Pritinker Diwaker, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katghora, Distt. Korba in S.T.No.113 of 2009 convicting each of the accused/appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case name of the deceased is Santoshi Bai, wife of appellant No.1 Vinay Kumar, their marriage was solemnized some time in May, 2007 and out of the wedlock they have a son. Appellant No.2 Manrakhan is father of appellant No.1 whereas appellant No.3 Vinod Kumar is elder brother of appellant No.1 and appellant No.4 Rajkunwar is wife of appellant No.2 and mother of appellants No.1 & 3. As per the prosecution case, in the night intervening 19/20th July, 2009 the deceased was murdered by the accused persons in her matrimonial house. Merg intimation Ex.P/1 was recorded on 20.7.2009 at 9.45 am at the instance of PW-1 Prahlad, father of the deceased. Inquest on the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Pradeep Agrawal vide Ex.P/7 who noticed abrasions on neck, right submandibular region, cheek, contusion in left leg, presence of subcutaneous ecchyomosis and found that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. In his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling and that the death was homicidal in nature. After receiving postmortem report and completing merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P/8) was registered against the accused/appellant on 21.7.2009 under Sections 304-B, 302, 34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and accordingly, charges were framed against them under Sections 498-A, 302, 34 and alternatively under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, they examined two witnesses.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:

(i) that the deceased was a patient of epilepsy and appears to have died of the said disease.

(ii) that either the deceased in the fit of epilepsy had fallen down or during the course of epileptic attack might have pressed her neck which unfortunately resulted in her death.

(iii) that there is evidence on record that appellants No. 2, 3 & 4 were residing separately and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove their involvement in commission of the crime in question based on the evidence adduced by it.

(iv) that at the time of incident, appellant No.1 was not present in the house, at the relevant time chhatti ceremony was going on in the house of the appellants and therefore, it is literally impossible for anyone to commit murder of the deceased in presence of number of persons there.

(v) that dead body has not been found inside the room of appellant No.1 and therefore, he cannot be connected with her murder.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel as under:

(i) that dead body has been found in the veranda adjacent to room of appellant No.1 and thus, burden lies on him to satisfactorily explain as to how the deceased died.

(ii) that the other appellants were not only present at the time of occurrence but were also residing with appellant No.1.

(iii) that number of injuries have been found on the body of the deceased, in particular aro