1. The appellant, Uday Kumar Mehta, was tried along with two others, Butu Mahato and Turani Devi, who are his parents. The appellant and other two accused were charged for the offence under Section 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Judge, while acquitting Butu Mahato and Turani Devi, found the appellant alone guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, while acquitted him of the other charges. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

2. The facts are the appellant is the husband of Madhuri Devi and married Madhuri Devi in the year 1987. It is the case of the prosecution that along with the appellant, the deceased Madhuri Devi and his parents, Butu Mahato and Turani Devi, were also living and Madhuri Devi, the deceased, after leaving her matrimonial house, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Civil Court, Garhwa, seeking maintenance from the appellant and that later, a compromise petition was filed before the Civil Court and that thereafter, the deceased was living with her husband and in-laws in her matrimonial house. The date of occurrence was after 10-11 months of the said compromise, which, according to the prosecution, took place on 28.4.1994.

3. On 28.4.1994, PW 5, Shree Mahto, was in his house and was informed by PW 4, Sanesh Mehata, that Madhuri Devi was burnt to death in her house. On getting the said information Shree Mahto along with his son. PW 2, Lalman Mahto, went to the residence of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead with burn injuries. He also found several villagers assembled there. Thereafter, PW 5, Shree Mahto, questioned them and the appellant as well as other two accused, but they did not give proper reply. A complaint, Ext. 1/1, was given to the police station by PW 5, father of the deceased, Shree Mahato, whose signature was marked as Ext. 1, and it was registered as Bhawnathpur P.S, Case No. 39/1994 for the offence under Section 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer and during the course of investigation, inquest was conducted in presence of Sitaram Mehta. At the time of inquest, PW 8 and others were examined and their statements were recorded.

4. The dead body was sent to the hospital with a request to conduct autopsy. PW 11, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Madhuri Devi and he found burn injuries on the whole body of the deceased, except lower parts of leg and feet. He issued post-mortem certificate, Ext. 4, but without expressing any opinion as to the cause of the death.

5. After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed against the appellant and other two accused.

6. When the appellant and other two accused were questioned on incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incriminating circumstances. They came with a definite case on the question of murder that on the date of occurrence, they were in their khalihan for thrashing crops, which was at a distance of 4 kms. from the scene of occurrence and that the younger brother of the appellant, on return from school at 4.00 p.m., found the door of the house bolted from inside and that according to the appellant, when it was not opened, several villagers had collected there and a small boy, after entering into the house through window, opened the door from inside, then they found the deceased lying dead and that when the appellant and two other accused returned, the information was, sent to her parents. In short, the case of the defence is that they were not in the house at the time of occurrence and that she committed suicide by setting herself on fire.

7. The appellant and two others, to butt