry of Rs.5000/- and torturing to Kaushilya Devi. Then, on 27.7.95 they had even stopped providing food to her daughter. On this information, he had sent his son, Nand Lal Mahto and nephew, Sohan Mahto to bring her back from her sasural. They reached at her sasural at 7 a.m. but her husband and her mother-in-law refused to her Bidai and in their presence they started rebuking her and assaulting her daughter. Seeing this, his son and nephew immediately returned back to his village Telghara to inform him that they are not allowing for her Bidai. On the very same day. They got informant that his daughter has been done to death. Seeing this, his son and nephew immediately returned back to his village Telghara to inform him that they are not allowing for her Bidai. On the very same day. They got informant that his daughter has been done to death. Then, they reached to the house of the accused, Chengro and found the dead body of his daughter is hanging from rope. He further alleged that due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry his daughter has been committed to death by the accused persons. 6. On the basis of the said F.I.R. police registered a, case under Sections 498A and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the same to the court of sessions. Subsequently the case was tried by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, who found the appellants guilty as aforesaid and sentenced them. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. P.W. 1, Sohan Mahto, P.W. 2, Nandlal Mahto, P.W. 3, Ruplal Singh, P.W. 4, Horil Mahto (informant), P.W. 5, Dr. B.P.Singh, P.W. 6, Murli Mahto, P.W. 7, Aghan Mahto and P.W. 8, Shobhit Jha- I.O. of the case. It further appears that the defence has also examined 1 defence witness i.e. D.W. 1, Govind Mahto. 9. P.W.I, Sohan Mahto stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 27.7.95 at about 7 a.m. he had gone to the house of the victim along with Nandlal Mahto and Chhakkan Mistry. He further stated that Chhakkan Mistry is now dead and they requested the accused persons for Bidai of the victim, Kaushilya Devi since she was being tortured by her in-laws'. Whereupon, her husband, Nandlal Mahto and her mother-in-law, Hemiya Devi refused for her Bidai and started assaulting her in their presence and said that until and unless Rs. 5,000/- is paid they will not allow to go to her father's house. Then, they returned back to their village Telghara to inform her father, but when they reached their village they received information that she has been done to death. Then, they again went to the house of the accused, Chengro and found her dead body is hanging from rope. Then, they returned back to their village Telghara to inform her father, but when they reached their village they received information that she has been done to death. Then, they again went to the house of the accused, Chengro and found her dead body is hanging from rope. Then, the police came at about 3-4 p.m. in the evening and recorded the statement of the informant. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused persons refused to allow the victim girl to go back to her father's house until and unless Rs. 5,000/- is paid. 10. P.W. 2, Nandlal Mahto (brother of the deceased) also supported the prosecution case and stated that 14 months back on the occurrence took place he along with his cousin brother Chhakkan Mistry, who is now dead, had gone to the house of the accused persons for Bidai of his sister since she was being tortured and assaulted by her in-laws' for demand of money, but on the date of occurrence i.e. 27.7.95 they reached her house at about 7 a.m. then her in-laws' stated that until and unless Rs. 5,000/- is paid they will not allow to go to her father's house and assaulted her in their presence. Thereafter, they returned back to their village Telghara to inform her father, but by that time his father received information that his sister has been done to death. Then, they again went to the house of the accused, Chengro and found her dead body is hanging from rope. Then, they gave fardbeyan to the police. He proved his signature on the Fardbeyan. He also proved a letter written by his brother-in-law-accused, Nandlal Mahto in court, which is marked as Ext. 1 In his cross-examination, he stated that right after her marriage the accused persons used to demand dowry of Rs. 5,000/- and since his father was not in a position to give the said amount her in-laws' used to assault his sister. 11. P.W.3, Ruplal Singh is a formal witness, who has presented a seized rope from the place of occurrence, which is marked as material Ext.-I 12. P.W.4, Horil Mahto (informant) has supported the prosecution case and stated that sixteen months ago his daughter was done to death in her 'Sasural'. 11. P.W.3, Ruplal Singh is a formal witness, who has presented a seized rope from the place of occurrence, which is marked as material Ext.