Vishnudeo Narayan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.7.1997 passed in S.T. No. 345 of 1989 by Shri Dhruv Narain Upadhyay, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life. However, co-accused Karu Sao was found not guilty and acquitted of the said charge.

2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of P.W, 1. Narain Sah, the informant and father of Kanti Devi, the deceased of this case recorded by AST Rama Shankar Singh of Hirodih on 30.12.1987 at 15.30 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place between 26th December, 1987 and 30th December, 1987 at village Mukunriih in which the dowry death of Kanti Devi aforesaid was committed. The case was instituted by drawing of the formal FIR (Ext. 4) on that very day at 16.00 hours which was received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on the following day

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Kanti Devi, the deceased of this case is the lawfully wedded wife of appellant Suresh Prasad Sao, their marriage having been performed in the month of April, 1987 in which Rs. 15,000/- in cash and utensils worth Rs. 1,000/- were provided to the appellant as dowry and after the marriage she had gone to her matrimonial home where she was leading her conjugal life. It is alleged that the deceased had returned to her parents house in village Dhuba about five months ago and since then she was living there and she used to tell that the appellant and his father used to make a demand of Rs. 10,000/- for prosecuting the studies of B.Sc. of the appellant and for that they used to vex and harass her by diverse means. It is alleged that the informant expressed his inability to the appellant and his father in respect of providing them Rs. 10,000/-. The prosecution case further is that the deceased went to her matrimonial home one month prior to the occurrence but she was vexed and harassed causing physical and mental torture by diverse means by them and a letter was also sent by them in respect of the demand of Rs. 10,000/-. It is also alleged that the appellant had come to the house of the informant a week prior to the occurreence where he had reiterated the demand of the said amount as dowry to P.W. 3,Sita Devi, the wife of the informant, in presence of P.W. 4, Amina Khatoon wife of Lai Mohammad and the wife of P.W. 8, Yamuna Sah failing which she will lose her daughter. It is also alleged that KW. 3, Si ta Devi also expressed her inability in fulfilling the said demand and at this the appellant felt annoyed and returned from there. The prosecution case further is that the informant received an information that his daughter Kanti Devi is missing from her matrimonial home for the last four days and he went to village Hirodih of the appellant where he learnt that the dead body of a woman has been recovered from the well of Parmeshwar Modi and he went there and identified the said dead body to be of his daughter Kanli Devi aforesaid. Lastly it has been alleged that Kanti Devi has been done to death due to the non-fulfilment of the demand of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry made by the appellant.

4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case on mere suspicion. It has further been contended that never a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made from the deceased or her parents and the deceased was never treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home for the fulfilment of the alleged demand.

5. The prosecution has in all examined nine witnesses to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant. PW 1, Narain Sao, the informant and P.W. 3, Sita Devi are the father and moth