JUDGMENT : Amareshswar Sahay, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 1.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for committing offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the husband and father-in-law of the deceased respectively, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, whereas the appellant No. 3 i.e. the mother-in-law of the deceased, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that the deceased Basanti Devi i.e. the daughter of PW-6, the informant, was married with Rajesh Bhuia (appellant No. 1) one year prior to the occurrence. Since the marriage, the appellants were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry from the family members of the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of dowry, the daughter of the informant has regularly been tortured and beaten. Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased had informed to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that her in-laws and husband were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and if the said amount is not paid, she may be killed by them. She was not ready to go to her in-laws place. However, the deceased was sent to her Sasural and only after 14-15 days, Sheo Prasad Bhuia (PW-5) informed the informant on 29.7.2002 at about 10 a.m. that the appellants have killed Basanti Devi by setting her on fire due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On receipt of such information, PW-1 and PW-3 went in-laws place of their sister and they found that their sister was lying dead with 100% injury. 3. In order to establish the charges, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 Jhari Bhuia and PW-2 Punit Bhuia are the brothers of the deceased whereas PW-6 is the informant and mother of the deceased. PW-7 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, conducted the postmortem examination and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of the doctor (PW-7) as well as from the postmortem report, it appears that the deceased died due to 100% burn injuries. PW-7 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, conducted the postmortem examination and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of the doctor (PW-7) as well as from the postmortem report, it appears that the deceased died due to 100% burn injuries. The learned trial court on the basis of the materials and evidence on the record, held the appellants guilty for committing the offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as already stated herein before. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the prosecution could not establish the fact that 'soon before the death of the deceased', any demand pf dowry was made and as such, in absence of such important evidence, the trial court could not have convicted the appellants for the offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission he referred a decision of this Court reported in Sunil Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) JRJR 564 and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in B. Shashikala vs. State of A.P. 2005 (1) SCC (Cri.) 171. 6. In order to test the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, I have minutely gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and find that PW-1 Jhari Bhuia i.e. the brother of the deceased, has stated in his examination-in-chief that sufficient dowry was given to the appellants at the time of marriage of his sister. After the marriage, she went to her Sasural after she married and subsequently she also gave birth to a female child. The deceased was kept well in her Sasural for about one year, but thereafter the appellants started torturing and beating her for brining of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. Since the said demand was not being fulfilled, his sister was being regularly tortured and beaten. His sister even refused to go to her in-laws place on the plea that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled, she may be killed by the appellants. 50,000/- from her parents. Since the said demand was not being fulfilled, his sister was being regularly tortured and beaten. His sister even refused to go to her in-laws place on the plea that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled, she may be killed by the appellants. However, she was sent to her Sasural but only after about 14-15 days, he received information that his sister has been killed by setting her on fire and when he went to her in-laws place, he found that her sister is lying dead with severe burn injuries. Therefore from his evidence, it is clear that soon before the death i.e. just prior to 14-15 days of the death, demand of dowry was made and on non-fulfillment thereof, she was beaten and ill-treated. PW-2 Punit Bhuia has also fully corroborated the statement of PW-1. He has stated in the same line to that of PW-1, that after his sister was sent to her in-laws place, i.e. about 15 days prior to her death. He received information that his sister has been killed by the appellants by setting her on fire. PW-2 also stated in his evidence that before going to her Sasural, his sister was complaining that the appellants were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was being beaten by them. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 have fully been corroborated by PW-3 i.e. their mother. She has stated that her brother Sheo Prasad Bhiua informed them that the deceased has been done to death by the appellants by setting her on fire. She also went to her in-laws place, where she was found her daughter lying dead with severe burn injuries and the appellants were missing from their house. PW-5 Sheo Prasad Bhuia, the brother of PW-6 and maternal uncle (Mama) of PW-1 and PW-2, has stated in his evidence that the deceased Basanti Devi was married to the appellant No. 1. This witness has informed by his mother that Basanti Devi was lying dead in her Sasural. He thereafter went to the house of PW-1 and PW-2 and informed them that the deceased Basanti Devi was lying dead with severe burn injuries PW-6, the informant has fully corroborated the statements made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on each material point. This witness has informed by his mother that Basanti Devi was lying dead in her Sasural. He thereafter went to the house of PW-1 and PW-2 and informed them that the deceased Basanti Devi was lying dead with severe burn injuries PW-6, the informant has fully corroborated the statements made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on each material point. PW-7 is the doctor and the injuries found on the person of the deceased are fully corroborated with the version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3(sic). 7. From the case of Sunil Kumar Jha (Supra) (sic) by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it appears that the facts in the said case in quite different. In that case in the postmortem report, no any external or internal injury was found on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death was not known and viscera preserved was never sent for examination. In the said case, the evidence was not brought on record to the effect that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and torture because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In such circumstances, it was held that the prosecution did not establish the fact that soon before death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty and tenure due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and as such, the appellant in the said case was acquitted. The decision of the Supreme Court in the ewe of B. Shashikala (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants, also in the same line that there should be evidence on record that soon before the death there should be a demand of dowry and it must be established that deceased was ill treated bet use of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 8. But in the case in hand, the facts and evidence are quite different. In the present case, as already discussed above, there n specific evidence of PW-1, 2 and 6 that about 14-15 days prior to the death of the d sensed she was sent to her Sasural by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 and when she was in her parents house, she was reluctant to go to her Sasural because she is being regularly tortured and beaten by the appellants due to non-fulfillment of Rs. 50,000/-. 50,000/-. Therefore, in the present case, I find that soon before the death of the deceased there was demand of dowry also and the deceased was being tortured and ill treated because of the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry soon before her dead i.e. about 14-15 days prior to the occurrence. 9. In this view of the matter, I find that the trial court has rightly been held the appellants guilty for committing the offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. I find no illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, having found no merit, this appeal is dismissed by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.