A.K. Goel, CJ.;— 1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC for which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The appellant allegedly kidnapped the deceased Fulbala Mandal. However, with the intervention of the family members the appellant married her about two years preceding the date of occurrence i.e. 03.04.2000. On 03.04.2000 at about 9.00 A.M. dead body of Fulbala Mandal was noticed near a bamboo bush of Sutradol village. Jatin Biswas (PW 1), brother of the deceased, learnt about the dead body of his sister being near a bamboo bush. He went to the Police Station and lodged F.I.R. at about 3.15 P.M. Babul Bora (PW 10), Sub-Inspector of the Police Station, Jagiroad, was entrusted the investigation of the case. He visited the place of occurrence and performed inquest and thereafter forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination. He arrested the accused. As a result of post mortem, it was found that the cause of death could not be ascertained pending FSL examination of the viscera. Ext-3 is the FSL report which shows positive tests for organochlorine pesticide in the viscera from which it could be inferred that the death was on account of poison. After investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. 3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, namely, Jatin Biswas, brother of the deceased as PW 1; Amal Biswas, another brother of the deceased as PW 2; Dharanidhar Deka, Gaonburah (village headman) as PW 3; Prafulla Biswas, neighbour of the deceased as PW 4; Dr. Bhogeswar Thakuria, who conducted post mortem examination as PW 5; Smti. Yomuna Biswas, mother of the deceased as PW 6; Hiralal Biswas, neighbour of the deceased as PW 7; Dr. Rajkumar Pradyut Gohain, Deputy Director of FSL, Guwahati, as PW 8; Subodh Debnath, neighbour as PW 9 and Sri Babul Bora, Investigating Officer of the case as PW 10. 4. The evidence of PW 1, Jatin Biswas, PW 2, Amal Biswas and PW 6, Smti. Yomuna Biswas, was to the effect that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused for demand of dowry soon before her death. Similar was the evidence of PW 4, Prafulla Biswas, neighbour of the deceased. 5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused/appellant denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. 6. Yomuna Biswas, was to the effect that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused for demand of dowry soon before her death. Similar was the evidence of PW 4, Prafulla Biswas, neighbour of the deceased. 5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused/appellant denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. 6. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that it was established that death took place within seven years of marriage otherwise than in normal course and that she was subjected to harassment by her husband in connection with the demand of dowry. In the circumstances presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was attracted which was not rebutted. Accordingly, the appellant was held guilty of the offence. The relevant discussion by the learned trial Court is as under : “5. ……. Now, so far our present case goes, from the evidence on record it becomes clear that the victim Fulbala Mandal was married by accused Niranjan Mandal within less than two years from the date of occurrence. It is evidence on record that first of all the accused kidnapped Fulbala from her house and to that effect, ejahar was lodged with the police. But accused Niranjan Mandal came forward for a compromise for which due to amicable settlement, the case was not proceeded with and in present of “Raij”, i.e. village “Bichar”, Niranjan Mandal accepted Fulbala Biswas and the family of Fulbala also offered the “Jautuk” including bi-cycle. In the evidence of PW 1 Jatin Biswas, PW 2 Amal Biswas and PW 6 Jamuna Biswas, we find about demand of Niranjan Mandal after about six months of their marriage. In the evidence of all three witnesses, what accused Niranjan Mandal demanded from the parrents’ house of Fulbala, we get it. On the other hand, PW 1 and PW 6 in their evidence clearly stated what they offered as “Jautuk” at the time of marriage after settlement of kidnap by the villagers. To that effect, even a bi-cycle was also given to the accused from the family of Fulbala. In the evidence of PW 6 we find that accused Niranjan demanded some gold ornaments such as gold ring for accused himself, ear ring for Fulbala and other articles as stated. To that effect, even a bi-cycle was also given to the accused from the family of Fulbala. In the evidence of PW 6 we find that accused Niranjan demanded some gold ornaments such as gold ring for accused himself, ear ring for Fulbala and other articles as stated. In the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 we clearly find that demanding the articles, Niranjan Mandal used to torture Fulbala. PW 2 clearly stated as to how he got opportunity at the time of torturing Fulbala by Niranjan Biswas. In the evidence of PW 4 Prafulla Biswas, we find how Fulbala was tortured and drove out Fulbala by her husband. Just 8/9 days ahead of occurrence, Niranjan Mandal physically assaulted Fulbala and drove her out from the house for which Fulbala came to his house seeking shelter. Subsequently, mother of Niranjan told him that Niranjan would not keep Fulbala. Under the circumstances, this witness advised to send Fulbala back. If that was the attitude of accused towards his newly married wife, under the circumstance, why he kidnapped Fulbala Biswas from her house? In the evidence of PW 1, we find that Niranjan Mandal demanded certain amount of money and more articles to which they refused. But his sister reported him that if these are not paid, she would be killed. After considering entire evidence, as I discussed above, I could not reject the prosecution evidence on record. In the defence side, there is no proper cross-examination of the witnesses for which the evidence of almost all the prosecution witnesses stood unrebutted. Thus it becomes clear to me that demanding some “Jautuk”, Niranjan Mandal used to torture physically on the person of Fulbala and it is also in the evidence that sometimes Fulbala was detected in the midst of field at a distance of about 200 yards from the house of accused. PW 10 Babul Bora performed the inquest on the dead body of Fulbala and body was lying by the side of a bamboo bush as appears from Ext-1, the inquest report. He gave the description of the dead body. He also detected some injuries just below the chest of the dead body as it reveals from inquest report. He also found more mark of injuries in the anterior part of ankle of right leg. He gave the description of the dead body. He also detected some injuries just below the chest of the dead body as it reveals from inquest report. He also found more mark of injuries in the anterior part of ankle of right leg. He also found some injuries at the lower part of the left leg, but did not detect more serious injuries on her body. In the evidence of PW 5, i.e. doctor who carried on post-mortem examination, we do not find any of the injury on the body of Fulbala, and as such, PW 5 could not ascertain the cause of death of Fulbala. So, PW 5 preserved viscera for forensic examination. PW 8 proved the result of viscera examination and stated before us that the examination gave positive test for organo chlorine pesticide.” 7. We have heard Mr. A. L. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the respondent State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly stated that in the face of adequate evidence of brothers, mother and neighbour of the deceased that she was subjected to harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry, the finding that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was attracted could not be assailed. On independent appreciation of evidence, we are also of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish that the death took place within seven years of marriage in circumstances other than normal and the accused had harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. There was no serious infirmity in the consistent evidence given by PW 1, Jatin Biswas, PW 2, Amal Biswas, PW 4, Prafulla Biswas and PW 6, Smti Yomuna Biswas. We, thus, find no ground to reject the version of the prosecution. Accordingly, we upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC. 9. Coming to the question of sentence, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the accused has been in custody for about 10 years — more than nine years after conviction and some period during trial. He is a poor person and could not prefer appeal for more than four years. He had his ailing mother, who was 80 years of age at the time of filing the appeal as mentioned in Misc. He is a poor person and could not prefer appeal for more than four years. He had his ailing mother, who was 80 years of age at the time of filing the appeal as mentioned in Misc. Case No.1384 of 2007. He submits that sentence may be reduced. 10. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. We order accordingly. 12. As a result of above, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 13. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. _____________