RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 02.02.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304B of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story in brief, as stated in the fardbeyan of the informant Renu Devi (the deceased) recorded on 16.03.1999 at about 11.30 am at T.M.H Jamshedpur, is that she was married to one Sudhir Thakur (now deceased) on 11.06.1987 according to Hindu rites and custom. After few months of her marriage, she went to her husband’s residence at Jamshedpur and started living with him and his elder brother and bhabhi (the present appellant). It has been alleged that the present appellant subjected the informant to torture by taunting that since she had come in the house, there was no peace and her husband went in a wrong path due to quarrel in the house and thus held her responsible for the trouble in the family. The appellant threw suitcase on two-three occasions upon her. Moreover, the husband of the deceased also subjected her to cruelty for demand of T.V and asked her to get money from her father for his job. Her husband also said that he was forced to marry her. The informant, to get rid of the torture subjected by her husband and the appellant, burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil. Thereafter, her brother-in-law (PW-1) and other persons came and extinguished the fire and took her to the T.M.H. hospital, Jamshedpur.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, an FIR being Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S Case No. 46 of 1999 was registered on 16.03.1999 under Section 498A of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the investigation, the informant died and as such the chargesheet was submitted against two accused persons namely Sudhir Thakur and the present appellant under section 498A, 304B of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against the accused persons including the appellant under section 498A, 304B of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 16.11.1999 and were tried accordingly.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire evidence is based on the circumstantial evidence and there is no such allegation which warrants conviction of the appellant. The fardbeyan of the deceased was recorded after an inordinate delay of four days of the alleged occurrence which raises serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that no torture was made by the appellant so as to abet the deceased to committee suicide. The prime accused of the present case i.e. the husband of the deceased has already died. There is no specific allegation against the present appellant with regard to demand of dowry or torture even in the dying declaration of the deceased and as such the contradictory statements made by the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed to be true. The alleged dying declaration should not be viewed seriously as the doctor in his evidence has clearly stated that he was not aware about the condition of the victim while giving her statement. It is also submitted that if the charge under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act falls, then the charges under section 304-B and section 498-A of IPC are bound to fall more so when there is no charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Per contra, the learned APP submits that the judgment of conviction has been passed primarily relying on the dying declaration and the same needs no corroboration. The prosecution witnesses hav