Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Originally, this appeal was filed also by Suraj Mahto, Laxmi Mahto and Somari Yadav along with the aforesaid appellants but due to their death, vide order dated 06.11.2023, appeal filed by appellants, namely, Suraj Mahto, Laxmi Mahto and Somari Yadav has been abated.

3. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1995, by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah.

4. By the impugned judgment and order appellant no. 1, Dharam Mahato was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with direction that both the sentences awarded against appellant no. 1 will run concurrently and appellant no. 2, Meena Devi was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of written report dated 30.04.1994 (Exhibit-2) of Ram Prasad Mahato (PW-5) addressed to the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran at Bettiah, Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 62 of 1994 was registered on 02.05.1994 for the offences under Sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the occurrence alleged to be occurred on 27.04.1994. It is alleged in the said written report of the informant that his daughter Nirmala Devi was married with Dharam Mahato (accused appellant no. 1) in village Shekhauna Math in the year 1985 and since then till December 1993, Nirmala Devi used to come and go at the house of the informant but for some years on account of mutual differences with her husband, Nirmala Devi did not like to live in her matrimonial home and had orally conveyed that her in-laws used to threaten her to kill her. It was informed by the daughter of informant that appellant no. 1 was residing with wife of his elder brother, Laxmi Mahto and due to that reason they had mutual difference and she does not want to live there. The informant along with 5-6 relatives went there and held a Panchayati where their differences were got settled. Thereafter, his Samadhi, Suraj Mahto by sending his son, call back victim Nirmala Devi to her matrimonial home. On 28.04.1994 the information was sent by an unknown person at about 2 to 2.30 P.M. that his daughter had died on 27.04.1994 and also performed funeral ceremony (Dah-sanskar). On receiving the aforesaid information he visited Shekhauna (the house of his son-in-law) and enquired with his Samadhi, Suraj Mahto, with respect to death of his daughter who had not given satisfactory answer, which shows that his daughter might have been killed. The informant further stated in the First Information Report that his daughter was pregnant with four months. He found that her Dah-sanskar was not performed where the people of village used to perform and had cremated the dead body in a corner of his field and due to that about 10 shisham tree was also burnt. The informant on that background filed written report on 30.04.1994 before the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah for taking action against husband and in-laws of her daughter i.e. Suraj Mahto, Laxmi Mahto, Dharam Mahato (appellant no. 1), Mina Devi (appellant no. 2) and Somari Yadav and accordingly the aforesaid case was instituted.

6. Investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against accused persons including the appellants. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against the appellants under Sections 302/34, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution adduced following six witness