JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2001 passed by Shri Abdul Samad, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 435 of 1995, by which judgment, he found the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 304B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he sentenced appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2, Rabindra Chauhan to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he further sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, these sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the conviction of the appellants u/s 304B/34 as also u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law, since there is no evidence that they had disappeared the dead body of the victim girl, since the extra judicial confession made by the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. He has further submitted that as far as appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him that he has demanded dowry after the marriage of appellant No. 2, Rabindra Chauhan and that he took any part in the commission of any unnatural death of the victim girl and disposal of the dead body, and as such, appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, is bad in law and 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 on record to prove that there was demand of dowry and the victim girl, who was married just three years before the occurrence has died in an unnatural death in her sasural and even her dead body was not recovered. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that there was demand of dowry and the victim girl, who was married just three years before the occurrence has died in an unnatural death in her sasural and even her dead body was not recovered. The husband, appellant No. 2, Rabindra Chauhan wanted to give a false story that his wife-the victim girl had ran away from the house, but in fact, subsequently, he himself admitted that they have disposed of the dead body of the victim girl in the Amanat river near Piri More, and as such, they have rightly been convicted. 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 fardbeyan given by the informant, PW-10, Ramesh Chauhan, the brother of the deceased Luxmi Devi stating therein on 27.07.1994 at about 8.30 Hrs. in the police station that his sister, the deceased, Luxmi Devi was married with the accused Rabindra Chauhan just three years back and at the time of her marriage, there was a demand of transistor, cycle and other things, but they had not been able to give transistor and cycle. Subsequently, after the marriage, his brother-in-law, Rabindra Chauhan started demanding transistor and cycle. He also stated that they used to torture and assault his sister in her sasural, for which, she made complaint to him and also to his mother and father. He further stated that on 27.07.1994, the father-in-law of the deceased namely Nand Kishore Chauhan came and informed that his sister Luxmi Devi has ran away from the house. They doubted, since, she never came to her house (naihar) running away from her sasural and so he went to the sasural of his sister in order to verify the matter and he contacted the local chaukidar namely Kameshwar Manjhi and with his help, he took the accused Rabindra Chauhan to the police station, where under pressure, he disclosed that the dead body has been thrown in Amanat river near Piri More last night by covering the dead body in a bed sheet. 6. 6. On the basis of said fardbeyan given by Ramesh Chauhan, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid sections. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned C.J.M. after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of Sessionsand lastly the case was tried by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj and he found the appellants guilty under the aforesaid sections as stated above and found them guilty and convicted them thereunder. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 8. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. 9. It is important to note that PW-1, Chhathan Chauhan, PW-2, Harkhu Chauhan, PW-3, Sarju Chauhan, PW-4, Mahangu Prasad, PW-5, Kameshwar Manjhi, PW-6, Ganesh Prasad and PW-7, Sarju Prasad were either declared hostile or tendered in cross-examination and nothing was asked from them. So, the prosecution case is left with only the evidence of PW-8, Naresh Chauhan, the father of the deceased, PW-9, Fuleshwari Devi, the mother of the deceased and PW-10, Ramesh Chauhan, the brother of the deceased. 10. PW-8, Naresh Chauhan has stated that his daughter was married with the accused Rabindra Chauhan about two years before the occurrence of her death and in the marriage, radio, watch and cycle were demanded, but they could give only the watch. He stated that his son-in-law, Rabindra Chauhan used to demand cycle and radio and he always stated that he will fulfil his demand after having money. He stated that his son-in-law, Rabindra Chauhan used to demand cycle and radio and he always stated that he will fulfil his demand after having money. He also stated that since cycle and radio was not given in dowry, the accused Rabindra Chauhan and his family members used to torture and assault his daughter. When she came to the house, she told about the assault and torture and he asked her to go back. He stated that after the occurrence of elopement of his daughter, his son informed the matter to the chaukidar, who arrested Rabindra Chauhan and Rajaram Chauhan and they disclosed about the occurrence. He identified the accused in court. In his cross-examination, he stated that he told to the police that his daughter Luxmi Devi was done to death and her dead body was thrown in river to screen the occurrence. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not made any report with regard to assault and torture of his daughter for dowry by the accused persons. 11. PW-9, Fuleshwari Devi has also stated that it is her son-in-law, Rabindra Chauhan, who used to demand radio and cycle as dowry and he had made such demand in presence of villagers and her family members. She has also stated that they used to torture and assault her daughter. 12. PW-10, Ramesh Chauhan, the informant has also stated that his sister Luxmi Devi was married with the accused Rabindra Chauhan 2-3 years before the occurrence and her father-in-law, Nand Kishore Chauhan came and informed that his sister has ran away from the house and they went to the village of his brother-in-law and on enquiry he came to know that just one day before, they have committed the murder of his sister and then with the help of chaukidar, they caught the accused Rabindra Chauhan and Rajaram Chauhan and arrested them and took them to police station, where they accepted that the dead body was thrown in Amanat river near Piri More by covering the dead body with a chaddar and he proved his signature on the fardbeyan. 13. 13. Thus, after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences of the three witnesses, it appears that PW-8, father of the deceased and PW-9, mother of the deceased both stated that the demand of dowry was made by the husband-accused, Rabindra Chauhan and naturally the goods demanded i.e. cycle and radio is for the use of the accused Rabindra Chauhan only and not for his brother i.e. appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan. There is no specific allegation that accused Rajaram Chauhan also used to torture and assaults the victim girl. Although, it has been stated that the informant and his father, with the help of chaukidar Kameshwar Manjhi, caught both the accused and took them to police station, where both of them have confessed that they had committed the murder of the deceased-victim lady, Luxmi Devi and in order to conceal the occurrence, they had thrown the dead body by covering the same in a chaddar in Amanat river near Piro More, but since even the Kameshwar Manjhi has turned hostile and he has not supported the fact that even the accused Rajaram Chauhan confessed his guilt before him. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to come to a finding that appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan, who is the brother of the main accused, Rabindra Chauhan also participated in committing the murder and disposed of the dead body of his sister-in-law, Luxmi Devi. 14. The trial court also, finding the fact that extra judicial confession was made by the accused and the evidences of witnesses PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 cannot be used as legal evidence, acquitted another accused, Bijay Chauhan, the brother of both the present appellants giving him the benefit of doubt. 15. Thus, in my opinion, the case of accused Rajaram Chauhan, who is one of the brother of the main accused Rabindra Chauhan is similar to the case of Bijay Chauhan and there is no specific and direct allegation againt him also, and thus, he is also given the benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since, appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan is on bail he is released from the bondage of bail bond. 16. Since, appellant No. 1, Rajaram Chauhan is on bail he is released from the bondage of bail bond. 16. However, as far as Rabindra Chauhan is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased, Luxmi Devi and there is sufficient evidence against him that he was demanding dowry and even used to torture and assault his wife and subsequently, even within three years of his marriage with Luxmi Devi, she died an unnatural death. In that view of the matter, his conviction u/s 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. 17. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that Rajaram Chauhan was taken into custody during trial 29.07.1994 and he was never granted bail either by the trial court nor by the Hon'ble High Court in appeal, and hence, he has remained in custody for more than ten years and it is likely that he must have been released. 18. However, the trial court is directed to enquire into the matter and if Rajaram Chauhan, who has already served out his sentence for more than ten years, if not released, should be released forthwith. 19. With the aforesaid alteration, the appeal of appellant No. 2, Rabindra Chauhan is dismissed.