Ashutosh Kumar, J.—We have heard Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma for the State.

2. The appellant, who is the husband of the deceased has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2016, arising out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 74 of 2013, and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer imprisonment for two months and R.I. for four years under Section 201 of the IPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The FIR has been registered by Baichu Thakur (PW-4), who is the father of the deceased on 22.05.2013, alleging that his daughter was married to the appellant on 08.04.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. However, since the beginning of the marital life, the deceased was troubled in various ways by the appellant and members of his family. The intercession by PW-4 did not bear any fruit and his daughter had to come back to her parental home. Vexed by this, the deceased had to file a case against the appellant, which was pending consideration before a Court of law. Under the orders of the Court, the deceased had gone to join the appellant in her matrimonial home and within one month, she was killed by the appellant and several others whose names have been stated in the FIR and the dead body was disposed of stealthily without informing the PW-4 or any other members of the family of the deceased about such death.

4. On the basis of the afore-noted written report lodged by PW-4, Paroo P.S. Case No. 74 of 2013 dated 22.05.2013 was instituted for investigation for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. The police, however, did not find the entire accusation by PW-4 to be correct and therefore only charge-sheeted the appellant and his father (father-in-law of the deceased), who two were put on trial.

5. The Trial Court after having examined six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence, convicted the appellant as aforesaid but acquitted Rajendra Thakur (father-in-law of the deceased) for paucity of evidence against him.

6. Hence this appeal.

7. Mr. Yadav, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence worth the name to convict and sentence the appellant. True it is that the wife of the appellant has died but the death has not taken place under any mysterious circumstance. The deceased died a natural death after a brief illness which fact was made known to the informant and others. However, at the instance of the brother of the deceased namely, Ram Nath Thakur, his own name-sake (PW-2), this case was lodged against him. The other witnesses at the trial have not supported the prosecution version at all.

8. As opposed to the afore-noted contentions, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP has submitted that the deceased died under circumstances which are not known to anybody. It was, therefore, the duty of the appellant to have explained the nature of illness and the immediate cause of death of the deceased. That apart, in the absence of any evidence that last rites were performed before the dead body was cremated, it can only be presumed that such cremation of dead body was done in stealth for preventing any evidence to come to the fore with respect to her being killed. Apart from this, he has submitted that the Trial Court was absolutely justified in convicting the appellant as there was a previous history of the deceased having been ill-treated by the appellant and his family members, forcing her to leave her matrimonial home and go to her parental home. It was only under the orders of the Court that the deceased had come to the matrimonial home, but alas, was killed within a month of her joining the appellant as her husband. There is definite assertion