Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—The present appeal has been filed under Section- 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna City, in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2011, (arising out of Khajekala P.S. Case No. 203 of 2009), whereby the appellant/convict has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section-304B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The period of custody has been ordered to be treated as period of sentence served.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Shivam and learned APP Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh for the respondent-State.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:—

“As per the F.I.R. lodged by the informant father on 17.09.2009, the daughter of the informant was married on 23.11.2005 with Rajeev Ranjan, younger son of Lakshman Ram, resident of Khajekala. After 15-20 days of the marriage, a dowry demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was made from his daughter by her father-in-law (Lakshman), mother-in-law, Ravi Ranjan and her husband (Rajeev Ranjan). The informant managed to fulfil the demand to the best of his capacity. His daughter was several times beaten and sent back to his house. For last few days, a refrigerator was being demanded which was given by the informant. The informant was informed by his daughter that the situation was tense for some days upon which he assured her to go to her soon. Last evening, he had a talk with his daughter when she wished happy birthday to his grandson. The situation at that time was quite normal. Last day i.e. on 16.09.2009, at 08:30 at night the informant was informed on telephone that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. At once, he reached Patna City with his family members at 11:00 hours in the night and he found his daughter lying dead on the ground. When he enquired as to how all this happened, Rajeev Ranjan, son-in-law, informed that she was wearing half of the sari and she used half of the sari to hang herself, which explanation did not inspire confidence. Her neck was injured with bleeding and deeply pressed from the front side and there was no injury on the back portion of the neck. The tongue of his daughter was not protruded. For the aforesaid reasons, the informant has apprehension that his daughter Deepa Rani was done to death by the appellant and other co-accused under a criminal conspiracy.”

4. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2011.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, at the outset, submits that there is a delay in lodging the FIR in which, with mala fide intention, the present appellant has been implicated. It is contended that, as per the case of the informant, he got the information that his daughter has committed suicide. Such information was received by him on 16-09-2009 at about 8.30 p.m. on telephone and he reached at 11:00 p.m. to the house of his daughter. However, the police came at the place of incident. Despite the presence of the police at the place, FIR was not filed by him immediately. It is further submitted that the written complaint was given on the next day, i.e. after funeral of his daughter, at about 2:00 p.m. on 17-09- 2009. Learned counsel would further submit that, in the written complaint given by the informant, he had stated about the telephone call from his daughter at 6:30 p.m. on the date prior to