JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Both the appeals arising out of common judgement, hence heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Above appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.09.2003 and 18.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Dhanbad in S.T. No.301 of 1999 arising out of Katras P.S. Case No.176 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 304 B and 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under section 304 B of IPC and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State. 4. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that the informant, Md. Gayasuddin (P.W.6) solemnized marriage of his daughter, Samida Khatoon (since deceased) with Md. Sheikh Belal in accordance with Mohamdan Law and Customs. It is alleged that both parties belong to the same village. After marriage, the informant’s daughter went to her sasural and started residing along with her husband, in-laws and other family members. It is further alleged that just after sometime of the marriage, the husband, Md. Sheikh Belal, his brother, Sheikh Gulab and mother Sarkun Bibi started demanding Rs.25,000/- as dowry and due to poverty, the above demand could not be fulfilled, then all the accused persons started torturing and harassing the daughter of the informant. It is further alleged that the informant also convened a Panchyati in the village and the matter was pacified for some time. It is further alleged that the informant has also executed a registered sale deed of some landed property in favor of the accused persons to construct a house without taking any price and Md. Belal has also constructed a house over the said landed property and started living with his family members. It is further alleged that the informant has also executed a registered sale deed of some landed property in favor of the accused persons to construct a house without taking any price and Md. Belal has also constructed a house over the said landed property and started living with his family members. It is further alleged that in spite of several attempts made by the informant to convince the accused persons, they did not mend themselves, their demand and torture meted with victim did not stop rather on 01.06.1998, the accused persons assaulted the informant’s daughter, which was also complained to the village Panchyat. Thereafter on 02.06.1998, a Panchyati was again held under Secretaryship of Md. Sahaban and other local villagers and Md. Belal was directed to keep the victim with due dignity and honor, but other accused persons namely Sarkun Bibi and Sheikh Gulab refused to obey the order of Panchyati unless their demand of Rs.25,000/- is fulfilled. It is further alleged that on 03.06.1998 in the morning, the informant came to know from his relative that the dead body of his daughter is lying in a field in injured condition having injury on her head and other parts of the body. Receiving such information, the informant along with Md. Ramjan Mian, Md. Jafar, Md. Salim went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter. It is alleged that the accused persons have committed dowry death of the informant’s daughter and thrown her dead body at a distance place in an open field near railway line. 5. On the basis of Fardbayan of the informant, Md. Gayasuddin, Katras P.S. Case No.176 of 1998 was registered for the offences under sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE against the above appellants. The charge of investigation was taken by S.I. Ram Nath Tiwari (P.W.8) and later on S.I. Anjani Kumar(P.W.9), who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No.301 of 1999 was registered. The accused persons have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely: P.W.1- Md. Hadi, P.W.2. Md. Murtaza P.W.3-Md. Mannan P.W.4-Md. Khalid P.W.5-Dr. Shailendra Kumar P.W.-6 Md. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No.301 of 1999 was registered. The accused persons have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely: P.W.1- Md. Hadi, P.W.2. Md. Murtaza P.W.3-Md. Mannan P.W.4-Md. Khalid P.W.5-Dr. Shailendra Kumar P.W.-6 Md. Gayasuddin (Informant) P.W.7-Sheikh Aainul P.W. 8-Ram Nath Tiwary (S.I. of Police) P.W.9-Anjani Kumar (S.I. of Police) 7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- Ext.1-Postmortm report Ext.2- Signature of Md. Hadi and Md. Gayasuddin on Fardbayan Ext.3 Formal FIR Ext.4 Fardbayan Ext.5 endorsement on Fardbayan Ext.X signature of Md. Hadi and Md. Akbar on carbon copy of inquest report. 8. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. However, following documents have been adduced on behalf of the defence. Ext. A to A/1- Injury reports Ext.B to B/3- Xerox copies of panchyati Ext.C- Certified copy of sale deed 9. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. The further plea is that the sale deed (Ext.C) was executed by the informant taking consideration amount of Rs.8,000/-. The Panchyati papers have also been relied upon, which are marked Ext. B, B/1, B/2 and B/3 on prayer of defence. Above documents shows that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture meted to the deceased at the hands of all the accused persons except the husband. 