CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2014 and the order of sentence dated 29.01.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2010/67 of 2010, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:—

The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. P.W.-4, Shanti Kunwar, is the informant of Barauli P.S. Case No. 129 of 2009 and is the widow of the deceased. Her written report addressed to the Station House Officer, Barauli Police Station, in the district of Gopalganj is the basis for registration of the First Information Report, levelling Sections 328 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The date and time of receipt of information regarding the commission of offence in the police station as mentioned in the First Information Report is 03.10.2009 at 11 am. The date of occurrence is 02.10.2009. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence, as mentioned in the First Information Report, is four kms.

4. The prosecution’s case as unfolded in the written report of the informant is that in the morning of 02.10.2009, the informant’s husband Chandrama Yadav, the deceased, had left the house telling the informant that he was going to ease himself. She anxiously waited for him till 4 pm in the evening. He, however, did not return. Being perturbed regarding the whereabouts of her husband, she started making searches, during the course of which, she was informed by the brother of her father-in-law, Paras Choudhary (PW-3)(uncle of the deceased) that the deceased had died in the house of this appellant. She disclosed in the written report that the deceased was on inimical term with accused Bhutkul Yadav, Subhash Yadav, Nand Lal Prasad and Harish Chandra Prasad and, therefore, under a conspiracy with this appellant, they got the deceased killed and were intending to get the dead body disappear, but before they could do so, she and the villagers assembled near the dead body and when the police came, she gave her written report on 03.10.2009.

5. The Investigating officer prepared the inquest report (Exhibit-2) on 03.10.2009.

6. The records demonstrate that the appellant was arrested on 03.10.2009 itself from her house. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted at 2.30 pm on 03.10.2009, when following external and internal ante mortem injuries were found:—

“External Injuries:—

(i) Blood stained discharge from nose, bluish discoloration of face lip, Lt. and Rt. eyes closed, mouth partially opened. External genitalia normal.

On dissection:—

Scalp intact, brain congested. No intracranial haemorrhage, trachea normal, chest intact, heart-both chambers empty, both lungs congested. All viscera congested – No free fluid. Stomach – contention of mucosa present. Small amount of fluid present. Intestine-contained fluid and gases. Urinary bladder empty.

Time elapsed since death – within 36 to 72 hours.

Cause of death – visceras preserved for chemical analysis and opinion reserved.”

7. Time elapsed since death was found to be between 36 to 72 hours. For ascertaining cause of death, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and was sent to the Forensic Sciences La