Akhilesh Chandra, J.

1. Both the appeals arising out of one and same judgment. They have been heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The solitary appellant Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha in Cr. Appeal No. 393 of 2011, stood charged only for the offence under Section 120-B, IPC whereas, appellant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, namely, Lal Mohan Rabidas, Gopal Rabidas, Bedamiya Devi and Bimli Devi in Cr. Appeal No. 448 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 304-B and 120-B, IPC and appellant No.2 Hira Rabidas for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC but the trial Court, i.e. 4th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Jamui vide judgment dated 23.3.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2001 arising out of Lakshmipur (Gidhaur) P.S. Case No. 124 of 2000 convicted, both sets of the appellants for the offence under Sections 304-B, 120-B and 498-A, IPC and accordingly sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Sections 304-B read with Section 120-B, IPC and further sentenced all the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 448 of 2011 for three years under Section 498-A read with Section 120-B, IPC and they are also ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for six months, giving rise to the present appeals.

3. Prosecution case is based on the statement of Basanti Devi, PW 7, recorded by S.P. Singh, S.I. Gidhaur P.S. on 11.10.2000 at 4 hours in presence of her son Tuntun Rabidas, PW 5, Niru Manjhi, PW 8 and Lato (not examined) is that her daughter deceased Suchita Devi was married in her child-hood with appellant Lal Mohan Rabidas and re-marriage (gauna) was performed just five to six years before and she was aged about 25 years. Soon after re-marriage she was being brutally treated by her husband and in-laws for petty demands causing her to reside mostly at maike. Roughly twenty days before she was brought by her husband on the assurance of good behavior. Just a day before the informant in the evening at five on 10.10.2000 learnt from one Shalik Rabidas, PW 6 about the deceased being injured and being provided concealed treatment by a doctor where she along with others arrived and found the treatment was going on by the appellant Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, but in spite of her request and attempt she was not permitting to even see her injured daughter though her in-laws and others were there. Some time thereafter the treating doctor (appellant) left the patient with intimation to shift her and immediately thereafter the informant and others could visit the injured and found her dead. Further allegation is that her husband and in-laws in want of dowry demands caused her bum injuries by Kerosene oil and in league with doctor getting her treated there where she could die.

4. The police after institution of the case and completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and after completing other legal requirements trial commenced wherein prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses besides producing the following documentary evidence:-

Ext. 1 - Signature of witness Tuntun Rabidas on fardbeyan.

Ext. 1/A - Signature of Lato Manjhi on fardbeyan.

Ext. 1/8 - Signature of Niru Manjhi on fardbeyan.

Ext. 2 - Formal F.I.R.

Ext. 3 - Endorsement and forwarding by the Officer Incharge.

Ext. 4 - Inquest Report.

Ext. 5 - Post-mortem Report.

Exts. 2 to 5 are not mentioned in the exhibit list, but the document bears endorsement and signature of P.O. and also finds corroborating from the evidence of PW 9 and order sheet of the Court below dated 18.9.2010.

5. In defence altogether eight witnesses have been produced but no documentary evidence. The trial Court on consideration of the materials convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner aforesaid.

6. It is contended by learned counsel representing the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 448 of 2011 that there is absolutely no material against the appellants, even marriage of the deceased was performed much more than seven years. There was no demand and it was an