JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.-No body appears on behalf of the appellants on repeated call. Then, on the request of the Court, Sri S. K. Srivastava, Advocate, argued the case as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellants as also no-body appears on behalf of (he informant although initially Vakalatnama was filed. then, the State Counsel Miss. Anita Sinha, APP, argued the case on behalf of the State. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th May, 2002 passed by Sri Bhola Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1993 arising out of G.R. Case No. 248 of 1990, by which judgment he found all the appellants guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.1. for 10 years. However, he also found the appellants guilty under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but no separate sentence was passed. 3. It is submitted by tile learned counsel for the appellants that there is no direct evidence of torture and assault against appellant nos. 2 to 6 and as such the conviction of the appellant nos. 2 to 6 alongwith main accused, Arjun Prasad Bernwal 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 the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that torture W8.S being committed by all the appellants and as such they have rightly been convicted and requires no interference by this Court. 5. After hearing, both the parties and going through the record, it appears that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a Fardbeyan lodged by Govindlal Barnwal father of the deceased, Renu Devi on 19.3.90 at 7.45 hrs. before Katras Police Station stating therein that his daughter-deceased, Renu Devi was married with the accused-appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal son of Bisheshwar Burnwal about two years ago according to Hindu Rites in the month of 'Jeth', 1988. At the time of marriage he was a poor man but in spite of that he had given Rs. 20,000/- cash and other goods. He further submitted that in the month of 'Aghan' at the time of 'Gona' the accused-appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal and his family members again demanding Rs. At the time of marriage he was a poor man but in spite of that he had given Rs. 20,000/- cash and other goods. He further submitted that in the month of 'Aghan' at the time of 'Gona' the accused-appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal and his family members again demanding Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle, which he could not pay and said that he will fulfill the demand in future. After some time, Renu Devi came to her 'Maike' and reported that her husband, Arjun Prasad Bernwal, father-in-law, Bisheshwar Burnwal, mother-in-law, Sabitri Devi, sisters-in-law, Meena Devi and Malti Devi. and others are torturing her and rebuking her for small thing and also assaulting her for not bringing Rs. 20,000/-. Then, he went to their house and asked them not to torture, but the torture continued. Then, he made a complaint to the 'Mukhiya' of Chandore Panchayat. Then, the 'Mukhiya' also talked to Bisheshwar Burnwal-father-in-Law of the deceased, but he said that until and unless he will pay Rs. 20,000/- they will not stop torture of his daughter. Yesterday i.e. on 18.3.90, he got information at 6 p.m. that her husband, Arjun Prasad Bernwal and her in laws have committed the murder of his daughter, Renu Devi by putting her on fire. Then, he rushed to her 'Sasural' where he saw his daughter was seriously burnt and she told him that all. of them have caused burn injury to her. Then, he called the neighbours, who informed the police. Then, the police came and he gave his statement. Subsequently, his daughter, Renu Devi had died at Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad. 6. On the basis of the said Fardbeyan as. also on the basis of another Fardbeyan given by informant's wife, Sushila Devi to the Officer-in-charge, Tetulmari Police Station and a case under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 7 Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Dhanbad, who tried the case and passed the judgment as aforesaid. 8. 7 Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Dhanbad, who tried the case and passed the judgment as aforesaid. 8. P.W. 4, Sushila Devi, informant's wife, mother of the victim girl, who had also given the Fardbeyan before the police and stated in Court that her daughter, Renu Devi was married with the accused appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal son of Bisheshwar Burnwal about two years ago according to Hindu Rites in the month of 'Jeth', 1988. After marriage, the accused-appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal was demanding Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle from her. She stated that she will give the money after some time. When she arranges for the same after six months Renu Devi went to her 'Sasural' after 'Gona', but her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law and her husband started assaulting and torturing her. They also ousted from her house. Then, a complaint was made to the 'Mukhiya' of the Panchayat, but they said that until and unless he will pay Rs. 20,000/- they will not stop torture of her daughter. She further stated that on 18.3.90 in the evening at 6 p.m. she got information that her daughter, Renu" Devi has been burnt and she is lying in Chaudhary Nursing Home, Panchgadha Bazar. Then, she went there and talked to her daughter, Renu Devi and she told that for not giving Rs. 20,0001-, her mother-in-law, father-in-Law, sisters-in-law and her husband had put kerosene oil on her body and her husband, Arjun Prasad Bernwal put fire by 'Mach is', causing severe burn injuries to her and thereafter brought her to Hospital where she was burnt and she was informed by the tempo driver. Then they shift Renu Devi from Chaudhary Nursing Home to Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad where she died at about 8.30 p.m. She identified the accused-appellant no. 1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal in Court and claimed to be identified the others. She further stated that she was told by Parmeshwar Bernwal that her daughter, Renu Devi has been burnt. Then, she went on a tempo to her house. 9. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. 1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal in Court and claimed to be identified the others. She further stated that she was told by Parmeshwar Bernwal that her daughter, Renu Devi has been burnt. Then, she went on a tempo to her house. 9. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. P.W. 1, Premlal Bernwal, P.W.2, Manoj Kumar Sah, P.W.3, Nageshwar Prasad Kesari, P.W.4, Sushila Devi, the informant's wife P.W.5, Govind Bernwal P.W.6, Dr. Vinod Kumar, who proved the post mortem report, P.W.7, Mohan Prasad Swarnkar, P.W. 8, Churamani Devi, P.W. 9, Ram Prasad Singh, P.W. 10, Parmeshwar Lal Bernwal, P.W. 11, Ram Jeevan Prasad Singh-1.0. of the case and P.W.12, Vinod Kumar Verma. In her cross-examination, she stated that on 18.3.90 at about 7 p.m. in the night she met with her husband at Sadar Hospital and stayed there. Subsequently, her husband also gave statement to the police. She further stated that she met with Daroga in the Hospital at the time of post mortem examination. In para 10 she further stated that Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle was asked by the accused, Arjun Prasad Bernwal himself at her house. She further stated that Mukhiya, namely, Ram Dayal Singh has conducted a Panchayati and asked them not to demand more money. 10. P.W.5, Govind Bernwal, father of the deceased also stated in Court that the victim, Renu Devi was married just two years before the occurrence in 1988 according to Hindu Rites and he had spent Rs. 20,000/- and also given household article.s worth Rs. 20,000/- during marriage and after six months his daughter was going to her 'Sasural' after 'Gona' where she was living in her 'Sasural'. When, she used to come to her father's house she used to say that her in-laws are demanding Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing a motorcycle and are also assaulting her. She had named the appellants, namely, her husband, Arjun Prasad Burnwal, father-in-law, Bisheshwar Bernwal, mother-in-law, Sabitri Devi and sisters-in-law, Meena Devi and Malti Devi. Subsequently, a Panchayati was held by 'Mukhiya' Ramdayal Singh where the 'Mukhiya' was asked to keep Renu Devi properly and not to demand any dowry.. But, on 18.3.90 he got information that the accused persons put kerosene oil on the body of his daughter and burnt her. The fire was put through a 'Maachis' by accused-appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal. Subsequently, a Panchayati was held by 'Mukhiya' Ramdayal Singh where the 'Mukhiya' was asked to keep Renu Devi properly and not to demand any dowry.. But, on 18.3.90 he got information that the accused persons put kerosene oil on the body of his daughter and burnt her. The fire was put through a 'Maachis' by accused-appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal. On this, he went to Dhanbad Hospital where he saw that his daughter was badly burnt and she died at about 8/3.30 p.m. in the right at the Hospital itself. Thereafter, the police came then he gave his fardbeyan. He proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which is marked as Ext.-2. He identified the accused person in Court. He further stated that he met with his wife at the Sadar Hospital at about 8 p.m. He further stated that his daughter had not told to him about the torture in presence of any other witnesses. At para 17, in his cross-examination, he stated that he was told about the assault and torture by his daughter only about putting fire to his daughter. He was told by mohalla's people, namely, Mohan Sah, Dularchand Sao and Sanjay Verma. 11. The other witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, Premlal Bernwal stated that he went to the house of the accused on hearing that Renu Devi has been burnt .after assault due to dowry. Then, he saw her in a burnt condition and in-laws of Renu Devi were taking her at Nursing Home. Then, Renu Devi told that she was burnt by her in-laws. In his cross-examination, he. stated that he is a Mausa of the victim and he resides in the same Mohalla where the accused also resides. She was taken to Nursing Home on a Tempo. She died in the night at Sadar Hospital. 12. P.W.2, Manoj Kumar Sah stated that on 18.3.90 he heard that Renu Devi has been burnt then he went there and saw that she is being taken to Hospital by her in-laws on a Tempo and she was weeping and told that her in-laws have burnt her. He accompanied with her on the Tempo. Then, Renu Devi told them that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sisters-in-law have burnt her. Subsequently, her parents took her to Sadar Hospital where she died. He accompanied with her on the Tempo. Then, Renu Devi told them that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sisters-in-law have burnt her. Subsequently, her parents took her to Sadar Hospital where she died. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was examined by the police and told that he had seen Renu Devi in a burnt condition and was being taken to Nursing Home on Tempo. Renu Devi had told the name of the accused. He also stated that there is no other person in the Tempo except he and Renu Devi. He also stated that before going to Sadar Hospital Renu Devi was conscious. 