C.V. BHADANG, J.

1. All these appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 24.09.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 27/2011. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants (original accused nos. 1, 2 and 4) along with Anandi Gawas (accused no. 3) were put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment has convicted the appellants and Anandi Gawas for the offences as charged.

For the offence under Section 498A of IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. For the offence under Section 304B of IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and lastly for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

2. The prosecution case, shorn of minor details may be stated thus:-

The Appellant-Prakash Gawas (accused no. 1) was married to now deceased Pramila alias Sunita Gawas, somewhere in July 2006. After her marriage, she started residing with her husband and the co-accused, who are her in-laws, at her matrimonial house at Van Maulinguem, Bicholim. Atmaram Gaonkar (PW-1), the complainant, is the brother of Pramila, who resides at Kudchirem, Bicholim. The marriage of Atmaram Gaonkar (PW-1) was settled with a girl from Van Maulinguem and the engagement ceremony was fixed on 22.06.2011 at Van Maulinguem, followed by marriage ceremony on 26.06.2011. It is the material prosecution case that none of the accused attended the engagement ceremony on 22.06.2011 nor Pramila was allowed to attend the same. On the following day i.e. 23.06.2011, Pramila met with an unnatural death by burning, in which she received 95% burn injuries. Initially, a case of unnatural death was registered in the matter, being UD No. 41/2011.

3. Atmaram Gaonkar (PW-1) lodged a complaint (Exhibit-20) with P.S. Bicholim on the same day, alleging that Pramila was ill treated and harassed by her husband and her inlaws, on account of the fact that she was not begetting a child and also on account of non satisfaction of a demand for dowry. On the basis of the complaint, an offence at Crime No. 119/2011 was registered against the appellants and Anandi Gawas. During the course of the investigation, a supplementary statement of the complainant came to be recorded on 27.06.2011. The Investigating Officer drew spot panchanama of the scene of occurrence and an inquest of the dead body of Pramila. The dead body was sent for the postmortem examination. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded, including the neighbours from Van Maulinguem and Kudchirem. The seized articles were sent for the report of the chemical analyser. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to filed, which was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. The learned Sessions Judge initially framed a charge against the appellants and Anandi Gawas, on 05.12.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304B and Section 302 of IPC. Subsequently, on 28.08.2015, a charge for the offence under Section 498A of IPC was added. The appellants/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellants/accused is one of total denial and false implication.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 24 witnesses and produced the record of investigation. The appellants neither entered into the witness box nor examined any defence witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following two points:-

1. Whether prosecution succeeded in proving that deceased Pramila was subjected to cruelty by ill treating her physically and mentally with a view to fulfill demand for dowry by all the accused persons?

2. Whether prosecution succeeded in proving that all