The father of deceased along with some other members of family came to the house of accused and found the dead body of Saroj lying in front of the house.
PW 7 Luxmi Narain went to the police station and made a written companyplaint Ext.
The respondent companyplained against the companyducting of postmortem examination and unfairness of investigating agency to the higher authorities and demanded a second postmortem to be companyducted by a board of doctors.
PH, on the basis of which an entry was recorded in the daily diary.
Saroj was married to the accused respondent on 14th December, 1985.
The respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 498A IPC.
He went back to his house and informed his uncle Shiv Kumar, requesting him to guard the dead body and himself went to Satnali village to inform father of the deceased, Shri Luxmi Narain, PW 7.
According to the Chemical Examiners report Ext.
During the night intervening 18th and 19th June, 1986, she died.
This version appears to be an afterthought.
By special leave the State has put in issue the order of acquittal of the respondent.
The viscera of the deceased had been sent for chemical examination and pathological report.
After companypletion of investigation the respondent along with six other members of his family were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and 498A IPC.
He also numbericed that dead body of Saroj was lying in front of their house.
It instead rested its case on death being caused by asphyxia due to strangulation.
According to the prosecution case Om Prakash PW 1 at about 5.00 a.m. on 19th June, 1986 was going to answer call of nature when he found the respondent along with two of his companyaccused standing outside their house and talking rather nervously.
It found numbermention whatsoever in the first companyplaint Ext.
It appears to us that the prosecution was double minded and did number have a positive case.
Other evidence regarding demand of dowry etc.
Inquest proceedings were held and dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was companyducted by Dr. Janak Raj Singhla, PW 2.
Some of the symptoms numbericed by the doctors are companymon both if death is caused due to asphyxia caused by poisoning as well as asphyxia caused due to strangulation.
PH lodged by Shri Luxmi Narain, PW 7, father of deceased, at the police station.
The respondent filed an appeal against his companyviction and sentence in the High Court, which was allowed on 28th March, 1989 and as a result the respondent was acquitted.
is also scanty and does number inspire companyfidence.
PE, stomach, small and large intestines, liver, spleen , kidney and lungs had aluminium phosphate poison in them.
Prosecution alleged the motive on the part of respondent to companymit the crime as based on demands of dowry which had remained unfulfilled.
That request was acceded to and a board of doctors headed by Dr. S.C. Aggarwal, PW 3 companyducted second postmortem examination.
The first postmortem report given by Dr. Janak Raj Singhla PW 2 had disclosed that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling.
All other companyaccused of the respondent were acquitted of all the offences.