10. Learned trial court after evaluating and scrutinizing oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties has arrived at conclusion that all the accused persons have committed dowry death and disposed of the dead body of the deceased at a lonely place with a view to screen themselves from legal punishment. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the impugned judgment and order mainly on following grounds: (i) Learned court below has wrongly appreciated the evidence led by parties and arrived at erroneous conclusion. (ii) Learned court below has failed to consider the ingredient “soon before death” as the same is not attracted in this case as because the deceased was residing at her parental house soon before her death, which was also admitted by the informant. (ii) Learned court below has failed to consider the ingredient “soon before death” as the same is not attracted in this case as because the deceased was residing at her parental house soon before her death, which was also admitted by the informant. (iii) Learned court below has also failed to appreciate the facts about a series of panchyati held to resolve the dispute but there is no whisper about demand of dowry in the panchyati papers. (iv) The appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal has been implicated in this case because he is the unfortunate husband of the deceased. No specific overt act has been attributed against any appellants. (v) There are glaring discrepancies between oral evidence and medical evidence including that of informant with regard to the burn injury found on the body of the deceased. Though, all the witnesses have deposed in one voice about witnessing the burn caused by iron on the body of the deceased, however, the post-mortem report clearly denies any mark of burn injury. (vi) The post-mortem report indicates that some of the miscreants must have assaulted the deceased during chain snatching and when she became unconscious, must have thrown her on the railway line, where she was cut down by a train and all the appellants had been implicated in this case as because they had sour relationship with the deceased. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207 , wherein at para 15, it has been held as under:- “15. ………... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the EVIDENCE ACT . These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the non existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.” In view of the above points of arguments, it is submitted that impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is fit to be set aside and these appeals may be allowed. 13. Per contra: learned P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently refuted the aforesaid arguments and submitted that the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove the charges leveled against the present appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has very wisely apprised, scanned and evaluated the un-rebutted oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the doctor (P.W.5), who has conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased has opined that death was caused by craniocerebral injury, which was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and some injuries were caused by hard blunt weapon which corroborates the prosecution story. There is no valid and reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. These appeals are devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 14. There is no valid and reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. These appeals are devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 14. The only point for determination in these appeals is as to whether conviction and sentence of appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference by way of these appeals or not. 15. The appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 304 B and 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is, therefore, appropriate to extract relevant provisions for better appreciation of this case. The offence of “dowry death” was incorporated in the INDIAN PENAL CODE by way of amendment in the year 1986 along with amendment in the Indian EVIDENCE ACT by incorporating Section 113 B Presumption as to dowry death. Section 498 A of IPC and Section 113 A of Indian EVIDENCE ACT has been added by way of amendment in 1983. These provisions read as under:- 304 B. Dowry Death (i) Whether the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances with 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with, in demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section “Dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (ii) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 16. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the deceased, Samida Khatoon, the daughter of informant was married with appellant, Md. Belal in the year 1995 and the deceased died in the year 1998 i.e. within 7 years of her marriage. As regards the cause of death is concerned, P.W.5, Dr. Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased on 03.06.1998 at 12:00 at noon and found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- (i) Incised wound 2 ½” x 1” x brain deep on right side of the head 1 ¼” above root of right ear. (ii) Lacerated would 1 ½” x 1” x skin deep behind the left ear. Abrasion (i) 1 ½” x ½” on the back of left shoulder; (ii) 2 ½” x ¼” on the upper portion inner aspect of the right forearm; (iii) 2 ½” x ¼” over right knee. (ii) Lacerated would 1 ½” x 1” x skin deep behind the left ear. Abrasion (i) 1 ½” x ½” on the back of left shoulder; (ii) 2 ½” x ¼” on the upper portion inner aspect of the right forearm; (iii) 2 ½” x ¼” over right knee. On dis-section Blood clots in an area of 2 ½” x 1 ½” were found underneath the scalp over left temporal parietal region with multiple fracture of left temporal bone including its parietal parts. On the right side parietal bone was found linear cut in an area of 2” x ¼” x cavity deep underneath injury No.1 subdural hematoma was defused all over the surface of the brain of both sides. 2” long cut was found in the meninges and brain underneath the injury No.1 heart, stomach and bladder were empty. Uterus was normal. Other internal organs were pale. Cause of Death Death was caused by aforementioned cranio cerebral injury which on right side was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and on left side was caused by hard blunt weapon. Therefore, it is also prove beyond doubt that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances. Now 3 rd and 4 th circumstances to be proved by the prosecution for establishing the case of dowry death are soon before her death, the deceased must be subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 17. In the instant case, the witnesses of facts examined by the prosecution are family members of the deceased, who also reside in the same village where maternal home of the deceased was situated. P.W.6- Md. Gayasuddin Ansari is the informant-cum-father of the victim lady. According to his evidence, his daughter Samida Khatoon was marriage with Md. Belal in the year 1995 and he has deposed that just after marriage, his daughter’s husband, Md. Belal, brother-in-law Md. Sheikh Gulab and mother Sarkun Bibi started demanding Rs.25,000/- as dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of which, his daughter was being assaulted by all the three accused persons. His daughter frequently used to complaint about the torture meted with her. Thereafter, some land was provided by this witness to Sarkun Bibi to construct the house and to live therein. Sheikh Gulab and mother Sarkun Bibi started demanding Rs.25,000/- as dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of which, his daughter was being assaulted by all the three accused persons. His daughter frequently used to complaint about the torture meted with her. Thereafter, some land was provided by this witness to Sarkun Bibi to construct the house and to live therein. He has also convened Panchyati for several times for pacifying the matter on 1 st June, 1998, Md. Belal assaulted the deceased for which a Panchyati was also convened on 2 nd June, 1998 and the accused persons were requested not to ill-treat or harass the victim lady but they did not mend and insist upon for fulfilling demand of Rs.25,000/- as dowry otherwise, they will not stop assaulting and torturing the deceased. He further deposed that just after end of Panchyati in the night, the accused persons brutally assaulted to the deceased and threw the dead body in the field of Sheikh Amin. This witness got information about the above incident in the next day morning from his Sarhu, Md. Hadid. This witness along with other villagers and family members went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body and saw sharp-cutting injuries as well as some patches on skin were appearing to be burnt by iron (clothes iron). The police had also arrived at the place of occurrence at 2 PM and fardbayan was recorded and he put his signature, which is marked as Ext.2. This witness has also identified the signature on carbon copy of the inquest report. In his cross-examination, this witness has remained intact as regards the aforesaid incident. He has also admitted that the house was constructed by Md. Belal but the land was given by him. He further also states that in the Panchyati, document was prepared wherein the complaint about demand of Rs.25,000/- and consequent torture meted with his daughter has also been mentioned. He had denied the suggestion that in the Panchyati, there is no mention of demand of dowry and no allegation of assaulting the deceased against all the accused persons except appellant, Md. Belal, who happens to be husband of the deceased. P.W.1-Md. Hadi is an independent witness. According to his evidence, Samida Khatton was married with Md. Belal in the year 1995 and just after one year of the marriage, Md. Belal, Md. Belal, who happens to be husband of the deceased. P.W.1-Md. Hadi is an independent witness. According to his evidence, Samida Khatton was married with Md. Belal in the year 1995 and just after one year of the marriage, Md. Belal, Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi started demanding Rs.25,000/- as dowry from Samida Khatoon to bring from her father. Samida Khatoon declined to fulfill the above demand and asked from her father then all the accused persons started assaulting and torturing her in