Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Additional) Court, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif in S.T. No.51 of 1991/Tr. No.70 of 2002 arising out of Rahui P.S. Case No.2 of 1990, whereby the trial court has convicted both the above-named appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B of IPC and simple imprisonment for three years under Section 201 of the IPC respectively with a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two and half years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, as it appears from the written information that the informant, namely, Amrit Ram/PW-7, when visited the matrimonial village of his daughter in connection with some other work, he met with his ‘samdhi’, who responded him in very casual manner, causing a suspicion, whereafter he straightway go to the house of his daughter, where he found that his daughter is lying dead over a cot. He returned to his village and informed about the occurrence to Shiv Kumar Mahto, Nathun Tanti and Vijay Ram and taking them together, against came to matrimonial village of his daughter, namely, Panchitand, where he found the dead body of his daughter was missing and no family members were present over there. It was stated that his ‘samdhi’ and son-in-law usually tortured her daughter for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. He suspected that his daughter might be killed by his son-in-law, namely, Shyam Sundar Ram and his father. It is stated that the marriage was fixed against total cash amount of Rs.6,000/-, where Rs. 4,000/- was paid by him but, he could not manage balance amount of Rs.2,000/-.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written information, the police lodged a case as Rahui P.S. Case No. 2 of 1990. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 304-B and 201 of the IPC.

4. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate on the basis of materials collected during investigation took cognizance of the offence and after compliance of Section 207 of the CrPC, committed the case to the court of sessions in view of Section 209 of the CrPC for trial and disposal.

5. The learned Trial Court on the basis of materials as collected during the course of investigation explained charges to both above-named appellants/accused on 06.07.1991 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of the IPC, to which, they denied and pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed for trial.

6. As to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, they are:- PW-1 Siya Ram, PW-2 Karu Ram, PW-3 Vijay Ram, PW-4 Md. Wafauddin, PW-5 Banares Prasad, PW-6 Satendra Prasad, PW-7 Amrit Ram (informant), PW-8 Yadu Mahto and PW-9 Bhagwat Prasad.

7. The prosecution has also relied upon following documents exhibited during the course of trial: –

8. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial, both appellants/accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences surfaced against them separately, which they denied and shows their complete innocence.

9. The appellants/accused in their defence examined two witnesses, who are DW-1 Shyam Sundar Ram and DW-2 Mithilesh Prasad @ Meethu Mahto.

10. It is submitted by Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused that in pres