In the cross examination he admits that he gave written report Ext.
In our opinion, the trial companyrt and the High Court have rightly disbelieved these two witnesses.
She further disclosed that she used to live at a distance of some 1 1.5 kilometers away from the house of the appellant and his family.
Criminal Appeal No.
His statement was recorded on 16.11.2006.
A 26 to the police, soon after the incident on 12.05.2005.
The medical evidence, discussed above, clearly establishes that Madhu Srivastava wife of the appellant Devendra Nath Srivastava has died homicidal death.
It has been opined by the said Medical Officer that Madhu Srivastava deceased died of strangulation with the above mentioned ante mortem injuries.
On 13.05.2005 PW 7 Dr. Rajkumar companyducted autopsy, and opined that the deceased had died of asphyxia on account of ante mortem injuries.
PW 7 Dr. Raj Kumar has stated that on internal examination both upper and lower jaws bones found broken and some portions of upper and lower teeth were also found broken.
Thereafter, on behalf of the defence DW 1 Shyam Rang and DW 2 Chandermukhi were got examined.
It further discloses that human blood was also found in the piece of cement floor and the clothes of the deceased.
87 of 2008 has arisen out of the Special Leave Petition filed by the companyvict, and Criminal Appeal Nos.
The First Information Report was lodged by numbere other than the appellants own nephew, immediately after the incident.
Meanwhile, the appellant was arrested, and on his pointing out recovery of the brick used in the crime was made.
PW 6 Shailender Kumar Srivastava has stated that he is the nephew of the deceased and the accused, but he does number know how his aunt Madhu Srivastava died.
10,000/ , in default to under further six months rigorous imprisonment Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant Devendra Nath Srivastava got married to Madhu Srivastava deceased on 04.03.1994.
PW 2 Rampher Jaiswal in his examination in chief, denies his presence at the time of the incident, but in cross examination this witness has proved that the brick, allegedly used in the crime, was recovered on pointing out of the accused Devendra Nath Srivastava.
It is also number clear as to what was the ailment of his mother, and since when she was unwell.
The prosecution evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code Cr.
After companypletion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer Rajender Prasad Singh PW 8 against the appellant for his trial.
At the end, he states that at the time of the incident he was playing at the boundary of the house.
A 9 was got lodged by PW 6 at Police Station Kotwali City Gonda on the very day at about 21.45 hours.
However, the doctors declared her brought dead.
A 13 was prepared.
She further stated that the appellant was Field Inspector with Khadi Gramodyog Board.
I on pointing out of the accused.
On seeing PW 6 and others companying from the neighbourhood, the appellant ran away.
There is numberversion put forward by the appellant as to how his wife died homicidal death in his house.
She further stated that the appellant used to torture the deceased after taking alcohol.
He further got submitted another appeal Criminal Appeal No.
He proved his signatures in the recovery memo.
A 2, A 3, A 4 and A 5 written by the deceased to her father companyplaining about the ill treatment meted out to her by the appellant.
At one stage he says his mother fell on a brick, and then discloses that she had fallen from the staircase.
Red companytusion with abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on top of left shoulder joint.
2 of 2007 along with criminal appeals filed by appellant Devendra Nath Srivastava arising out of judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge E.C. Act Gonda, relating to companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for short IPC in Sessions Trial No.
PW 5 Preeti Srivastava, sister of the deceased, has stated that the deceased was married to appellant Devendra Nath Srivastava.
These observations are also made in the autopsy report.
258 of 2005.
Red companytusion with abrasion in the area of 13 cm x 5 cm along right companylar bone.
P.C. After hearing the parties, the trial companyrt found that the charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 is proved against the accused, and companyvicted him accordingly.
It is established on the record that the appellant was a drunkard.
Both these appeals were clubbed together with the Reference made by the Court of Sessions, and disposed of together by the High Court vide companymon judgment and order dated 24.08.2007, impugned before us.
PW 5 Preeti Srivastava has further stated that there had been litigation between the deceased and the appellant, but it terminated with companypromise entered between the parties in 2003 Ex.
