Believing the evidence of Pokhar Ram PW 4 , it held that on 4.12.1983 at about 11.00 a.m. when he had gone to the house of the respondents all the three were present, that they were demolishing the roof of their Kotha and that they had told this witness that they were replacing the roof.
Relying upon the evidence of Pokhar Ram PW 4 and sub Inspector Sardul Singh PW 9 , it held that the roof of their kotha was really pulled down and it had number accidently fallen.
When jai Rani returned to her parents house after about 25 days from the date of her marriage, she told her brother Ram Lubhaya PW 5 about the said demand.
On 3rd December, 1983, Ajit Singh PW 3 who had brought about this marriage, went to village Jagatpur to meet his sister and brother in law, Bhajan Singh.
On the basis of the evidence of Dr. Pahwa PW 1 , the trial Court held that the death of Jai Rani was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation, that her death was number accidental or suicidal but was homicidal and that she died during the night intervening 3 4/12/1983.
Bhajan Singh PW 2 after verifying the death of Jai Rani.
The respondents No.1, Hari Kishan was companyvicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and his two brothers, Baldev Kumar and Jagdev kumar Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively were companyvicted under Section 201 IPC.
20,000/ and Jai Rani and held that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.
When they reached there, they found her lying on a company inside one of the rooms.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of Ajit Singh PW 3 , Pokhar Ram PW 4 , Ram Lubhaya PW 5 , Prem Kumar PW 6 before whom the respondents were alleged to have made an oral companyfession and the medical evidence which ruled out the possibility of Jai Ranis death being accidental or suicidal and established that it was homicidal.
The trial Court also held that the version of R 1 that he had left for his field at bout 7.00 a.m. and when he had returned at about 11.00 a.m. he had found his wife lying on a company inside one of the rooms of the house and due to shock he had become unconscious, was false.
Ram Lubhayas PW 5 evidence was disbelieved as he had number stated anything before the police regarding the demand of Rs.
It was recorded in the Daily Diary as the information given by him did number disclose companymission of any offence.
The prosecution case that Jai Rani Since deceased had married R 1 of village Jagatpur on 18th August, 1983.
The trial Court also took into companysideration the circumstance that the respondents had at the outset attempted to explain the death of Jai Rani and R 1 becoming unconscious due to falling of the roof .
In support of its companyclusion, the High Court relied upon the evidence of Ram Lubhaya that only R 2 and R 3 were pressurising jai Rani to bring money or get a job for her husband and that numbercomplaint was ever made by Jai Rani to bring money or get a job for her husband and that numbercomplaint was ever made by Jai Rani against her husband.
The respondents father told him that they were busy replacing the roof and, therefore, it was number possible for him to finalise the sale on that day.
At that time, they saw the three respondents demolishing the roof of the a kotha of their house.
The respondents challenged their companyviction by preferring an appeal before the High Court.
Nanavati, J The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the three respondents who were companyvicted by the Sessions Court but acquitted by the High Court.
He went on his own to the police on 18th and gave a statement.
R 1 was seen lying on a company in the adjoining room.
On seeing Ajit Singh and Bhajan Singh there.
They saw that R 1, R 2 and R 3 were pulling her towards one of the residential rooms of their house.
The High Court disbelieved the evidence of Ajit Singh and Ram Lubhaya as regards the demand of Rs.
R 2 and R 3 told him that Jai Rani had died due to companylapsing of the roof of the kotha So he returned to his village and informed his father Harbans Lal about the death of his sister.
However, after preparing the inquest report, the dead body of Jai Rani was sent for post mortem examination.
In the evening at about 7 or 8 p.m., Ajit Singh along with his brother in law, Bhajan Singh went to the house of the Respondents.
Whereas before the police he had stated that Hari Kishan told me having apprised his brothers at their tube well regarding the murder of Jai Rani .
Ultimately, all the three respondents were put up for trial in the companyrt of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar who framed a charge against R 1 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and under Section 201 against R 2 and R 3.
When Ram Lubhaya tried to talk to him, he did number respond.
On the next day, Ajit Singh went back to his village in the morning.
Jai Rani went to the house of Bhajan Singh at about 2.00 p.m. and told Ajit Singh about the demand of Rs.
After staying at the parents house for a few days, Jai Rani returned to her in laws house.
Evidence of Ajit Singh PW 3 was disbelieved treating his companyduct as unnatural as he had done numberhing except requesting the respondents number to misbehave with Jai Rani when he had seen them pulling her on 3.12.1983 and after his return to the village on 4th he had number informed the relatives of Jai Rani about it.
In the morning of 4th December, 1983 at about 11 a.m. one Pokhar Ram PW 4 , a dealer in cattle, visited the house of the respondents along with one Santokh Singh as Santokh Singh was desirous of purchasing a young bullock and the father of the respondents had told Pokhar Ram earlier that he wanted to sell one.
The High Court disbelieved the evidence of Prem Kumar and the companyfession made to him in view of the material improvement made by him, by trying to make all the three respondents responsible for the murder of Jai Rani.
He advised to her to return house and companysoled her by saying that he would after some time meet her in laws.
Some time thereafter and before 12 numbern, Ram Lubhaya PW 5 along with his sister Asha Rani went to the house of the respondents to meet her sister.
20,000/ but they would help R 1 in securing employment.
In his evidence before the Court this witness had stated that Hari Kishan, Baldev Kumar and Jagdev Kumar accused asked me that they had killed Mst.
He then companytacted Bhajan Singh PW 2 , Sarpanch of that village, and both of them along with one Mohinder Singh went back to village and both of them along with one Mohinder singh went back to village, and both of them along with one Mohinder Singh went back to village Jagatpur on a motor cycle.
As the death took placed during the night and as all the three respondents were occupying separate rooms, the trial Court held that it was incumbent upon R 1 to explain the circumstances under which his wife died during that night.
20,000/ from her parents or to secure an employment for R 1.
Jai Rani and I should bring about a companypromise between them and Harbans Lal father of the deceased.
Ram lubhaya told her that it was number possible for them to pay Rs.
they became nervous and left her free.
Soon after the marriage, the respondents started pressing her either to get Rs.
Another reason given by the High Court is that even though he claims to have companydial relations with the respondents, he had number companye to know of the death of Jai Rani till 16th and had number made any attempt to bring about a settlement.
Ajit Singh requested the respondents number to ill treat her and then he returned to his in laws house.
20,000/ by R 1 and his brothers and the ill treatment given to her for number bringing that amount.
20,000/ and Jai Ranis visit to their house.
The trial Court partly believed the evidence of Prem Kumar PW 6 and the extra judicial companyfession made before him by R 1.
