SUDHIR SINGH, J.:–The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.1996, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Naugachia in Sessions Trial No.386 of 1995 arising out of Naugachia P.S. case No.268 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate punishment was awarded under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant (P.W.5) gave a written report dated 31.12.1993 (marked Ext-1) to the police, alleging therein that deceased Sabita Devi was married to the appellant in the year 1985. Thereafter, appellant developed illicit relation with his Bhabhi (accused Meena Devi), and this is why appellant and his Bhabhi (accused Meena Devi) used to assault deceased Sabita Devi very often. Further, it has been alleged that at times she was assaulted so brutally that she would not be in a position to move for about 15 days. A year prior to the occurrence, appellant had forced the deceased to go to her parents’ house after assaulting her. Thereafter, due to intervention of society, a compromise was entered into and she was again brought to her Sasural at village Bagari. After that, she lived there continuously, but the cruelty upon her continued. In the night of 30.11.1993, Sabita (deceased) was assaulted by all the accused persons brutally and her cry was heard by the neighbours. Further, it has been alleged that she was strangulated to death and her dead body was thrown in the Churher river. After the occurrence, someone went to the house of the informant, at his village, and informed him about it, whereupon the informant went to village Bagari, where his sister was found traceless and on making enquiry appellant told him that she had gone somewhere. Then the informant came to know from the villagers that Sabita Devi (deceased) had been thrown into Churher river after her murder. Thereafter, the informant along with his own villagers went to river Churher, where the dead body of his sister was found on the bank of the river. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that a month prior to the occurrence, appellant had demanded Rs.12,000/- from the informant in order to purchase a piece of land.

On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant, Naugachia P.S. case No.268 of 1993 was registered against the appellant, his brother Bagho Yadav and his Bhabhi Meena Devi. The police, then, proceeded to investigate the case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all three accused persons. The jurisdictional Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charges were framed against all three accused persons under Sections 302, 201 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. All three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court acquitted accused Barho Yadav and Meena Devi of the charges framed but convicted the appellant Garho Yadav.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses. P.W.1 Neetu Kumari is daughter of the deceased. P.W.2 is Chandra Deo Yadav (declared hostile), P.W.3 is Kesho Yadav (declared hostile) and P.W.4 is Bhola Yadav (declared hostile). P.W.5 Pramod Kumar Yadav is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.6 Diwakar Goswami is a witness on inquest report. P.W.7 is Subodh Yadav. P.W.8 Sitaram Hansda, is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.9 is Dr. Manoranjan Chaturvedi, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. The prosecution has also brought on record documents like the fard beyan (Ext-1), inquest report (Ext-4) and the postmortem report (Ext-5). The defence has not exami