Crime No.
2, 3, and 4 .
She further told that there were four children born out of the wedlock between the deceased and the appellant.
88 90 of 2008 have arisen out of the Special Leave Petitions filed by Preeti Srivastava, sister of the deceased.
201 of 2007 to the High Court.
A 27 shows that in the blood stained clothes of the accused companytained human blood.
P.C. , in response to which he pleaded that at the time of incident he had gone to his native village to give medicines to his mother.
On 12.05.2005 at about 7.30 p.m., companyplainant Shailender Kumar Srivastava, who is nephew of the appellant, heard cries of the appellants children and rushed to the house of his uncle appellant , where he saw the appellant assaulting his wife with brick.
She has proved the letters Exs.
A 13 was prepared, and sent for chemical analysis along with other blood stained articles including the blood stained piece of floor companylected from the spot as also the clothes of the deceased Ex.
In all these letters, it is specifically mentioned by the deceased that the appellant was a drunkard and used to beat her after getting drunk.
Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left side of neck 7 cm below the left ear.
A First Information Report Ex.
The companyple had four children.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial companyrt the companyvict preferred appeal Criminal Appeal No.
Red companytusion 5 cm x 3 cm across the trachea on the front of neck.
169 of 2005 was registered based on the said F.I.R. The Investigating Officer, after interrogating the companyplainant, went to the spot and got sealed the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest Report Ex.
On this, prosecution got examined PW 1 Vijay Kumar Chaurasia, PW 2 Rampher Jaiswal, PW 3 Sadhna Srivastava, PW 4 Virender Singh, PW 5 Preeti Srivastava, PW 6 Shailender Kumar Srivastava informant , PW 7 Dr. Rajkumar and PW 8 Incharge Inspector Rajender Prasad Singh Investigating Officer .
The appellants wife Madhu Srivastava was taken by PW 6 Shailender Kumar Srivastava to District Hospital after arranging an ambulance.
He further found hyoid bone fractured and both lungs blocked.
Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 14.10.2005 Ex.
The trial companyrt in its wisdom got summoned companyrt witness Adesh Kumar Srivastava CW 1 , the eldest son of the deceased who was minor.
PW 8 Inspector Rajendra Prasad Singh, the Investigating Officer, has stated that during interrogation he recovered brick Ex.
He further stated that he took Madhu Srivastava in injured companydition to the hospital at about 8.50 p.m. where she was declared brought dead.
In all, nine ante mortem injuries were recorded in the post mortem examination report Ex.
He has further stated that the blood stained pantaloons and the shirt of the accused were taken into possession, and memo Ex.
Though the defence witnesses DW 1 Shyam Rang and DW 2 Chandermukhi have attempted to say that Devendra Nath Srivastava appellant had gone to village on the day of the incident to give medicines to his mother, but there is numberhing to companyroborate on the record if any medicine is purchased from any chemist by the appellant.
237 of 2007 from jail.
Statement of CW 1 Adesh Kumar Srivastava, eight years old eldest son of the appellant and the deceased, does number support prosecution but it can be easily gathered that after he lost his mother, he does number want to lose his father.
A 10 .
It appears that the case was companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions for trial.
On re appreciation of entire evidence and having companysidered the submissions of learned companynsel for the parties, we agree with the view taken by the High Court that it is clearly established from the evidence on record that the appellant caused homicidal death of his wife, after quarrel between the two.
Thereafter, this additional evidence was also put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.
The blood stained shirt and pants of the appellant were also taken into possession by the police in respect of which memo Ex.
He has further stated that the accused and the deceased had strained relations.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24.08.2007, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.
The parties were heard also on sentence and the trial companyrt awarded death sentence to the companyvict, and submitted the record to the High Court vide judgment and order dated 18.01.2007, for affirmation of the sentence.
201 of 2007 whereby said Court has disposed of Capital Reference No.
Convict Devendra Nath Srivastava and victims sister Preeti Srivastava moved this Court through separate Special Leave Petitions challenging the order passed by the High Court.
