The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence to establish guilt, and the consideration of probablization of the defense's case.

Both these appeals are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 367 of 2013, appellant, Sheo Narain @ Shiv Narayan Pandit, a question has been raised during the pendency of the appeal regarding the juvenility of the appellant on the date of occurrence and a matriculation certificate was filed claiming that on the date of occurrence as per the matriculation certificate, prior to the incident, the appellant was juvenile, hence, the matter was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for a report and a report has been received. It is reported that the appellant was juvenile on the date of occurrence as he was only sixteen years nine month and 15 days, as per the matriculation certificate and the matriculation certificate has been verified by the Bihar State Examination Board to be proved. the learned counsel for the appellants, however, contends that the appellant was already in jail in all for three years as he was in jail from 09.08.2006 to 12.03.2007 and, further from the date of conviction, i.e., 01.04.2013, till date, hence, since he has already remained in jail for three years and the provision contained in Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as well as Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”)as per the decision reported in (2010) 15 SCC, 83 (Ajay Kumar Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh) if the appellant has remained in detention for more than the period provided for under Section 15 of the Act, then, as per Rule 98 of the Act he is required to immediately be released, hence, having regard to the facts of this case, the appellant, Sheo Narain @ Shiv Narayan Pandit, has already remained in jail for three years, it can be ordered for his release forthwith, if not required in any other case.

3. In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 319 of 2013 the appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim-deceased, who are non-else than the father and mother of Sheo Narain @ Shiv Narayan Pandit and they are convicted for offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and have, further, been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of rupees one thousand each for offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code and in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

4. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant, P.W. 6, Arjun Pandit, that he has married his daguther Anita Devi (deceased) with Sheo Narain @ Shiv Narayan Pandit about three years back. For some time the matter remained proper, but, thereafter, there is allegation of demand of motorcycle. It is further alleged that the accused persons, namely, Shiv Narayan Pandit, Kewal Pandit, Mauli Devi, Bilo Pandit, Rukmini Devi, Sukal Pandit and Sarjun Pandit always to have quarrel and assault the victim-deceased and they also used to tell her as dwarf and nati. It is, further, alleged that the victim-deceased was subjected to cruelty and assault and even thrown out of the house for non-fulfillment of the demand of motorcycle. In this regard, several times there were panchayati and even assurance was given in the Panchayati for keeping the victim with due dignity. It is, further, alleged that on 31.05.2006 in the night all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention killed the victim-deceased and the dead body was disposed off. The, further, case is that the information was received by the informant on 11.06.2006 in the morning from his brother-in-law Nai Narain Pandit, then, he went and enquired and learnt that above mentioned accused persons done to death and disposed off the dead body in the night itself. On the fardbeyan the first information report lodged and police after investigation submitted charge sheet, cognizance taken, case committed to the Court of sessions, and charge framed under Section 30