13. P.W. 3, Nageshwar Prasad Kesari also stated that on hearing that Renu Devi has been burnt on 18.3.1990 he went to her house and saw her in a burnt condition, lying at Nursing Home. On inquiry, she stated that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law have put her on fire for not giving Rs. 20,0001to purchase a motorcycle by her father. 14. P.W. 6, Dr. Vinod Kumar, who examined the dead body on 19.3.90 and he found the ante mortem injuries: partial to full thickness, skin deep burn was seen all over the body and in the opinion of the doctor she died due to shock as a result of aforementioned extensive burn injuries and there was smell of kerosene oil was coming out of her head hair, it may be suicidal or homicidal. He proved the post mortem report, which is marked as Ext.-3. In his cross-examination; he stated that burn was 60%. 15. P.W.7, Mohan Prasad Swarnkar stated that on hearing 'Hullah' he went to the house of Arjun Prasad Bernwal and saw smoke was coming out from the roof and when he entered into the house then he saw the wife of Arjun Prasad Bernwal was burning. Thereafter, she was taken to Nursing Home. . 16. P.W. 9, Ram Prasad Singh is the Mukhiya of Chandore Panchayat stated that no Panchayati was held by him. 17. P.W. 10, Permeshwar Lal Bernwal, stated that on hearing Hullah that Renu Devi has been burnt. Then, he went to her house and found that nobody was present there. Then, on inquiry, he came to know that Renu Devi has been taken to Nursing Home. Then, he rushed towards the Hospital. Subsequently she died in the Hospital. 18. 17. P.W. 10, Permeshwar Lal Bernwal, stated that on hearing Hullah that Renu Devi has been burnt. Then, he went to her house and found that nobody was present there. Then, on inquiry, he came to know that Renu Devi has been taken to Nursing Home. Then, he rushed towards the Hospital. Subsequently she died in the Hospital. 18. P.W. 11, Ram Jeevan Prasad Singh-I.O. of the case stated that he was the Officer-in-charge of Tetulmari Police Station he received information that some person has been burnt then he went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Sushila Devi. He proved her fardbeyan and send it for registration as First Information Report. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, who were present there. He also examined the place of occurrence. He also subsequently received a fardbeyan recorded at Dhanbad Police Station. Then, alter completing the investigation and obtaining the sanction under the Dowry Prohibition Act from Deputy Commissioner and supervision of the case and obtaining the post mortem report. He submitted charge-sheet in the case. 19. P.W. 12, Vinod Kumar Verma is a formal witness, who has proved the sanction granted by the Deputy Commissioner. 20. Thus, from the evidences, as discussed above, it is evidently clear from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 4 and 5 as also the doctor-P.W. 6 and Investigating Officer that the victim girl used to be tortured by the appellants for not bringing Rs. 20,000/- which was being demanded by appellant no. 1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal for purchasing a motorcycle. The informant's wife, Sushila Devi has clearly stated in her statement that Rs. 20,000/- was being demanded by her son-in-law, Arjun Prasad Bernwal and he demanded the same at her house. She also stated that torture was being committed by all the appellants. As far as', persons responsible for burning, the appellants are concerned the neighbouring witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 & 2 have clearly stated rather P.W. 2, who claims that he accompanied her on Tempo and she told that she was burnt by her husband, mother-in-law, father-inlaw. She has very clearly stated that the fire was put by 'Mach is' by her husband, Arjun Prasad Bernwal. 21. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant no. 1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal was• demanding Rs. She has very clearly stated that the fire was put by 'Mach is' by her husband, Arjun Prasad Bernwal. 21. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant no. 1, Arjun Prasad Bernwal was• demanding Rs. 20,000/- as additional dowry to purchase a motorcycle and the victim, Renu Devi used to be tortured by him in collusion with his father, Bisheshwar Burnwal and mother-in-law, Sushila Devi although the informant and other witnesses have tried to give. a general allegation and named that even her sisters-in-law i.e. Meena Devi and Malti Devi and brother-in-law, Kedar Bernwal also used to torture, but there is no direct evidence against them. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by appellant nos. 1, 2 & 4, namely, Arjun. Prasad Bernwal, Bisheshwar Burnwal and Sabitri Devi is dismissed as there is sufficient evidence to come to a finding that they have committed the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. So far as the appellant no.1, Arjun Prasad Burnwal is concerned, he is in jail custody, hence the trial court is directed to verify as to whether he has completed the term of 10 years or not? Further the appellant nos. 2 & 4, namely, Bisheshwar Burnwal and Sabitri Devi are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and the trial court is directed to issue non bailable warrant of arrest against them for serving out of the sentences. 23. However, as discussed above, since there is no direct and sufficient evidence to prove that demand of dowry and torture as also participation in the burning of the deceased against appellant no. 3, Kedar Bernwal and sisters-in-law, appellant nos. 5 & 6, namely, Meena Devi and Malti Devi they are given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges levelled as against them. They are also on bail. They are released from the bondage of their bail bonds. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.