- (1.) Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment of the trial Court and, as such, were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment.
(2.) The appellant-Premchand Mahto of Criminal Appeal No. 342/02 is the son of Gomia Devi and Pati Mahto, the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 245/02. All the three appellants were tried together for the charges under Ss. 302, 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 327/1998. The learned trial Court by judgment dated 6-6-2002, held all the three appellants guilty for the offence punishable under S. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.
(3.) In short the prosecution case is that Chinta Devi, the niece of the informant Chandradeo Mahto (P.W. 3) was married to the appellant-Premchand Mahto. In the marriage sufficient dowry was given to the bridegroom according to the capacity of the bride's father. The relationship between the husband and wife continued well for about two years. Thereafter, it is said that the husband Premchand Mahto and his father and mother Pati Mahto and Gomia Devi started demanding loudspeaker and T.V. in dowry. They also threatened that if their demand of dowry was not fulfilled the result would be very bad. Chinta Devi disclosed this fact to her parents, when she came to her father's house. After she returned to her in-laws place, it is said that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Further case ccf the prosecution is that on 26-4-1998 a resident of village Pllpilo informed the informant that Chinta Devi had been killed. The informant went to village Pilpilo saw the dead body of Chinta Devi and, thereafter, lodged information to the police, on the basis of which the case was registered under S. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.;