ORDER : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2004 and order of sentence dated 01.10.2004 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 233 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 472 of 2002, T.R. No. 1101 of 2002 arising out of Jama P.S. Case No. 43 of 2002, Dumka, Jharkhand whereby and where under the appellant Pradeep Kumar Mandal @ Prakash Mandal has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304-B, 498-A and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- ( Rupees Two thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for three months for the offence punishable u/s 498A and further sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- ( Rupees Two thousand) and in case for default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for three months for the offence punishable u/s 201 of IPC and it was also directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story has arisen in the wake of fardbeyan of Sadhu Mandal (P.W. 8), father of the victim Rita Devi whose statement was recorded by the Police on 26.05.2002 at 6:30 hours in the forest area, a lonely place surrounded by Sakhua (sal) tree which is known as Sakhua jungle. Briefly stating the prosecution story as unfolded in the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant Sadhu Mandal P.W. 8 is as under:- His daughter was married with the accused Pradeep Kumar Mandal @ Prakash Mandal about one year back and was living in her Sasural (in-laws’ place). It is alleged that after the solemnization of marriage, the husband (appellant) of the victim Rita Devi along with her mother–in-law, father-inlaw and other family members of her husband demanded Motorcycle and for that the victim was assaulted by them and she was subjected to cruelty. The victim used to narrate her pathetic story to her father, the informant. It is said that all the relatives of the husband of the victim were demanding motorcycle from the informant, the father of the victim. The victim used to narrate her pathetic story to her father, the informant. It is said that all the relatives of the husband of the victim were demanding motorcycle from the informant, the father of the victim. The informant stated further that due to poverty, he could not give dowry in the marriage of his daughter. It is also said that just 15 days’ back from the alleged date of occurrence the accused persons had assaulted the victim, the daughter of the informant and this fact was disclosed to the informant by his brother-in-law Dilip Mandal, upon which the informant went to the sasural of his daughter at Barmasiya and came to know the whole story with respect to demand of dowry made by the family members of the husband of the victim including the husband-appellant of the victim and about the ill treatment meted out to her for the sake of dowry by them. It is said that a Panchayati was held over the said demand of dowry and cruelty and ultimately the matter was settled between the parties. Further, the prosecution case is that on 24.05.2002, the brother-in-law of the informant namely Dilip Mandal informed the informant that the victim, the daughter of the informant and her husband and the relatives of the husband were not available in their house and the house was found locked upon which the informant (P.W. 8) along with his brother-in-law Dilip Mandal (P.W.1) went to the sasural of his daughter and found his daughter, the victim along with her husband and his relatives, were not available in the house and the house was locked. The informant made enquiry and did not come to know about her whereabouts. The informant began searching his daughter vigorously at every place and ultimately today ( 26.05.2002) at a distance of about 1 km away from the sasural of the victim at village Barmasiya, the dead body of the victim was found in the midst of Sakhua Jungal (the forest of Sal trees) and others had also seen the dead body and while the informant was going to inform to the police station, he met with the police and thereafter his fardbeyan in that forest was recorded by the side of the dead body of his deceased daughter. The neck of the victim was found swelling and it was found to be a case of murder by strangulation. The informant stated that for the sake of dowry the husband of his daughter Rita Devi along with his relatives committed murder of his daughter Rita Devi and her dead body was thrown in the forest. 3. The police registered the case upon the statement of the informant as Jama P.S. Case No. 43 of 2002 dated 26.05.2002 u/s 302/304B/201/34 of IPC, and took up the investigation. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet on 19.08.2002 under sections 302/304-B/201/34 of IPC. The learned C.J.M., Dumka took cognizance on 26.08.2002 and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dumka framed charge on 07.01.2003 under sections 304-B/149, 498-A, 201 of IPC and after conducting the full fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Purnendu Sharan, on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidences in a holistic manner in view of the fact that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are interested witnesses as they are not reliable in absence of an eye witness to the occurrence. