Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

The learned counsel for the accused appellant has chosen to argue on appeal instead of bail application to which learned AGA has agreed.

2. Heard Sri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel to the appellant and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Jalaun at Orai by which the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant in S.T. No. 31 of 2017, Case Crime No. 243 of 2016, Police Station- Dakor, District-Jalaun and has sentenced the accused-appellant Rajendra under section 304-B I.P.C. for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 15,000/- fine, under section 498-A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.3,000/- fine and under section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act for five year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 15,000/- fine.

4. One FIR was lodged by the informant Manohar stating that his daughter Varsha was married with Rajendra on 24.06.2012 according to Hindu Rights and Rituals. Despite sufficient dowry given, after six months of marriage, the accused-appellant started demanding motorcycle and golden chain and harassing the deceased for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. The mother-in-law of the deceased, Gyasi also supported the accused-appellant for doing so In the last Raksha Bandhan, a settlement took place between them and it was communicated to the accused-appellant that they are not in a financial position to fulfil the demand. The accused-appellant however, continued cruel treatment and harassment and on 12.11.2016, Versha committed suicide by hanging herself. The FIR was registered for the offence under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The dead body was taken into custody by the police and was sent for post-mortem. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for the said offences. The learned trial court framed charge under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, and in alternative, framed charge under section 302 IPC.

5. The prosecution examined PW-1 Manohar, (informant father), PW-2 Smt. Kusum Devi (mother), and PW-3 Sunil Kumar Agrawal. The accused-appellant admitted the genuineness of police papers.

6. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Rajendra by impugned judgment. Hence, aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel to the accused-appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that two witnesses i.e. PW-1 Manohar who is father of the deceased and PW-2 Smt. Kusum Devi, mother of the deceased have been examined and both were declared hostile by the prosecution. The judgment of conviction and sentence thereupon recorded by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and not based on the evidences available on record and is liable to be set aside.

8. Sri L.D. Rajbhar, the learned AGA has however, submitted that PW-1, Manohar was examined by the prosecution who supported the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief, but he turned hostile during his cross-examination and, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court cannot be said to be baseless and without any evidence.

9. In V.K. Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 and Panchanand Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand, (2013) 9 SCC 800, it has been held that before recording conviction of an accused u/s 304-B IPC, the following conditions must be proved-

1. That the death of woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.

2. That such a death should have occurred within 7 years of marriage.

3. That the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

4. That such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.

5. That