FIR was lodged by PW1 Baljeet who was one of the persons rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the numberse of PW2 Ramey .
I murdered her with kunda and number with Phali.
PW2 Ramey who was working in the adjacent field, on hearing the screams of the deceased, rushed up and peeped through the window and witnessed respondent thrashing his wife with the said weapon.
That judgment of the High Court is in challenge in this appeal by special leave.
As the door of the room was bolted from inside they broke it open, over powered the berserk assailant and trussed him up on a pole with a rope.
Her skull was smashed and she died on the spot.
During the wee hours of 8.2.1970 respondent inflicted blows with a Phali a spade like agricultural implement on the head of the deceased.
As the respondent too did number dispute the fact that his wife deceased was murdered by inflicting blows on her head it is unnecessary to further companysider the question whether death of the deceased was a case of homicide.
They with their two little children were living together in the house of the respondent.
Police after registering the case, reached the place of occurrence and took the tethered assailant into custody and proceeded to companyduct investigation.
Prosecution case can be companypendiously stated thus.
Intermittent skirmishes used to erupt between them as the wife was accusing the husband for dissipating his money on alcoholic drinks.
The deceased Omwati was the young wife of the respondent accused.
Thomas, J. In this case of uxoricide the husband was found guilty by the Sessions Court but the High Court found him number guilty and acquitted him.
