JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17thJanuary, 2005 and 18th January, 2005 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial no. 375 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 445 of 2003, Chas (M) P.S. Case no. 39 of 2003, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304B, 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 304B/34 I.P.C., R.I. for two years u/s 498A IPC and R.I. for one year U/s 4 of the D.P. Act and further directed to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default further to undergo one month imprisonment. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts reveal from the written report lodged by Smt. Sundari Devi (PW-4) is that Gendiya Devi (deceased) was married with appellant Mantu Mahto, but, she did not experience happy conjugal life due to demand of dowry and she was subjected to torture. The information regarding torture and demand of dowry were duly communicated to the informant by her daughter. The deceased was living with her parents, but, eight days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant Mantu Mahto took Bidai of his wife and brought her to his house. On 1.6.2003 at about 11 a.m. the informant received death news of Gendiya Devi. After receiving such information she rushed to Pupunkitola-Jolahadih and saw her daughter lying dead on a cot. On being questioned, the appellants disclosed that due to abdominal pain and headache Gindiya died. The informant suspecting that her daughter has been killed, lodged written report and on the basis of such written report Bokaro Chas (M) P.S. Case no. 39 of 2003 dated 01.6.2003 U/s. 304(B)/34 I.P.C. was registered. Investigation was carried out and after collecting evidence and documents charge sheet U/Ss. 498A, 302/34 and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case no. 375 of 2003. 3. 39 of 2003 dated 01.6.2003 U/s. 304(B)/34 I.P.C. was registered. Investigation was carried out and after collecting evidence and documents charge sheet U/Ss. 498A, 302/34 and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case no. 375 of 2003. 3. The appellants stood charged for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 alternatively U/s 304 (B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3, 4 of the D.P. Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses but, no witness on behalf of defence was examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence and documents available, held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the witnesses have developed a story of demand of Rs. 10,000/- during trial. The witnesses in their deposition during investigation had simply stated that the deceased was subjected to torture for want of more dowry. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was subjected to torture or treated with cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with demand of dowry rather, evidence available is that she was happily brought her matrimonial home with the consent of her mother P.W.4 Sundari Devi. After the deceased was brought back to her matrimonial home, no information regarding any incident either to parents or anybody else was communicated by the deceased. No direct evidence is available that all the appellants had been treating the deceased with cruelty and committing torture on her for or in connection with demand of dowry. For the sake of argument, if it is admitted to be correct that dowry was demanded and for that deceased was subjected to torture, the allegation is only against appellant Mantu Mahto (husband of deceased). The appellants namely Radhi Devi and Fenku Mahto are bhabhi and elder brother of appellant Mantu Mahto and they are least concerned with the demand of Rs. 10,000/- if made by the appellant Mantu Mahto. It is submitted that initially the case was registered u/s 304 B I.P.C. but, the police after due investigation, submitted charge sheet U/Ss.302/34, 498A of the I.P.C. and 3, 4 of the D.P. Act. 10,000/- if made by the appellant Mantu Mahto. It is submitted that initially the case was registered u/s 304 B I.P.C. but, the police after due investigation, submitted charge sheet U/Ss.302/34, 498A of the I.P.C. and 3, 4 of the D.P. Act. Submission of charge sheet u/s 302 I.P.C. suggests that ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. were lacking. Had it been so, the learned trial judge has wrongly held the appellants guilty on the evidence brought on record during trial. The admitted case of the prosecution is that the witnesses have not disclosed about demand of Rs. 10,000/- before the Investigating Officer during investigation and have developed that story during trial. The development made by the witnesses during trial find support from the evidence of I.O. P.W.-5. It is clearly stated that they have not disclosed about demand of Rs. 10,000/- during investigation. The investigation conducted by the investigating officer does not appear to be fair. The witnesses have claimed that they had seen blood stain on the cot and also on the cloth of deceased but, those articles were not seized by the police. The weapon used for causing injuries on head, has not been seized, nor the investigating officer took pain to find it out. No independent witness of the locality have supported the prosecution case to any extent and all the witnesses examined are close relatives of the deceased. The learned trial judge has wrongly held the appellants guilty and the findings are based on mis-appreciation of the evidence and facts. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the arguments and submitted that in a case of dowry death, expected witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and that is not a new thing to be taken note of. In the case at hand, Gendiya Devi was married with appellant Mantu Mahto and she was not happy with her conjugal life due to demand of dowry. She was subjected to torture for more dowry and that was communicated by her to her parents and relatives. Prior to the occurrence, the deceased had come to her parents' house. Eight days prior to the date of incident, appellant Mantu Mahto brought Gendiya Devi to her matrimonial home and the occurrence took place on 1.6.2003. Since, the occurrence took place within eight days from the date of bidai, that itself speaks about ill treatment meted out to the deceased. Eight days prior to the date of incident, appellant Mantu Mahto brought Gendiya Devi to her matrimonial home and the occurrence took place on 1.6.2003. Since, the occurrence took place within eight days from the date of bidai, that itself speaks about ill treatment meted out to the deceased. Furthermore, Gendiya Devi died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home, otherwise than under normal circumstance and she was subjected to torture for want of more dowry. Not only that the post-mortem report and evidence of Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad PW-6 is conclusive that death of Gendiya Devi was homicidal and assault was caused to her on head by means of hard and blunt substance and she had sustained fracture injury on her fronto parietal part of left side of skull. Internal injuries were also noticed by the doctor. PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-7 have supported the prosecution case. