IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity for the prosecution to provide clear and cogent evidence in circumstantial cases, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and excluding all other reasonable hypotheses.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

The appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Fast Track Court No. VI, in Sessions Trial No. 425/90/73/17, arising out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 44 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The father of the deceased Gopal Sharan Singh is the informant of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 44/86, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which culminated into the aforementioned Sessions Trial No. 425/90/73/17. It is his case disclosed in the written report that his daughter Kamlesh Devi was married few years ago to the appellant Dhanraj Sharma. He alleged that this appellant and his elder brother Murli Manohar Sharma (also appellant) and other family members used to taunt her and torture her for not giving enough dowry and they used to make demand of dowry. According to the informant, his younger brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW 1) had got an information on 04.05.1986 that the deceased had called him for something urgent and when he went there, the deceased complained about demand of dowry and threats issued by her in-laws of killing her if the demand of dowry was not met. She had showed to DW-1 marks of injuries on her body said to have been caused by these appellants. On 09.05.1986, he learnt from his brother (DW 1) that the deceased had been killed and the dead-body had been cremated. Thereafter, he went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and inquired from his son-in-law (the appellant, Dhanraj Sharma) about the occurrence, whereafter both the appellants fled away from their house. He further mentioned that on enquiry from a lady (mahuariwali-Mossamatt), he learnt that the victim had died and the dead-body had been cremated.

3. Two things emerge from the contents of the First Information Report. Firstly, the informant was informed by his brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW-1) that the victim had been killed and the dead-body was cremated by these appellants and, secondly, the informant had learnt from some of the co-villagers of these appellants that the victim had died and the dead-body was cremated. In the FIR, these appellants and the said Mossmatt Mahuariwali was named as accused. The police, upon completion of investigation, initially submitted charge-sheet against the appellant Dhanraj Sharma only and subsequently against the appellant Murli Manohar Sharma, showing the third named accused person as dead. Cognizance was taken and charges were framed against these appellants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. At the trial, five prosecution witnesses, namely, Balram Paswan, a labour working under the informant (PW 1), Kamta Singh (PW 2, declared hostil