various ways. He has further deposed that for pacifying the matter between the parties, several times, Panchyaits were convened and last Panchyati was held on 02.06.1998, because just on previous day i.e. 01.06.1998, Samida Khatoon was assaulted by the accused persons for not bringing Rs.25,000/- as dowry. The accused persons attended the Panchyati but declined to obey the order of panchyat and they were adamant unless Rs.25,000/- is given, they will not keep the daughter of the informant peacefully. Thereafter, the dead body of Samida Khatoon was found in open field of Amin Sheikh near the culvert in injured condition. He has informed about the presence of dead body at place of occurrence to informant and saw the injuries were caused by knife and also burnt by iron. In his cross-examination, this witness has remained intact and nothing has been elicited to discredit his above testimony. P.W.2- Md. Murtaza is also an independent witness. According to this witness, Md. Belal was married with Samida Khatoon in the year 1995 and just after some days of marriage, the accused persons started demanding Rs.25,000/- as dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of which, Samida Khatoon was physically and mentally tortured in various ways. A Panchyati was held on 02.06.1998 due to physical assault given to Samida Khatoon and just in the night of said date of Panchyati, Samida Khatoon was done to death. He also saw her dead body lying in the field near railway track sustaining injuries caused by sharp- cut weapon. He has also stated in specific terms that due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry, the deceased was frequently assaulted and tortured and she has been done to death only because of dowry and no other reason. Some landed property was also given by the father of the deceased to the accused persons for construction of house but they were not satisfied. Some landed property was also given by the father of the deceased to the accused persons for construction of house but they were not satisfied. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. P.W.3-Md. Manan is also a local villager and an independent witness. He has also corroborated the prosecution story and deposed that the marriage of the deceased, Samida Khatoon was solemnized in the year 1995 with Md. Belal. Md. Sheikh Belal was asking for money as dowry and due to non- fulfillment of which, he was assaulting to his wife. He further states that about 3 to 4 occasions, Panchyatis were convened and on last Panchyati was held on 2 nd June, 1998 due to physical assault given by Md. Sheikh Belal to his wife, Samida Khatoon (since deceased). Thereafter, on 3 rd June, 1998, the dead body of Samida Khatoon was found outside the village in the field of Amin Sheikh near railway track. He also went to see the dead body. This witness has also not been contradicted in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. P.W.4, Md. Khalid has also stated about frequent scuffle between the deceased and her husband and in-laws and several Panchyatis were held in the village. Last panchyati was convened on 02.06.1998 and the decision of the Panchyati was not obeyed by the accused persons. He also saw the dead body of Samida Khatoon sustaining injuries. P.W.7-Sheikh Aninul is a formal witness and has proved the formal FIR as Ext.3 and fardbayan of the informant as Ext.4. P.W.8- ASI, Ram Nath Tiwari has also proved the fardbayan of the informant in his handwriting over which the signature of informant and other witnesses were also taken and forwarding the report in his hand writing for registration of the case, which is marked as Ext.5. P.W. 9- S.I., Anjani Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case and he was also Officer-in-Charge of Katras Police Station. According to his evidence on 03.06.1998, he took charge of investigation of this case. He prepared inquest report of the deceased and marked as Ext.6. He visited the place of occurrence. The first place of occurrence is the house of accused, Md. Belal situated in village Charidardih. According to his evidence on 03.06.1998, he took charge of investigation of this case. He prepared inquest report of the deceased and marked as Ext.6. He visited the place of occurrence. The first place of occurrence is the house of accused, Md. Belal situated in village Charidardih. The main door of the house is towards north and there are three rooms and one verandah and boundary wall towards east and west and south. The second place of occurrence is situated near the culvert about 30 yards away from the railway line in the field of Sheikh Amin. He recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained post-mortem report of the deceased and photocopy of some Panchyat documents (Ext.Y to Y/3) and finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons submitted charge-sheet for the offence under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . This witness has been cross-examined by the defence but no contradiction or attention of the witnesses towards any contradiction has been obtained by the defence but he admits that he also sent accused, Md. Belal for medical examination because he was also sustaining some injuries. The accused was examined by Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad and he has proved the injury report of Md. Belal as Ext. A and requisition for injury report was issued by him as Ext.A/1. There is nothing else in the evidence of this witness. 