S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. In Sessions Case No.182 of 2014 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule has awarded death sentence to accused No.1 therein, the proceedings in the said case, have been therefore forwarded to this Court for confirmation under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Accused No.1 along with other accused i.e. accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 have also preferred Criminal Appeal No.701 of 2016, challenging the Judgment and order dated 10th November 2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.182 of 2014. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule vide Judgment and order dated 10th November 2016, convicted accused No.1 Nitin Balkisan Gaikwad for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is sentenced to Death. Accused No.1 Nitin is convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- , in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused No.1 Nitin is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- , in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Accused No. 2 Vimalbai Balkisan Gaikwad, accused No.3 Dnyaneshwar Balkissan Gaikwad and accused No.4 Pappu Balkisan Gaikwad are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.

3. As both the matters are arising out of one judgment, the arguments in both the matters are simultaneously heard and we find it expedient to decide both the matters by common reasoning. However, since the very conviction has been challenged by the convict, the only proper course would be to first decide the Criminal Appeal so filed by the accused, for the reason that, only if the order of conviction is maintained by this Court, the further question will arise whether or not the death sentence awarded by the trial Court is sustainable and is to be confirmed or otherwise.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

5. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief as stated before the trial Court is as under:

(A) The prosecution case disclosed from charge sheet and the relevant police papers, is a heinous crime which shows the social menace of dowry and strong emotions of vengeance can lead harassment of a woman to the extent of heinous and brutal murder of her.

(B) Accused No.1 Nitin is husband of Pranita (deceased) and accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the mother and brothers of accused No.1 Nitin. Before about 2 months of the date of incident i.e. 25th July, 2014, victim Pranita and accused No.1 Nitin got married. Accused No.1 was working in Agricultural College, Dhule, as a Driver and was residing in the campus of the Agricultural College in staff quarters. On the day of incident i.e. the fateful night of 24th July, 2014 and 25th July, 2014, only accused No.1 Nitin and his wife Pranita were present in the Quarter No. E5.

(C) Regarding the incident, one Dr. Pravin Rathod working in the Agricultural College, Dhule as a Specialist gave report on 25th July, 2014 at about 11.00 a.m., that while he was on duty at 10.00 a.m., on that day one staff member namely, Prachi Kale told him that the house of accused No.1 Nitin is closed from inside and he or his wife are not opening the door, therefore, something is wrong there. On her say, the complainant along with other staff went to Quarter No. E5, where they saw that people have gathered over there and front door as well as the rear door of the house was closed from in