JUDGMENT

Lakshman Uraon, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th Sep­tember, 1999 and 28th September, 1999 respectively, passed by Sri Hari Deo Prasad, learned 1st Additions Sessions Judge Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1995, whereby and where under, the appel­lant has been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the In­dian Penal Code whereas no separate sentence was passed under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case is based on the written information, submitted by the informant Sumitra Devi (PW 6), alleging therein, that his daughter Smt. Indra Devi was married with this appellant Munna Lal Modi in the year, 1989. It is further alleged that her father-in-law Kati Modi, mother-­in-law, Nanad Sunita Devi and Bhasiur Dilip Lal Modi always used to assault Smt. Indra Devi for demand of Rs. 10,000/- ­towards dowry. They had threatened her not to remain in her in-laws house, unless the said amount is paid. On 2.5.10.1993 the informant gave Rs. 5,000/- to this appellant Munna Lal Modi alongwith utensils and golden chain. On 28.11.1993 Dilip Modi informed the informant that her daughter had fallen down from the roof and her right leg was broken. The informant sent her son Bhim Lal Modi to enquire into the matter. He was informed that his sister died due to burning. The informant suspected that all the members of her in­ laws had burnt Smt. Indira Devi to death, due to non-fulfillment of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, framed charges under Sec­tions 302/34, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Dilip Kumar Burnwal, Manoj Kumar Burnwal, Kuti Modi alias Janardan Burnwal, Radha Devi and Sunita Kumari. In course of trial, Kati Modi alias Janardan Burnwal died whereas other co-accused Dilip Kumar Burnwal, Radha Devi and Sunita Kumari were ac­quitted, giving them the benefit of doubt. On the other hand, this appellant Manoj Kumar Burnwal was convicted and sen­tenced, as stated above.

3. Assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 28.11.1999 the appellant informed the Of­ficer-in-Charge, Jamtara Police Station, that on 27.11.1993 while his wife Indira Devi was boiling milk on stove, she sus­tained burn injuries. He had his father were not present there. On information, he came and with the help of the villagers, took his wife Indira Devi for treatment to Sub-Divisional Hospital. Jamtara, where the succumbed to her injuries. On his fardbeyan U.D. Case No. 15 of 1993 (Ext. A) was registered. The appellant, thereafter, informed his in-laws, who immediately rushed to see Indira Devi. On 29.11.1993. Jhati Lal Burnwal, father of the deceased Indira Devi, in his fardbeyan, alleged that his daughter was burnt to death only due to non-fulfillment of dowry, amounting to Rs. 10.000/-. He also alleged that his daughter was being assaulted for demand of dowry.

4. The neighbours of the appellant, who are PWs 4, 7 and 12 have not sup­ported the prosecution case. They had seen the deceased having sustained the burn injuries. They have deposed that the deceased set herself on fire after closing the door from inside and sustained burn injuries. PW 10 who is father of the deceased has deposed that appellant never demanded Rs. 10.000/- as dowry from him nor he demanded the said amount from his daughter in his presence. There is no other witness to support the allegation regarding torture for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. PW 6, the informant, has deposed that her daughter informed her regarding demand of Rs. 5,000/- by this appellant. The informant had gone to the police sta­tion but the police officials did not institute, any ca