Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, the learned Advocate for the appellant/ Bishnu Yadav @ Bishundev Yadav @ Bishnudeo Yadav and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed by the 4th Additional and Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2015/ Trial No. 338 of 2016. By order passed on the same date i.e. on 29.06.2016, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence appears to have been passed under Section 498-A IPC. Despite this, the Trial Court has directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. There appears to be some non-application of mind while sentencing the appellant.

4. The deceased/ Fulkumari Devi is alleged to have been killed at the hands of he appellant and his father who has absconded. The deceased was married to the appellant about 17-18 years ago. Before that, she was married to the elder brother of the appellant. When the elder brother of the appellant died, the deceased was married to the appellant. With her earlier marriage, the deceased had given birth to one daughter. Later, with her marriage with the appellant, she gave birth to three children. The FIR has been lodged by Upendra Rana (PW- 6) who is the father of the deceased. He had lodged the written reported addressed to the Officer-in-charge of Banka Police Station on 14.02.2015 alleging that the appellant, after about eight years of his marriage with the deceased, started demanding money from the deceased by way of dowry. Non-payment of such dowry resulted in bad treatment to her. On 13.02.2015, the informant (PW-6) learnt that his daughter had been killed. At about 2 O'clock in the night intervening between 13-14th of April 2015, his grandson/Raj Dixit (DW-1) informed him about the death. On such information, he went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and saw her dead body which had several wounds on it.

5. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, a case vide Banka P.S. Case No. 87 of 2015 dated 14.02.2015 was registered for investigation under Sections 498-A/302/34 IPC.

6. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant only. However, the Magistrate took cognizance against the appellant and his father but the Trial of the appellant was separated because his father/ Anirudh Yadav absconded.

7. The Trial Court, after having examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that only interested witnesses have been examined at the Trial. It has further been argued that it is rather unusual that dowry would be demanded from a woman who had been married with the appellant for about 17-18 years and had many children from the wedlock. That apart, the deceased was married to the elder brother of the appellant and it was only by family arrangement that the appellant agreed to marry the deceased again, even though the deceased had given birth to a daughter from her earlier marriage with the elder brother of the appellant. The entire family stayed under the same roof. Under such circumstances, the story of demand of dowry after so many years of marriage does not appear to be probable. That apart, it has been argued, that there are some inconsistencies in the statement of the informant (PW-6) and the medical testimony. According to the information received by PW- 6, the deceased was assaulted which led to her death. The postmortem examination revealed only one fatal injury on the vertex which had exposed the skull bone. Such injury could have been as a result of fall on a hard substance. There was no immediate cause of any conflagration or fight. Thus, the argument on b