18. From the aforesaid testimony of ocular witnesses, it emerges that the witnesses of the facts P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have consistently proved that there was demand of dowry at the hands of the accused persons and due to non- fulfillment of which, the deceased was frequently tortured several times physically and mentally, Panchyatis were also held to resolve the matter but in vain. At this juncture, one Panchyat paper is pertaining dated 18.07.1996 (Ext.B) relied upon by the defence. A Panchyati was held due to frequent physical assault given by the husband of the deceased, Md. Belal to his wife and he was warned against the repeating such acts and to take Bidai of his wife and keep her peacefully. Another Panchyat document Ext.B/1 is dated 01.06.1997, this was also held for frequent assault and torture meted with the deceased at the hand of her husband and he was punished by the Panchyat by ups and down through ears. Another Panchyat document Ext.B/1 is dated 01.06.1997, this was also held for frequent assault and torture meted with the deceased at the hand of her husband and he was punished by the Panchyat by ups and down through ears. Another Panchyat document is of 02.06.1998 for physical assault given to Samida Khatoon by her husband but the husband did not attain the Panchyati on pretext of illness. Later on, Ext.C is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Md. Gayasuddin, informant-cum-father of the deceased in favour of Sarkun Bibi, mother-in-law of the deceased, total area of 39 decimals land. 19. From the documentary evidence of Panchyats, it appears that only husband of the deceased was involved in assaulting the deceased frequently and there is no allegation against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi respectively. There is un-rebutted testimony of witnesses as against Md. Belal that just after marriage since the year 1995, he started raising demand of money Rs.25,000/- from his wife through her parents and thereafter the sale deed in respect of 39 decimals land as stated by the informant was executed by him (Ext.C) on 18.03.1998. Although, in the Panchyat documents, there is allegation of only physical assault to the deceased by her husband but the demand of dowry Rs.25,000/- and also in consonance execution of sale deed has been proved by the prosecution, which has not been rebutted by the defence. 20. In view of the above discussion and oral as well as documentary evidence available on record adduced by both parties, there remains no doubt that the presumption of dowry death under Section 113 B of Indian EVIDENCE ACT can be raised only against the appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal and not against the rest of appellants, namely, Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi in as much as no specific role has been attributed against them nor the prosecution has been able to prove their involvement in the alleged occurrence. 21. In our considered view, since the prosecution has been able to prove the foundational facts and ingredients of offence under Section 304 B of INDIAN PENAL CODE against the appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal and no rebuttal evidence worth credence has been adduced by the defence showing innocence of appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal, his conviction and sentence does not suffer from any error of law. Sheikh Belal and no rebuttal evidence worth credence has been adduced by the defence showing innocence of appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal, his conviction and sentence does not suffer from any error of law. We further find that conviction and sentence of Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi is not justified under law due to lack of evidence showing their involvement in the alleged offence. 22. In view of the above discussion and reasons, conviction and sentence of Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi is, hereby, set aside and their appeal (Cr. Appeal (DB)No.1574 of 2023) is allowed. 23. So far as the conviction of appellant, Md. Belal is concerned, we concur with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and find no valid reasons to interfere with his conviction and sentence. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1517 of 2003 of appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal is dismissed. 24. It appears that the appellants, Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 25. The appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal is on bail, thus his bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. Further, he is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court to serve remaining period of custody awarded by the trial court and sentence of imprisonment undergone by him during trial of the case shall be set off. 26. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 27. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the trial court for information and needful.