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that P.W. 2 Dr. Devashish Rakshit the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Dumka conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found that no ante mortem and post mortem injury upon the person of the deceased and opined that no definite opinion about the cause of death could be given by the medical board. It has also been pointed out that viscera report was sent for its chemical examination, but, the report could not be produced by the prosecution during the course of the trial and, therefore, the cause of death could not be determined by the prosecution and this fact is not be appreciated by the learned trial court. It has also been pointed out that viscera report was sent for its chemical examination, but, the report could not be produced by the prosecution during the course of the trial and, therefore, the cause of death could not be determined by the prosecution and this fact is not be appreciated by the learned trial court. Further it has been contended on behalf of appellant that the learned trial court has also ignored the contradictions in the statement of P.W. 1 Dilip Kumar Mandal in para 9 of his deposition about the demand of Motorcycle by the appellant before 2-3 months of the occurrence but vide para 9, the I.O. (P.W. 3) of the present case stated that the P.W. 1 never stated before him that there was a demand of dowry by way of motor cycle before two or three months from the date of occurrence, thus his version is not reliable because of this major contradiction. Further, it has also been pointed that in para 7 of the P.W. 3 where it is stated that all the accused persons were arrested from their house whereas the informant stated in his statement that the house of the accused appellant was locked and they had run away from their house. Further, it has been pointed out that the rest of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution including P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 & 8 are interested witnesses and the learned trial court did not appreciate all these facts while passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the sole appellant, and, therefore, it is urged on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State 6. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, categorically submitted that in such a case of dowry death the possibility of any independent witnesses is immaterial when the father of the victim (P.W. 8) along with other witnesses including P.W. 1, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, and P.W. 7 examined on behalf of prosecution have consistently and uniformly deposed that the victim died just after one year of marriage by unnatural death and further the aforesaid witnesses have coher ently supported that there had been a demand of dowry by way of motorcycle and the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for the fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and finally the deceased was killed and her dead body was found in Sakhua Jungle. and therefore the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the entire evidences and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Appraisal & Findings 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the Lower Court Records. 8. In the present case in order to appreciate the findings of the learned Trial Court Vis-à-vis the evidences available on record, it is necessary to keep in mind the following attributes of the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of IPC as under: i. The deceased was the wife of the appellant; ii. Death of deceased wife occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; iii. Such death took place within 7 years of marriage; iv. The deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband appellant; v. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and vi. The deceased wife was subjected to such cruelty or harassment soon before her death; vii. The appellant caused disappearance of evidence of offence. 9. Further this Court is also mindful to the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court for the present case as ruled in Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 1 as under: 38. The appellant caused disappearance of evidence of offence. 9. Further this Court is also mindful to the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court for the present case as ruled in Satbir Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 1 as under: 38. At the cost of repetition, the law under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be summarised below: 38.1. Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. 38.2. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused. 38.3. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304- B IPC cannot be construed to mean “immediately before”. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives. 38.4. Section 304-B IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. 38.5. Due to the precarious nature of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, Judges, prosecution and defence should be careful during conduction of trial. 10. Having been conscious with the aforesaid requirements this Court proceeds to examine the evidences. It is found that to substantiate the charges levelled against the sole accused-appellant being the husband of the victim for causing cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry, dowry death and also causing disappearance of evidence within the meaning of 304-B, 498-A and 201 of IPC, prosecution has been able to examine altogether 9 witnesses, as under : PW-1 Dilip Kumar Mandal, PW-2 Dr. Devashish Rakshit, PW-3 Prem Hans Rai, PW-4 Arun Kumar Rajak, PW-5 Fagu Mandal, PW-6 Ghanshyam Mandal, PW-7 Sukhdev Mandal, PW-8 Sadhu Mandal (informant), PW-9 Dr. Shesh Nag Jha. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidences the prosecution has been able to prove the following documents and Exhibits: Ext. 1- Fardbeyan of the informant. Ext. 2-Post Mortem Report Ext. 3 Formal F.I.R. Ext. Shesh Nag Jha. