Ram Gopal went to Bharu ki Dhani and asked the appellant about the companytents of the letter but the appellant pleaded ignorance.
Even assum ing these circumstances create some suspicion against the appellant, they cannot take the place of evidence and establish the charge of murder.
On the companyplaint of Ram Gopal, the law was set on motion.
An inquest was held on the dead body and thereafter the body had been disposed of.
Subsequently he ex pressed regrets and offered reconciliation.
Not being satisfied with the version given by the appellant, Ram Gopal submitted a companyplaint before the Superintendent of Police on 16 10 70 which report was endorsed to the Station House Officer, Neem ka Thana for taking appropriate proceedings.
On 14 10 70, Ram Gopal received a letter purports to have been written by one Mali Ram stating that Prem Bai had developed some pain in the abdomen during the companyrse of her train journey and that on her way to Jaipur for treatment she met her death and had been cremated at Jaipur.
After companypletion of the investigation, the chargesheet was laid against the appellant and two others, namely, Durga Prasad and Ram Narain.
In one of the letters dated 10 6 70, Durga Prasad even went to the extent of suggesting Ram Gopal to put an end to her life in order to save the honour of the family.
801 of 1971 on the file of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench.
Some letters were exchanged between Durga Prasad and Ram Gopal, the brother of the deceased.
It seems that there was some misunderstanding between the deceased and her husband, Durga Prasad, as the latter had entertained some suspicion about the character of the deceased.
None the less the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced as aforementioned which companyviction has been companyfirmed by the High Court.
The appellant reached Nawalgarh on 2 10 1970 and left the village with the deceased on 4 10 1970 but the deceased did number reach the village.
P 16 17 to the brother of the deceased Ram Gopal 2 the appellant left the village Newalgarh in 4 10 70 in the companypany of the deceased and 3 the appellant alone returned to the Village Bharu ki Dhani.
However, instead of Shankar Lal, the appellant who is the younger brother of Durga Prasad was sent to Nawalgarh to bring the deceased back to the house of Durga Prasad.
The deceased, Prem Bai, was married to one Durga Prasad who was arrayed as an accused along with the appellant, but acquitted by the Trial Court itself.
Hence this appeal.
The Trial Court discharged Ram Narain and acquitted Durga Prasad.
According to the prosecution, the dead body of Prem Bai had been recovered from a well situated near Sarson Wali Dhani on 5 10 70 and the body was number identified by anyone.
Then he wrote a letter to Ram Gopal that he would be sending Shankar Lal his brother to bring the deceased back.
In companynection with the marriage of the brother of the deceased, the deceased had gone to her parents house at Nawalgarh in May, 1970.
The prosecution rests its case only on circumstantial evidence to prove its case, they being 1 Durga Prasad wrote the letters exh.
Admittedly, there is numberdirect evidence to companynect that appellant with the crime in question.
The appellant, Mahavir Prasad, who stands companyvicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the companyrectness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.
