Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. Both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2017/05.12.2017, holding them guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2016, arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2016 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302/34 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 201/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of total fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The allegation against the appellants is of having killed one Manoj, who is the husband of appellant/Gyanwati Devi. Appellants Gyanwati Devi and Amar Chouhan had illicit relationship between them and this was the reason for the murder.

4. The FIR, however, was lodged by appellant/Gyanwati vide Rajpur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2016 in which she had alleged that her husband had left home with the assurance that he would come back by lunch time. When he did not come back, Gyanwati tried to locate him by calling on his mobile telephone but that was found to be switched-off. Later, the women folk of the locality reported that a dead body was found lying in a ditch in front of the house of one Putul. She went there to find the dead body of her husband (deceased).

5. Shortly after the police took up the investigation and recorded the statement of the children of the deceased and Gyanwati/appellant, the case was closed in the sense that the dead body was recovered and it was learnt through the mouth of the children of the deceased that Gyanwati and Amar had made the deceased suffocate by putting cloth in his mouth after sedating him by mixing some deleterious medicine with eggs and thereafter the deceased was killed, his hands and legs were tied and the dead body was kept in a sack which later was thrown in the ditch somewhere near the house of appellant/Gyanwati. Most of the witnesses have relied upon what they heard from the children of the deceased.

6. Sakuntla Devi/P.W. 1, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased, has alleged that after killing the deceased, Gyanwati/appellant made a pretence of searching her husband.

7. The family was separated from before and Gyanwati did not have good relations with the deceased.

8. Amar Chouhan/appellant, who is the son of the sister-in-law of the sister of Gyanwati/appellant, stayed in the same house and with whom, Gyanwati had illicit relationship. Because of such relationship between them, the deceased always fought with his wife (Gyanwati).

9. It further appears from her deposition that she was told by Khushi Kumari, who has not been examined, that the deceased was killed at the hands of the appellants. She has denied the suggestion that because the deceased was dead and his wife was arrested, this was ploy to appropriate the property, which had fallen in the share of the deceased.

10. Harihar Chouhan/P.W. 2, a co-villager, also claimed to have learnt about the deceased having been killed at the hands of his wife and her paramour. The source of information to him was again the statements made by the children of the deceased. He was also informed that the deceased always protested against the appellant/Amar residing in his house. One of the children of the deceased had also stated that the deceased was hit by a stone. Before P.W. 2, a stone was seized from the roof-top of the house of appellant/Gyanwati.

11. It is important to note that P.W. 2 is the Sarpanch of the village but he had no idea as to from where the dead body was recovered. He had never made any statement before the police and for the first time, he stood as a witness in the case before the Trial Court.

12. Kajal Kumari, aged about nine years has been examined as P.W. 3, who did not ans