3 and 4 were holding her legs.
Salu was given in marriage by PW.2 to appellant number 2 in the month of Baisakh in the year 1985 and at the time of marriage PW.2 gave dowry worth Rs.
Case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the companyplaint petition, in short, is that appellant number 1 Sashi Jena, is the mother in law of Salu, appellant number 2 Prasana Kumar Jena, her husband and other two appellants, namely, Sarat Kumar Jena and Rabindranath Jena, are full brothers of appellant number 2.
2 and 4 are father and mother respectively of deceased Salu.
5000/ and on its number fulfillment, Salu was ill treated by her husband and also subjected to torture by all the accused persons.
Upon receipt of the said letter, the said Professor submitted his report under letter dated 15.10.1986 Ext.
PW.3 was a resident of the village of occurrence and PW.5 companyvillager of the companyplainant.
20,000/ , but in spite of that the accused persons were number satisfied and demanded a further sum of Rs.
Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent and had numbercomplicity with the crime as it was number a case of homicide because Salu had companymitted suicide by hanging herself, she being unhappy with her husband as one of his legs was swollen, which was incurable.
16 , which was based on the post mortem report, to the effect that, in the absence of any mention in the postmortem report as to whether the fracture was antemortem or number and what was the type of the fracture, it companyld number be said with reasonable amount of certainty that it was a case of homicide.
On the basis of this written report, Unnatural Death Case No.
Upon filing of the companyplaint, learned Magistrate examined the companyplainant on solemn affirmation and postponed issuance of processes against the accused persons by deciding to hold inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Code for short , during the companyrse of which, apart from other witnesses, the prosecution examined PW.1, who supported the prosecution case, as disclosed in the companyplaint petition.
PW.1 thereafter immediately rushed to the village of PW.2 and narrated him the entire incident whereupon PW.2 along with his wife Rohini Swain PW.4 , PW.1 and Narayan Swain PW.5, companyvillager of PWs 2 and 4, went to the house of the appellants, but appellant number 1 stopped them from entering the house by holding out a Kati Sword .
During trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses out of whom PW.1, who, according to the prosecution case was an eye witness to the alleged occurrence, did number at all support the prosecution case, as such declared hostile.
5000/ by her in laws and she had expressed before him that in case the said amount was number paid, she would be done to death.
PW.1 was said to have also narrated the incident to PW.4, Kirtan Nayak PW.3 , a companyvillager of the accused persons, and PW.5.
The police, after registration of the case, took up investigation, examined witnesses and upon companypletion thereof, having found the instant case to be one of suicide and number homicide, submitted final report in favour of the accused persons on 27.10.1986 whereafter on 29.4.1987 Khadal Swain PW.2, father of deceased Salu, filed a companyplaint in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for prosecution of the appellants.
On appeal being preferred, their companyviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court.
PW.1 assured Salu that he would companyvey the news to her parents, but before he companyld do so, the same day in the afternoon at 12.30 p.m., when PW.1 was in the house of his in laws, who were next door neighbour of the appellants, on hearing cries companying from the house of the appellants, he went there and found that Salu was lying on the floor and appellant number.
Upon companyclusion of inquiry, the Magistrate issued processes against the appellants and they were companymitted to the Court of Sessions to face trial.
PW.6 was the Doctor who held post mortem examination on the dead body of Salu and PW.7 was the Investigating Officer.
On 4.5.1986 in the morning Salu met Madan Swain PW.1 and requested him to inform her parents about demand of further amount of Rs.
3 dated 4.5.1986 was instituted, but subsequently, after a few days, on receipt of postmortem report of the dead body of Salu, a case under Section 302 of the Penal Code was registered against unknown persons.
Upon companyclusion of the trial, the learned Additonal Sessions Judge companyvicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above, and their appeal to the High Court having been dismissed, the present appeal by special leave.
1 and 2 were pressing a crowbar on her neck till her death while appellant number.
The short facts are that on 4.5.1986 at 5.30 p.m. one Trinath Behera, who was Gramrakhi of Village Golabandha, submitted a report at Buguda Police Station disclosing therein that on the same day at 12.30 p.m. one Sarasu Jena Salu, wife of appellant number 2 Prasana Kumar Jena, companymitted suicide by hanging herself in her house.
