JUDGMENT

A.M. Badar, J. - By this appeal, appellants/accused are challenging the judgment and order, dated 15.07.1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Purnia, in S. Tr. No. 241 of 1993 (Trial No. 71 of 1993) thereby convicting them of offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 thereof. For the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of appellants/accused can be summarized, thus:

(a) Appellant no. 1, Kalawati Devi, is mother-in-law whereas appellant no. 2, Sudama Devi, is widow of Mahendra Ram. Appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi married Mahendra Ram (since deceased) about 7 years prior to the incident. She started cohabiting with Mahendra Ram three years after her marriage. After staying at her matrimonial house for a period of one year, she insisted for going to her parental house and that is how Mahendra Ram (since dead) reached her to her parental house. According to the prosecution case, thereafter, appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, never returned back to her matrimonial house for resuming cohabition. It is averred by the prosecution that she was having illicit affairs with some other person. Though Mahendra Ram repeatedly attempted to bring back appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, he was abused on several occasions by his in-laws. Appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi, never accompanied him to her matrimonial house.

(b) The prosecution further, averred that 15 days prior to lodgment of the first information report, Mahendra Ram (since dead) eturned back to his parental house from Punjab. He informed his mother Savitri Devi, wife of Kalar Ram (P.W. 1 and the first informant) that he will repay the debt of Rs.500/- taken from a mahajan of the village of his in-laws and then he will return by taking with him his wife, i.e., appellant/accused no. 2, Sudama Devi. Mahendra Ram is stated to have left the house thereafter. However, he did not return. Ultimately, on 25.09.1991 one Vidyanand, who happens to be son-in-law of first informant P.W. 1, Most. Savitri Devi informed her that Mahendra Ram is done to death by accused persons by strangulating him and they destroyed the evidence of commission of offence by throwing his dead body in a river.

(c) Upon hearing this information, given by Vidyanand, first informant/P.W.I Mrs. Savitri Devi along with her relatives immediately went to the house of appellants/accused at Janki Nagar and enquired from them regarding where-about of Mahendra Ram. Appellants/accused persons told them that Mahendra Ram died as he suffered ailment of stomach up-set. Suspecting foul play on the part of the appellants/accused persons P. W. 1 Mrs. Savitri Devi rushed to Police Station, Janki Nagar, and lodged the report, on the basis of which Crime No. 212 of 1991 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants/accused persons.

(d) During the course of investigation, dead body of Mahendra Ram came to be recovered from the river. It was sent for autopsy. Autopsy Surgeon found that Mahendra Ram died because of asphyxia caused by strangulation.

(e) On completion of routine investigation, the appellants/accused came to be charge-sheeted. On committal of the case, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants/accused persons. They abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

(f) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined its witnesses. However, the appellants/accused persons did not enter in defence.

(g) Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment was pleased to conclude that the prosecution has