As both the aforesaid criminal appeals have cropped up from the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence, hence, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Dr. Bidhu Ranjan and Ashok Kumar Jha learned counsels for the appellants, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Chand S. Singh Azad learned counsels for the informant and Mr. Ajay Mishra learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in both these appeals.

3. The aforesaid two criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.04.2012 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Purnea in Sessions Trial no. 1019 of 2007/Trial No.113 of 2009, arising out of Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 129 of 2007, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused Randhir Rai @ Randhir Kumar Rai and Most. Veena Devi under Section 304- B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'I.P.C.') and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life under the aforesaid section.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 129 of 2007 was instituted under Section 304-B and 201/34 IPC against accused Randhir Rai and Veena Devi on the basis of written report of Deepak Kumar Singh, son of Ravindra Prasad Singh addressed to the S.H.O. P.S. Dhamdaha with the allegation in succinct that he had performed marriage of his cousin sister, namely, Samta Kumari with Randhir Rai in the month of May, 2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals but two months later to the marriage Randhir Rai and his mother Veena Devi started tormenting his sister for dowry. They were mounting pressure to give them sometime rupees one lakh and sometime rupees two lakhs and marshal jeep for the last couple of months. He had accorded rupees fifty thousand to them two months back for making furniture but they are again making demand. Further allegation is that in the night of 16.08.2007 Randhir Rai and Veena Devi set his sister ablaze and in order to conceal the evidence his mother Veena Devi went to her school and after her departure Randhir Rai started making hulla that victim has committed suicide by setting her ablaze in the day. Further allegation is that Randhir Rai is having illicit relation with Jyoti Kumari who is working in his coaching center, namely, Sumitra Sishu Gyan Mandir, Dhamdaha. It is claimed by the informant that the aforesaid accused persons have committed murder of her sister for dowry. He got information of the occurrence on telephone.

5. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the aforesaid accused persons.

6. On receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, and after commitment and on transfer finally the case came in seisin of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Purnea for trial.

7. Charge against the accused Randhir Rai and Veena Devi was framed under Section 304-B and 201/34 I.P.C. Charge was read over and explained to them by the Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 prosecution witnesses namely, Binod Kumar Singh as PW-1, Shambhu Prasad Chaudhary as PW-2, Vivekanand Singh, who happens to be father of the deceased as PW-3, Ashish Kumar, cousin brother of the deceasaed as PW-4, Anjani Kumar Singh, co-villager of the informant as PW-5, Binay Singh @ Vijay Singh, uncle of the deceased, as PW-6, informant Deepak Kumar Singh as PW-7, Shiv Balak Singh, maternal grandfather of the deceased as PW- 8, Dr. Rajesh Bharti, who conducted the autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased, as PW-9, Kiran Devi, mother of the deceased as PW-10, Dr. Nan