During pendency of this appeal father of the respondent died.
Hence this appeal.
The explanation sought to be offered by the respondent is that he took her to the place of her relatives next morning at about 5.45 A.M. while the evidence of the witnesses referred to just number is that they saw her last on 28.11.1988.
On a companyplaint lodged about the missing of the said Beena, investigation was taken up by the police and on recovery of human bones M.O.13 to M.O. 20 which were subjected to DNA examination, in order to establish the identity of the said bones as that of Beena, laid a charge sheet against the respondent and his father in the Court of Sessions at Bangalore which Court, after an elaborate trial, found that there are incriminating circumstances involving the respondent and his father in the offence alleged against them, namely, murder of Beena and companyvicted both of them who successfully appealed against the same.
The DNA examination resulted in matching of the bones with that of the grouping of her close relatives.
The second circumstance relied upon by the Trial Court is that the respondent gave false explanation as to her disappearance stating that she was in the family way and she insisted upon visiting her parents on 28.11.1988 and at 5.45 A.M. he took her on his two wheeler and dropped her at the residence of her relatives and thereafter he did number hear anything about her.
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. This case bristles with mystery over mystery as to the disappearance of Beena, wife of the respondent.
