D.N.Prasad, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by Shri Sudarshan Upadhaya, Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra in S.T. No. 10/93, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each.

2. One Juglal Rana submitted a written report before the police alleging therein that his daughter Guli Devi was married with Digeshwar Rana (appellant No. 1) in the year 1985 and there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. But, after marriage, the appellants started demanding a sum of Rs. 2,000/-as dowry, failing which they will kill the deceased. It is further alleged that on 6.1.1992, one Nirmal Rana informed him that his daughter, Guli Devi is missing from her house. On this information, the informant went to the village/sasural and came to know that the dead body of his daughter was floating in the well of Kisun Rana. It is claimed that all the appellants threw the dead body of his daughter in the well after committing murder. On the basis of the said written report, (the FIR) was lodged against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The police investigated into the case and submitted the charge-sheet against all the appellants.

3. All the appellants appeared in the lower Court and the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty.

4. The witnesses have been examined in the lower Court. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above.

5. Not being satisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellants as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further claimed that the Investigating Officer has not been examined to contradict the statement of the witnesses. It is further claimed that the story demand of Rs. 2,000/- has been concocted after-thought as there was no cogent evidence on this score, and as such, the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside.

6. There is allegation in the written report (Ext. 2) which was submitted by the informant himself that marriage took place as back as in the year 1985 and there was no demand of dowry made at the time of marriage, but it is alleged that all the appellants started demanding a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. It is further alleged that on 6.1.1992, he came to know that his daughter is missing and when he reached the sasural of his daughter, he found his daughter lying in a well.

7. The Doctor, PW 1 claimed to have examined the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person :

1. Left upper lips of mouth was partially lacerated size 2" x 1 /4".

2. Ecchymosis and swelling over right cheek area 3" x 2-1/2".

According to the Doctor, the cause of death is due to asphyxia resulting from drowning in water. Visceras were kept preserved for chemical examination. He further stated in his cross-examination that he did not receive examination report of viscera. The injuries found on the dead body may be caused even by fall on hard substance.

8. PW 2 is the cousin brother of the deceased. According to him, the appellants started demanding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from his sister, who had demanded the said amount from her father. He further admitted that he had written the said written report (Ext. 2) at the instance of his uncle, Juglal Rana, who put his LTI. He admitted in his cross-examination that they had come to know about the demand of dowry for the first time about five years ago, but he cannot say about the actual date of the said demand.

9. PW 3 is also the brother of the deceased. According to him, the appellants were demanding a sum of Rs