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidences the prosecution has been able to prove the following documents and Exhibits: Ext. 1- Fardbeyan of the informant. Ext. 2-Post Mortem Report Ext. 3 Formal F.I.R. Ext. 4- Inquest Report Ext. 1/1-signature of P.W. 1 Dilip Mandal on inquest report Ext. 1/2- signature of P.W. 5 Fagu Mandal on inquest report Ext. 1/3 - signature of witness Aniruddh Tiwari on inquest report 11. At the outset, it is well founded from the versions of the witnesses P.W. 8, P.W. 1, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 P.W. 7 examined on behalf of the prosecution and it is admitted that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the appellant one year back from the date of the occurrence. The informant (Father of the deceased) P.W.8 Sadhu Mandal has explicitly substantiated the period of marriage of his deceased daughter with the appellant in his testimonies as disclosed in the FIR i.e. one year of prior to the date of occurrence i.e. in the year 2001and further it has been substantiated by the other material witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution including P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W. 6 and P.W.7 and thus it is well founded that the deceased being the newly wedded wife had died well within the seven years of marriage as one of the important pre-requisite ingredients for the offence punishable u/s 304-B of IPC. This fact has never been controverted by the defence. 12. Further, this Court evaluated the deposition of the doctor P.W. 2, who had medically examined the dead body and conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the victim wife P.W. 2 Dr. Devashish Rakshit stated that on 26.05.2002 he was posted at Sadar Hospital Dumka as a Medical Officer in a board of medical officers which was constituted consisting of three members and he was one of them and others were Dr. S.N. Jha and Dr. D.N. Pandey, the members of the Board had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the Rita Devi wife of the Pradeep Kumar Mandal @ Prakash Mandal (appellant) village Barmasia P.S. Jama, District Dumka aged about 19 years and identified by constable 119 Bishnu Paswan. P.W. 2 Dr. Devashish Rakshit proved the post mortem report which is marked as Ext. 2. From the version of this witness and the perusal of the Ext. P.W. 2 Dr. Devashish Rakshit proved the post mortem report which is marked as Ext. 2. From the version of this witness and the perusal of the Ext. 2 it is found that the deceased had died due to unnatural death inasmuch as the doctor P.W.2 opined in his version very categorically that no definite opinion about the cause of death could be given by the Medical Board and as such one of the main ingredients of 304-B IPC is substantiated that the death of the victim Rita Devi was caused and had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Hence, it becomes immaterial as to whether the viscera report was produced or not during the course of trial. 13. Now, this Court evaluates the testimonies of the witnesses with respect to cruelty and harassment caused to deceased wife for the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased in order to substantiate the ingredients of section 304-B of IPC. This Court is of the firm view since the unnatural death of the deceased wife took place upon one year of the marriage is well established, this Court proceeds to appreciate the evidences as to whether the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant for the demand of dowry or not because the death of the deceased is al ready proved upon one year of the marriage i.e. much before seven years of marriage. 14. At the outset, from the deposition of father-P.W. 8 of the victim it is found that he stated in his deposition that the victim was harassed and subjected to torture by the appellant for the sake of motor cycle and there had been quarrel over the issue and 4 to 5 days back also from the date of occurrence the quarrel took place over the issue of demand of Motorcycle. In para 3 of this witness P.W.8 categorically and pointedly stated about the demand of motorcycle by way of dowry by son-in-law, the appellant upon which P.W. 8 had stated that he would give him a motorcycle within six months. This witness has also stated about the Panchayati which took place for resolving the dispute of demand of dowry. 15. In para 3 of this witness P.W.8 categorically and pointedly stated about the demand of motorcycle by way of dowry by son-in-law, the appellant upon which P.W. 8 had stated that he would give him a motorcycle within six months. This witness has also stated about the Panchayati which took place for resolving the dispute of demand of dowry. 15. Learned defence counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out in para 2 of the cross-examination of P.W. 8 by which it is stated by this witnesses that there had been a good relationship between the husband and wife, but taking into consideration the entire testimonies of this witness P.W. 8 it is well founded that the witness wanted to state that there had been a good relationship between husband and wife for sometime, but, later on the appellant started demanding dowry by way of Motorcycle and his statement about the good relationship does not mean to discard the categorical statement of this witness that there had been a demand of dowry and the appellant used to beat her for want of fulfillment of demand of Motorcycle and he further stated that just before 4-5 days, the appellant had quarreled with her and then this witness being the father had visited to her in-laws place and a Panchayti was held where the accused told him either to fulfill the demand of motorcycle or face the consequences of losing her daughter (to kill her ) and when this witness P.W. 8 wanted to take her daughter back to his house, then accused refused to allow her to go to her parents’ house. In the cross-examination, the defence could not take out any material to disbelieve the version of this witness and in para 3 of the cross-examination this witness in unequivocal words supported the demand of motorcycle and assault by the accused just before 4-5 days before the occurrence. This witness stated that the dead body of his daughter was found in the jungle of Sakhua (forest of Sal trees) and then his statement was recorded by the police and thus it is found that there is no inconsistencies in his version as stated in the FIR and in his depositions in the court during the course of the trial. 16. 