S.S. Shinde, J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.44 of 2010 on 04/07/2011. Originally there were five accused persons, who faced the trial. Out of them, original accused No.1 Bappasaheb Bhaskar Aware i.e. appellant No.1 herein and original accused No.3 Bhaskar Tukaram Aware i.e. appellant No.2 herein, (for the sake of brevity hereinafter they will be referred as 'the appellants') are convicted for the offence punishable under section-302 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the appellants are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer igorous Imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall further suffer R.I. for six months. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further R.I. for six months. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section-201 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further R.I. for six months. The Sessions Court ordered that, all the sentences shall run concurrently. The Sessions Court also ordered that, they are entitled for set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for predetention period in respect of appellant No.1 from 25/12/2009 to 04/07/2011 and in respect of appellant No.2 from 25/12/2009 to 23/04/2010. The Sessions Court acquitted remaining original accused No.2 Ramhari Bhaskar Aware, accused No.4 Suvarna Dattatraya Wagh and accused No.5 Kalpana Uttreshwar Shinde of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 201 read with section-34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under :

Original accused Nos.1 to 3 are resident of Malewadi and accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers interse. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sons of accused No.3, while accused Nos.4 and 5 are daughters of accused No.3. Deceased Sangita was daughter of PW-2 Dashrath Babasaheb Yede. The marriage between deceased Sangita and appellant No.1 Bappasaheb was settled and solemnized on 12/06/2009 at Vaijala by giving dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- along-with one Tolagold and daily utensils as per Hindu rites and custom. Huge expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- was done at the instance and pressure of the accused in the said marriage though PW-2 Dashrath was not in a position to make the said expenditure.

After one month of the marriage, PW-2 Dashrath went to Malewadi. Appellant No.1 Bappsaheb expressed displeasure over arrangement in the marriage and also told that due respects were not given in the said marriage. The appellant No.1 demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. PW-2 Dashrath told that, he was poor and could not satisfy his demand. At that time, accused No.2 Ramhari and sister in laws i.e., accused No.4 Suvarna and accused No.5 Kalpana assaulted-deceased Sangita in his presence by fist and kick blows. Appellant No.1 Bappasaheb cought hold collar of PW-2 Dashrath, locally called as “HINDI” and asked PW-2 Dashrath to give divorce. Appellant No.1 Bappasaheb also told that, he did not need his daughter. She was not good looking, therefore, he did not like her. He asked PW-2 Dashrath to bring Rs.1,00,000/, and in case amount is not given, gave threat to Dashrath that, he would see what can be done.

PW-2 Dashrath came back to his village and narrated the incident to PW-5 Chhagan. During th