JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th June, 2001 passed by Sri Uday Narayan Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No. 347 of 1994, by which judgment he found the appellant, Arjun Prasad Vishwakarma guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 10 years. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence that the appellant-husband was neglecting the wife and he had any intention to commit her murder; there is no evidence that soon before the death of the victim girl there was any torture or demand of dowry and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and only fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and submitted that there is sufficient evidence that the husband-appellant used to torture the victim-wife and was demanding T.V. and money as dowry and that continued till before her death, hence he has rightly been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and it requires no interference by this Court. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a Fardbeyan given by the father of the victim, Kanti Kishor Rana on 8.1.94 at about 17.30 hrs. at Garhwa to Officer-incharge. Barwadih stating therein that his daughter was married with the accused Arjun Prasad Vishwakarma on 27.5.93 and today at 10.30 a.m. one Bijay Kumar Bishwakarma, a co-villager of the accused informed the informant that his daughter is seriously ill and asked him to come immediately. On getting the information he alongwith his son proceeded for the 'sasural' of the deceased and when he reached at Barwadih bus stand he was further informed by one Madan Mohan Bishwakarma that his daughter is dead. Then, he came to the house of his son-inlaw and saw the dead body. On inquiry, his son-in-law stated that she died by falling in the well. Then, he came to the house of his son-inlaw and saw the dead body. On inquiry, his son-in-law stated that she died by falling in the well. The informant further stated that his daughter used to be tortured for dowry by the accused and her mother-in-law and he has got information that she was done to death and then thrown in the well. 5. On the basis of the said Fardbeyan the police registered a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and learned Magistrate after taking cognizance, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and subsequently the case was tried by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, who framed the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and started the trial on 25th July, 1996 and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, who finding that a case under Section 304B is made out against the accused person', hence re-framed the charges on 30.3.2000 and again continued the trial and after conclusion of the trial, found the appellant guilty and convicted him thereunder. 6. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. P.W. 1, Dr. Panna Lal Pandey, P.W. 2, Dr. Ramesh Prasad, P.W. 3, Madan Mohan Bishwakarma, P.W. 4, Lakshman Mistry, P.W. 5, Nand Kishore Ram and P.W. 6, Moti Bulla Khan. 7. P.W. 1, Dr. Panna Lal Pandey, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 9.1.94, found no evidence of any external injury; no evidence of any legature mark around her neck; no water was found in the stomach. He found only two ounces of pestyfoid material; no sign of internal injury was also found. The uterus had 32 week size pregnancy and on opening the uterus he recovered a dead human child. He preserved the viscera and send the same for post mortem examination. At para 5, in his statement, he proved the post mortem report, which is marked as Ext. The uterus had 32 week size pregnancy and on opening the uterus he recovered a dead human child. He preserved the viscera and send the same for post mortem examination. At para 5, in his statement, he proved the post mortem report, which is marked as Ext. 1 and stated that the dead body was thrown in the water or well there would be no water in the stomach and if soft substance is put round the neck there would be no legature mark. 8. P.W. 2, Dr. Ramesh Prasad, he proved his signature on the post mortem. 9. P.W. 3 Madan Mohan Bishwakarma stated that the occurrence took place two years back. On hearing hullah he went to the house of accused, Arjun Prasad Vishwakarma and found that the dead body of the wife of the accused, Arjun Prasad Vishwakanna had fallen in the well and on hullah the dead body was taken out from the well. He further stated that it appears that the mental condition of the victim girl was not well and she used to be taken at Ranchi for treatment. 10. P.W. 4, Lakshman Mistry also stated that the inquest report was prepared in his presence. He proved his signature on the inquest report, which is marked as Exts.-2 and 2/1. 11. P.W. 5, Nand Kishore Ram is brother of the deceased stated that the informant of the case, Kanti Kishor Rana was his father, who died on 30.5.95 during the pendency of the trial. He further stated that his younger sister was married with the accused, Arjun Prasad Vishwakarma on 27.5.93 and thereafter she was staying in her 'sasural'. He further stated that mother-in-law and husband used to torture his sister and rebuke her, they even stopped her food. She used to inform about the torture to them. On 8.1.1994 they got information that his sister is seriously ill. Then, he alongwith his father went to Barwadih then they were informed by one Madan Mohan Bishwakarma that his sister is dead. Then, he came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body. On inquiry, the accused stated that his sister stated that she died by falling in the well. Then, he alongwith his father went to Barwadih then they were informed by one Madan Mohan Bishwakarma that his sister is dead. Then, he came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body. On inquiry, the accused stated that his sister stated that she died by falling in the well. There was black mark on her neck and face, hence his brother found that it is not a case of drowning in the well, but she was assaulted for dowry and lodged this case. His statement was also recorded by the police. He proved the fardbeyan as given by his father and his signature, which is marked as Ext.-4. He also proved three letters sent by the deceased to her father's house. He proved handwriting and signature of his sister. The three letters were recovered, which are marked as Exts.-5 to 5/2. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of marriage they had given Rs. 50,000/- as dowry marriage and his sister went with the accused and started living in her 'sasural'. He further stated that she was living happily in her in-laws' house and she had come to her 'Maike' just two months before her death. At that time she was pregnant and she was under treatment of Dr. Sobha Chakraborty. Her husband has also come with her. He also stated that the money for treatment was given by her husband. He also stated that she used to be tortured by the appellant and when she used to come to the house she used to complaint about the torture, but no information was given to the police. He also stated that from the letters i.e. Exts.-5 and 5/2, it is apparent that she used to be tortured in her 'sasural'. 12. P.W. 6, Moti Bulla Khan is a formal witness and he has proved his formal F.I.R. which is as Ext.-6. 13. Thus, after going through the evidences, it appears that the prosecution case has been supported only by the evidence of P.W. 5 that is the brother of the deceased, who also stated that the victim's father is dead and he proved the Fardbeyan as given by his father and his signature, which are marked as Exts.-4 & 4/1. 13. Thus, after going through the evidences, it appears that the prosecution case has been supported only by the evidence of P.W. 5 that is the brother of the deceased, who also stated that the victim's father is dead and he proved the Fardbeyan as given by his father and his signature, which are marked as Exts.-4 & 4/1. The prosecution case is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1, the doctor, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, but• there is no evidence that the victim girl was tortured just before 'her death. Although P.W. 5, Nand Kishore Ram stated that his sister used to complaint of torture, but there is no specific allegation, in his statement, what was the demand and who used to torture. At para 10 he admitted that she himself (sic) to live very happily with her husband and she used to come for treatment also accompanied by her husband, but allegations are also that she used to be tortured for dowry. There is no cogent evidence that there was demand, what was the demand of dowry; nor there is evidence making specific allegation that, just before her death she was tortured for dowry, which caused her death. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the sole appellant-husband, Arjun Prasad Vishwakarma under Section 3048' of the Indian Penal Code is not proper. No doubt that she died in an unnatural death and the allegations that she was thrown after death, has also been found correct, since the doctor himself stated that there was no water in the stomach and the dead body must have been thrown in the well after her death. There is no specific allegation as to how she died. 14. In that view of the matter, the appellant is found guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused appellant has remained in custody during trial for about two years. In that view of the matter, if the accused-appellant pays a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in the court below then, he will be released, otherwise in default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- he will further undergo R.I. for 1 year. In that view of the matter, if the accused-appellant pays a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in the court below then, he will be released, otherwise in default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- he will further undergo R.I. for 1 year. 16. With the aforesaid alteration and in the conviction and sentence the appeal is allowed in part. 17. The appellant is on bail. The learned trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest for appearance of the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.