16. The aforesaid version of the witness P.W. 8 has further been substantiated by the P.W.1 Dilip Kumar Mandal who stated in paras 2 and 8 that the victim was assaulted and beaten by the appellant for the sake of motorcycle. This witness had proved the Fardbeyan which was written in his presence and had been marked as Ext-1. This witness has also proved his signature along with the signatures of Fagu Mandal P.W.5 and Mukhiya Aniruddha on the Inquest Report which have marked as Ext. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. P.W. 5 Fagu Mandal had also stated that the victim was also assaulted by the accused appellant in paras 2, 7 and 8 in a very categorical and lucid manner stating that the accused had been beating and assaulting the deceased for the fulfilment of the demand of Motorcycle, but, the demand of the accused was not fulfilled. This witness has proved his signature on the inquest report which was already marked as Ext.1/2. Similarly P.W. 6- Ghanshyam Mandal stated vide paras 1 and 2 that for want of fulfillment of demand of motorcycle she was being assaulted and beaten and lastly she was killed by the accused. It is manifest form the testimony of this witness P.W.6 that the father of the victim P.W.8 wanted to bring back her daughter from her in laws’ place but the accused did not allow the deceased to go back to her parents’ house without giving Motorcycle and as such this witness has fully corroborated the version of P.W.8 who has stated in para 1 of his deposition that a Panchayti was held where the accused told him either to fulfill the demand of motorcycle or face the consequences of losing her daughter (to kill her ) thereupon P.W.8 wanted to take her daughter back to his house, but, the accused refused to allow her to go to her parents’ house. This witness P.W.6 also clearly stated that the deceased was beaten about fifteen days ago from the date of occurrence for meeting the demand of Motorcycle. This witness P.W.6 also clearly stated that the deceased was beaten about fifteen days ago from the date of occurrence for meeting the demand of Motorcycle. P.W. 7-Sukhdev Mandal, examined on behalf of the prosecution has also Stated vide para 1 that the appellant had solemnized the marriage with the victim and remained happily for 5 to 6 months and thereafter the appellant started demanding Motorcycle and for the sake of its fulfillment started assaulting and beating the deceased and thereafter the deceased was killed. 17. Another witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.9. Out of them P.W.3 and P.W.4 are police officials and P.W.9 has been declared tendered. P.W.3 as the I.O. of this case stated that after getting the information about the death of the deceased in the police station, a sanha (information) was recorded in the station Diary vide 616/2002 dated 26.05.2002 and thereafter he had visited the place of occurrence i.e. the Sakhua Jungle (Sal tree forest) where he met with P.W.8 (father of the deceased) who told that the dead body was of his daughter Rita Devi. This witness P.W.3 had proved the Fardbeyan which has been written and signed by him and marked as Ext.-1. He had also proved the endorsement of Officer-In-Charge of the Police Station which has been marked as Ext.1/4 and he also proved the Formal FIR which has been marked as Ext.-3. This witness P.W.3 further stated that he prepared the in quest Report which has been proved and marked as Ext.-4. Being the I.O. of this case this witness visited the place of occurrence and fully described the place as disclosed by the informant-father of the deceased P.W.8 in the FIR and subsequently in his testimonies before court. From the perusal of the inquest report Ext. 4 and from his version in para 8 it is found the deceased died of unnatural death as her neck was swelling. The learned defence counsel has pointed out that the informant had stated that the house of in-laws-people were locked whereas this I.O. stated that accused persons were arrested from the house. 4 and from his version in para 8 it is found the deceased died of unnatural death as her neck was swelling. The learned defence counsel has pointed out that the informant had stated that the house of in-laws-people were locked whereas this I.O. stated that accused persons were arrested from the house. I do not consider that it is a discrepancy to discard the case of the prosecution inasmuch as at the time when the informant had visited the house they might not remain present and hiding themselves and when the FIR was instituted and police started investigation of the case they were arrested from the house which is quite natural and highly probable. Thus, this Court does not find any irregularity in the version of P.W. 8 and investigation of the case and the case of the prosecution is established with the consistent versions of the witnesses. The police official P.W. 4 had finally submitted the charge–sheet after completion of the investigation. 18. Recapitulating, the entire evidences available on record as evaluated above in foregoing paragraphs it is manifest that the learned trial court has been legally correct in the appreciation of evidences to arrive at the conclusion to hold the guilt of the accused – appellant for the offences of Dowry-death within the meaning of section 304-B, along with 498-A and 201 of the IPC. It is well founded that the entire ingredients for the offence punishable u/s 304-B of IPC including (a) the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances (b) the deceased was a newly wedded wife who died at about one year of her marriage (c) there was a demand of motorcycle by way of dowry by the appellant (d) the deceased was assaulted and beaten by the appellant for the fulfillment of demand of Motorcycle by way of Dowry and (e) the deceased was being beaten and assaulted since last 4-5 months continuously by the appellant before the date of incident are proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of reliable and trustworthy witnesses. No cogent defence has been taken on behalf of the appellant to disbelieve the version of the prosecution as the appellant failed to discharge the burden under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is also clear from the