Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :-

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 24.04.1995, passed in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 1990 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. By the impugned judgement, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-

Conviction Sentence

Appellants 1, 2 and 3

u/s 304B IPC Imprisonment for life.

u/s 498A IPC RI for three years.

Sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant-4 :

u/s 304B r/w Section 109 IPC Imprisonment for life.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :

The Deceased was married to appellant Alok Pandey (A-3) on 09.03.1988. Appellant Shriram Pandey (A-1) is father-in-law of the Deceased and appellant Smt. Kamla Pandey (A-2) is mother-in-law of the Deceased. Appellant Nagnarayan Sinha (A-4) was a next door neighbour of appellants-1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2). The Deceased was residing with her husband and in-laws in her in-laws house. She died on account of hanging in her in-laws house at about 10:00-10:30 am on 03.04.1988. She was taken to the hospital and was examined by Dr. VVB Rao (PW-11). After the examination when he found that she was dead, a merg intimation (Ex.P/3) was sent to the police station at about 11:30 am. Inquest on the dead-body of the Deceased (Ex.P/4) was prepared and dead-body was sent for post-mortem to the Government Hospital, Durg, vide requisition Ex.P/5. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. MC Mehnoth (PW-10). He found a broad ligature mark of about 1/2-inch over the front, left and right portion of her neck. Abrasions were also present along with the ligature mark. The ligature mark was antemortem. On internal examination, he found that the trachea, lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. The autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging, however, mode of death being suicidal or homicidal was not mentioned in the post-mortem report. The post-mortem report is Ex.P/6. On 03.03.1988, brother of the Deceased, namely, Siddhnath Dubey (PW-1) lodged First Information Report (FIR-Ex.P/1) on which offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B all read with Section 34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were registered. During the course of investigation, case-diary statements of Siddhnath Dubey (PW-1)-brother of the Deceased, Dashrath Dubey (PW-3)-father of the Deceased and Chandravathi @ Meera (PW-5)-sister of the Deceased were recorded on 03.04.1988. They made allegations that after the marriage the accused persons were treating the Deceased with cruelty and they were harassing her on account of demand of dowry. Thereafter, the accused persons were taken into custody and a charge-sheet was filed against them. Appellants-1 to 3 (A-1 to A-3) were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B, in alternative 306 IPC, whereas appellant Nagnarayan Sinha (A-4) was charged under Sections 306 read with Section 109 IPC and 304-B read with Section 109 IPC. The Sessions Judge, mainly relied on the testimonies of Siddhnath Dubey (PW-1), Dashrath Dubey (PW-3) and Chandravathi @ Meera (PW-5) and convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Hence, the present appeal.

BROAD SUBMISSIONS

3. Shri Arun Kochar, the counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-1, 2 and 3 has argued that the above three relative witnesses, namely, Siddhnath Dubey (PW-1), Dashrath Dubey (PW-3) and Chandravathi @ Meera (PW5) are not reliable witnesses. There are many contradictions in their case-diary statements and court evidence, therefore, the Sessions Judge erred in law in relying on their testimonies. He also argued that the appellants were not given proper opportunity to defend their case as an application filed by them under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling these witnesses, was rejected by the Sessions Court. He also argued that the appellants were not allowed to give their complete defence as their right to lead defence evidence was wrongly clo