1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.1.2002 passed by Sri Amaresh Kumar Lal, 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Chapra in S.Tr. No. 312/99 by which he has convicted the appellant u/s. 304B and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 14 years for offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3 years for the offence u/s. 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Kanchan Kumari, the daughter of the informant, was married to the appellant Satyendra Kumar Gupta on 2.7.1997. Co-accused Baijnath Sah, the maternal grand father of the appellant had adopted the appellant as his son. So, after marriage the girl went to the house of accused Baijnath Sah at village Repura and started living there. On 20.7.1997 the maternal uncle of the informant came and informed them that on 15.7.1997 Kanchan Kumari was pushed down in river from Katasa bridge as a result of which she was drowned and died. On this, the informant, his son Raja Ram Prasad, went to the house of accused Baijnath Sah, when the accused informed them that the appellant had taken his wife to his fathers house at village Uchaketuka ten days back and he was not aware of his whereabouts since then. The informant alongwith his son and one Santosh Kumar of Repura then made extensive search of his daughter and learnt that one dead body was floating in river near Siswani Mathiya. They went there and saw that the dead body was thoroughly eaten up by animals. Only the Sari, Lahthi (bungles) and Saya (petticoat) were there on the body. He identified the dead body to be of his daughter Kanchan Kumari on the basis of clothes as the clothes were given by him. It is further alleged that during marriage the appellant had demanded a T.V. and motorcycle, but as he could not meet the demand, the appellant was annoyed. The informant, hence, apprehended that for non-fulfilment of demand, the appellant, his maternal grand father Baijnath Sah and Khublal Sah (father of the appellant) committed the murder of his daughter and caused disappearance of the dead body.

3. On 22.7.1997 at 18 hours at Bheldi P.S. the Fard Beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant was recorded by the S.I. of Police, B. Ram. On the basis of the Fard Beyan formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) was drawn up at Amnaur (Bheldi) P.S. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet.

4. The appellant and the accused Baijnath Sah faced trial. Both were charged under Secs. 304B/201/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 They pleaded not guilty to the charges. Accused Baijnath Sah in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. took the defence that after a few days of marriage, the appellant had taken his wife Kanchan Kumari to his fathers house. The appellant in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had no knowledge about the whereabouts of Kanchan Kumari. Their further defence, as gathered from the suggestions given to the P.Ws., is that Kanchan Kumari was suffering from mental disease and on account of chat she went away somewhere without their knowledge.

5. During trial the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. P.W.1 Ram Naresh Vishwakarma, P.W. 3 Jhalku sah are seizure list witnesses. P.W.2 is Raja Ram Prasad, the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the informant, P.W.5 Santosh Kumar Sah has stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence. He has been declared hostile. P.W.6 Krishna Kumar Pandey is a formal witness and has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext.3), Fard Beyan (Ext.4), seizure list (Ext.5). P.W.7 Ajay Kumar Rai and P.W.9 Raghu Rai claim to have seen the appellant fleeing after drowning the deceased in river. P.W.8 Bhageran Sah is a hearsay witness and his evidence is not material for the decision of the case.

6. Learned trial court after considering the evidence on record held that the prosecution has been bale to prove the ingredients of sec. 304B against the appellant. He accordingly convicted