-I 12. P.W.4, Horil Mahto (informant) has supported the prosecution case and stated that sixteen months ago his daughter was done to death in her 'Sasural'. On that day, he had sent his son, Nandlal Mahto along with Sohan Mahto and Chhakan Mistri to bring his daughter from her 'Sasural', but they came back to their village to inform his father that her in-laws' refused to do so, unless and until Rs. 5,000/- is paid and assaulted her in their presence. After sometime, at about 1 P.M. he received information that his daughter has been done to death. Then he along with his son and other villagers went to the house of the accused, Chengro and saw her dead body is hanging from rope. Then, he went to the police station along with his son and gave a written report. He has identified his signature on the written report, which is marked as Ext. 2. It is further stated that the accused persons used to demand of Rs. 5,000/- as further dowry and since he was not in a position to give the same they used to assault her regularly. He had identified three accused persons in Court. In his cross-examination, he stated that his son had gone to the house of his sister 4-5 times after her marriage. 13. P.W.5, Dr. B.P. Singh has proved the post-mortem report, which is marked as Ext. -3 and stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia. 14. P.W.6, Murli Mahto, stated that he heard 'hullah' that wife of Nandlal had died. On this information, he went to his house and saw the dead body was hanging by rope 15. P.W.7, Aghan Mahto also stated that he had also seen the dead body. 16. P.W.8, Shobhit Jha- I.O. of the case stated that he inspected the place of occurrence and took the dead body in his possession and sent the same for post-mortem examination. He further recorded the statement of the witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence and also prepared the seizure-list of the rope, which is marked as Ext. 4 and the signature of the witnesses as Ext. 4/1 and 4/2. He further recorded the statement of the witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence and also prepared the seizure-list of the rope, which is marked as Ext. 4 and the signature of the witnesses as Ext. 4/1 and 4/2. He also proved the inquest report as Ext.-5 and the signature of the witness on the inquest reports Ext.-5/l. After completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case. 17. The defence witness No. 1, Govind Mahto has proved the Master roll of Eastern Railway, Asansol Division to show that on 27.7.95 the accused, Manger Mahto was on duty. The Master roll was marked as Ext.-A. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused, Manger Mahto works as a gang man and there are five thousand gang men works under Asansol Division. He further stated that he along with Manger Mahto work in different sections. He had not seen the master roll in his presence. 18. Thus, after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has proved the fact beyond reasonable doubt that after the marriage of the victim with the accused- Nand Lal Mahto in the year 1990, there was demand of Rs. 5,000/- as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand her in-laws' used to torture the victim girl. Subsequently she was pregnant in the year 1995 and she gave birth to a female child, but after the birth of a female child her in-laws' again started demanding dowry and assaulting her. In the year 1995 the informant received information that in-laws' of her daughter had even stopped providing food to her. Then, he sent his son Nand Lal Mahto and nephew, Sohan Mahto to bring her back from her sasural. They reached at her sasural at 7 a.m., but her husband and her mother-in-law refused for her Bidai. and said that unless and until Rs. 5,000/ is paid and in presence of his son and nephew they started rebuking her and assaulting her daughter. Seeing this, his son and nephew immediately returned back to his village Telghara to inform him that they are not allowing for her Bidai. On the very same day they got information that his daughter has been done to death. Then, they reached to the house of the accused, Chengro and found the dead body of his daughter is hanging from rope. On the very same day they got information that his daughter has been done to death. Then, they reached to the house of the accused, Chengro and found the dead body of his daughter is hanging from rope. So, it is a clear case where the victim girl died within seven years of her marriage due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and immediately before her death she was assaulted and tortured in presence of her brother, nephew and villagers. 19. I find that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code 20. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 21 As far as sentences are concerned, it appears that the appellant No. 1, Manger Mahto, who was found guilty only u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, was released as he was sentenced the period already undergone by him during trial. The appellant No. 2, Nand Lal Mahto was in custody and appellant No. 3, Hemiya Devi was granted bail by this Court, hence the bail bond of appellant No. 3, Hemiya Devi is cancelled. The trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against her for serving out the sentence. However, the trial court will also verify as to whether the appellant No. 2, Nand Lal Mahto has completed the sentence of 10 years in custody or not and passed the appropriate order for his release on completion of 10 years of sentence. Appeal dismissed.