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard rival submissions and after perusing the case record and impugned judgment, we find that Gendiya Devi who was married with appellant Mantu Mahto died within seven years of her marriage and death was homicidal which is apparent from post-mortem report Ext.4. Dr. Balkeshwar Prasad PW-6 had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and noticed following injuries: (i) Diffused swelling 3x ½'' x 2x ½'' over left frontal part of skull. (ii) Abrasion: (a) 2'' x 1/6'' frontal part of skull (b) 1x ½'' x 1/6'' over left leg. (iii) Abrasion: (a) 3'' x 1/6'' over left thigh (b) 1x3/4 '' x 1/6'' over left thigh On dissection: Tissues under neath the injury no.1 was contused and there was haematoma over the surface of skull. On further dissection the fronto perital part of left side of skull was found fractured. On further dissection, the membrane and brain were intact but contused. Cause of death due to cardiac respiratory failure due to severe head injury and injuries to vital organ like lungs and shock and hemorrhage. Thus, evidence of doctor is conclusive that death of Gendiya Devi was homicidal and she died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. The learned Addl. Cause of death due to cardiac respiratory failure due to severe head injury and injuries to vital organ like lungs and shock and hemorrhage. Thus, evidence of doctor is conclusive that death of Gendiya Devi was homicidal and she died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. The learned Addl. P.P. in course of argument has pointed out that the appellants did not extend correct information regarding death of Gendiya Devi and they had tried to conceal the assault caused to deceased. It was also pointed out that in a case of dowry death, if death of a woman caused due to bodily injury or that occur otherwise than under normal circumstance and such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage and the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relatives of her husband and such cruelty and harassment was for or in connection with demand of dowry committed soon before her death presumption u/s 113 B of the Evidence Act can be drawn that such person had caused dowry death. To meet out the ingredients as indicated above, we have gone through the evidence on record. We find that Gendiya Devi (deceased) died due to head injury and she died within seven years of her marriage. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 further suggests that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. She was brought back to her matrimonial home just eight days prior to the date of occurrence and death was occurred due to assault caused on her head. Thus, the circumstances are speaking itself that she was subjected to cruelty for want of more dowry soon before her death. The appellants did not extend cogent explanation regarding death of deceased, therefore, presumption u/s 113 B of the Evidence Act can well be drawn that dowry death was committed. 7. Now, the question arises whether conviction recorded by the learned trail judge against all the three appellants can be upheld ? Again we have perused the evidence on record and find that the witnesses have stated that it was Mantu Mahto who had been demanding dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfillment of said demand. 7. Now, the question arises whether conviction recorded by the learned trail judge against all the three appellants can be upheld ? Again we have perused the evidence on record and find that the witnesses have stated that it was Mantu Mahto who had been demanding dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfillment of said demand. Sundari Devi PW-2 happens to be the mother of deceased and in para 2 of her deposition she has stated that “Ek Saptah purb jab mera damad vidai ke liye aaya tha tab bhi usne dahej me 10,000 ki mang kiya tha to maine kaha tha hum garib hai nahi de sakte.” PW-2 Deepak Mahato in para 2 of his deposition has stated that it was Mantu Mahto who had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from his mother-in-law at the time of vidai of Gendiya. The contradictions taken from mouth of these witnesses were referred to the investigating officer and the investigating officer has clearly stated that aforesaid witnesses have not stated about specific demand of Rs. 10,000/- The investigation officer has further admitted that the informant had not raised allegation against other appellants except Mantu Mahto. Again the investigating officer says that witness Mahroo Mahto had specifically stated that it was Mantu Mahto who had been causing torture and ill treating the deceased for want of dowry. He says that witness Mohan Mahto has also stated like that. Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter and the evidence of investigating officer (PW-5) we find that deceased was treated with cruelty for want of dowry by the husband. No specific overt act committed by appellants Radhi Devi and Fenku Mahto has been brought on record. In a case of dowry death, normally all the family members who have been residing with the husband of the deceased are being implicated but, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from the chaff to punish actual culprit. No specific overt act committed by appellants Radhi Devi and Fenku Mahto has been brought on record. In a case of dowry death, normally all the family members who have been residing with the husband of the deceased are being implicated but, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from the chaff to punish actual culprit. Considering consistent evidence that Mantu Mahto had been treating his wife Gendiya Devi (deceased) with cruelty for want of more dowry and deceased died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and that too, due to bodily injury caused on her head, we do not feel inclined to give any relief to appellant Mantu Mahto but, we feel inclined to allow the appeal preferred by appellants namely Radhi Devi and Fenku Mahto and, accordingly, appeal so preferred by them stands allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17thJanuary, 2005 and 18th January, 2005 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial no. 375 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 445 of 2003, Chas (M) P.S. Case no. 39 of 2003 recorded against the appellants Fenku Mahto and Radhi Devi is hereby set-aside. They are on bail and therefore, discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond and set at liberty. 8. Appeal preferred by appellant Mantu Mahto stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.