statements of the appellant recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. explaining all the incriminating materials found in the evidences against him. This appellant being the husband got married with the victim wife in the year 2001 about one year before the date of occurrence and after the marriage although the appellant had been living in a good relationship with his deceased wife, but, soon thereafter he had started demanding motorcycle by way of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand for dowry of Motorcycle, the victim was assaulted and beaten by him and ultimately she was killed in May, 2002. Further, from the post mortem report Ext.2 and as found in the version of the P.W.2 (Dr. Devashish Rakshit) it is established that the deceased has died due to unnatural death and, therefore, it is well founded that lastly the victim was killed and her dead body was found in jungle to cause disappearance of evidence of offence thus all the essential ingredients for establishing the charges u/s 304- B, 498 A and 201 of IPC are substantiated. P.W. 8 Sadhu Mandal- is the father of the deceased and informant of this case and the testimonies of this witness has been found impeccable and flawless. In his evidence P.W. 8 in para 3 has stated that before the alleged date of occurrence the quarrel had taken place. The evidence of P.W. 8 established the fact that the appellant who was the husband of the victim had been demanding motorcycle by way of demand of dowry and the victim lady was assaulted and there was a quarrel in this connection with the de mand of dowry 4-5 days before the occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 8 established the fact that the appellant who was the husband of the victim had been demanding motorcycle by way of demand of dowry and the victim lady was assaulted and there was a quarrel in this connection with the de mand of dowry 4-5 days before the occurrence. It is also found form the version of P.W. 8 that initially the relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife had been cordial, but, subsequently the differences arose due to demand of dowry and their relationship deteriorated day by day and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry the victim wife of appellant was subjected to cruelty and harassment for the fulfillment of demand of dowry and was ultimately killed and her dead body was thrown in sakhua jungle (forest of Sal trees). Thus, it is found that there was a direct connection between the death and the demand of dowry and due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry she was ill-treated and finally she was killed and her dead body was found in the Jungle of Sakhua. P.W. 1 Dilip Kumar Mandal and P.W. 5 Fagu Mandal, P.W. 6 Ghanshyam Mandal, P.W.7 Sukhdeo Mandal have fully corroborated the versions of P.W.8. 19. In the backdrop, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the overwhelming evidences of the witnesses particularly P.W. 1, P.W. 5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W. 8 examined on behalf of the prosecution on the point of torture and cruelty being caused upon the victim for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry just before her death and finally she was killed and the dead body of the victim Rita Devi was found in Sakhua Jungal at village Barmasiya which was a lonely place at a long distance from the village under Jama P.S., District: Dumka. It is true that the cause of death was not ascertained by the doctor P.W. 2 in the absence of viscera report which was sent for chemical examination and was not received even during trial of the case, but, absence of the viscera report does not eliminate the story of the mysterious and unnatural death of the deceased victim Rita Devi. The dead body was found abandoned in the said forest carelessly and was subsequently after two days the dead body was recovered by the father of the victim and other persons. The dead body was found abandoned in the said forest carelessly and was subsequently after two days the dead body was recovered by the father of the victim and other persons. Thus, this Court is convinced that the learned trial court has rightly come to the finding that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant for the offences punishable under section304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC. 20. Having taking into consideration the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any irregularities in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below. The learned trial court has not committed any error and has rightly appreciated the evidences available on record and came to the findings that this appellant is guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC. Accordingly, this Court upholds the guilt and conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304- B, 498-A and 201 of IPC. Further, it is also found that the sentence as awarded to the appellant is just and fair and this Court need not interfere in the sentence awarded by the trial court. 21. In the result the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2004 and order of sentence dated 01.10.2004 passed by the learned 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 233 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 472 of 2002, T.R. No. 1101 of 2002 arising out of Jama P.S. Case No. 43 of 2002, Dumka against this appellant is hereby confirmed and sustained. 22. This appeal is dismissed. 23. Since the appellant is on bail, therefore he is directed to surrender within four weeks from today to serve the sentence as awarded, failing which the bail of the appellant shall stand cancelled and the appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. The learned trial court is directed to take all necessary steps accordingly to ensure that the appellant serves sentence as awarded as per the provisions of law. 24. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below along with Lower Court Records for the needful and its compliance.