R.G. AVACHAT, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 13th November, 2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.248 of 2010, by which the original accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the present appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. By the very judgment and order, original accused Nos.4 to 6 have been acquitted of the offences they were charged with. The State did not file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder. They have further been directed to undergo terms of imprisonment for the rest of the offences, in addition to the directions to pay fine, and in default of payment thereof to undergo imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows:-

Mukta (deceased), daughter of PW1-Ramesh married to Dnyaneshwar - appellant No.1 ("A1", for short) on 23rd December, 2009. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 ("A2" and "A3", for short) are the parents of A1. A meeting for settlement of marriage of A1 with the deceased took place on 11th December, 2009. PW1-Ramesh had agreed to pay the appellants Rupees Five Lakhs towards dowry. Part payment of Rupees Two Lakhs was made. The balance amount was agreed to be paid in instalments. A2 is a Godman (Maharaj), who is also known as Kakde Maharaj. He was running a Math (monastery) on the land, admeasuring 10,000 sq.foot at Paithan (temple town). He has three sons, including A1. All his sons would assist him in religious activities and running Maths at places, such as Pandharpur and Alandi.

It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants ill-treated the deceased for balance amount of dowry. PW1-Ramesh had visited the house of the appellants on the eve of Nath Shasthi. During the said visit, the deceased had narrated him her woes. PW1- Ramesh, therefore, requested the appellants to send the deceased with him. The appellants refused. In April, 2010, PW1-Ramesh got Rupees two Lakhs of sugarcane bill. He paid the said amount to the appellants and assured to pay the balance amount within 8 to 15 days. It is also the case of the prosecution that the brother of the deceased had gone to fetch her for marriage of his cousin. The appellants refused to send the deceased unless the balance amount was paid. It is also the case of the prosecution that after some days, PW1-Ramesh along with his wife had gone to fetch the deceased. The appellants threatened him and told that if the amount was not paid, they would have to do something.

The prosecution case, as is further unfolded in the evidence of PW1-Ramesh, is that on the fateful day, one person came to take him to the house of the appellants to meet A2, as he was told by that person that A2 met with an accident. At about 6.00 p.m., PW1- Ramesh accompanied that fellow to the house of the appellants. A2 told PW1-Ramesh that the deceased fell off a chair while she was about to fetch a box/tin on the loft in the kitchen. PW1-Ramesh saw his daughter lying cool. She had suffered head injury. There were marks on her throat. Her blood was spread around her head. Some household articles were strewn in the kitchen. PW1-Ramesh, therefore, called some of his relatives. PW2-Vitthal is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He rushed to the house of the appellants to notice the very scene. He lodged report (Exh-39), based on which Accidental Death (A.D.) was registered. The inquest panchanama (Exh-37) was conducted. The mortal remains of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. PW9-Dr. Balaji Phalke, Medical Officer conducted the same. He gave his report (Exh-51). In his opinion, the cause of death is "due to asphyxia due to throttling". He had also noticed ante-mortem injurie