1. Appellants being aggrieved by their conviction for offence under Sections 304b, 498a and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec.304b of the Indian Penal Code, passed by 5th additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions trial No.7 of 2000 (67 of 2000) have preferred this appeal. No separate sentence has been awarded for other offences, for which the appellants have been held guilty.

2. Prosecution story, according to the written report given by P. W.8 Rajendra choudhary before the Officer-Incharge of gurua police station on 10-1-1999, is that his daughter Sarswati Devi was married four years earlier to appellant No. l Surendra choudhary according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, according to the report sarswati Devi started living with her husband at her matrimonial-home. It has been alleged in the first information report that when his daughter used to come to her parents place, she used to narrate to her mother that her husband (appellant No. l), father-in-law rani Jatan Choudhary (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law Deo Rani Devi @ bardahi Devi (appellant No.3) make demand of dowry, particularly Scooter. In the written report he has also alleged that when he used to go tp matrimonial-home of his daughter, she used to narrate him about the demand made by her in-laws. According to the informant, on 25-12-1998 his son-in-law appellant Surendra Choudhary came to his house and stated that he had struck a deal for purchase of second-hand motorcycle for a sum of Rs.20,000.00 and demanded said amount for the purchase thereof. Informant showed his inability to pay the amount and stated that some amount shall be paid in the marriage of his son, whereupon appellant Surendra Choudhary got annoyed and left the place without taking meal. According to the informant, on 7-1-1999 when the informant went to the matrimonial-home of his daughter, her father-in-law appellant No.2 Ram Jatan Choudhary stated that Sarswati Devi had died and requested him to take away her son. Informant alleged that his daughter has been done to death by the appellants i. e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Gurua P. S. case No.2 of 1999 was registered under sec. 304b and 201 of the Indian Penal code.

3. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the appellants were ultimately committed to the Court of Session. During the trial they were charged for caus-ing the death of Sarswatl Devi for the demand of dowry, as also subjecting her to cruelty and for disappearance of the evidence for screening the legal punishment punishable under Sec.304b/34, 498a and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants refuted the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined ten witnesses, out of whom, P. W.8 Rajendra Choudhary is the informant. P. W.9 Chhotu Prasad is a formal witness and P. W.10 Anil Kumar Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the case. P. Ws.1 to 7 have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Appellants denied to have committed the offence and pleaded false implication. Their specific plea is that the deceased died of cold and diarrhoea. However, no defence witness has been examined. Besides aforesaid the mother of the deceased has been examined as Court witness No.1 and her father informant also as court witness No.2 (sic. l ).

5. Before we discuss the evidence of the witnesses, we deem it expedient to narrate the manner in which the trial has been conducted. Last of the witnesses shown in the charge-sheet was examined on 11-4-2001. In fact, the Counsel conducting the prosecution informed to the Court on the said 4ay that all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet have already been examined. However, the learned Judge finding that the name of the mother of the victim is not shown as a witness in the case and observing that young "women remains more c