ThereUpon P.W. 5 wanted to know the name of the Doctor.
He also deposed about the iII treatment of the deceased by the accused and their demand for dowry.
Both of them denied the allegations of the prosecution.
The High Court accepted the medical evidence in to and reached the company clusion that the death was homicidal and due to asphyxia due to head injury and pressure on the neck.
She also stated that she gave food to the deceased on 15.3.82 and that she companyld number give food on 16.3.82 due to her own sickness.
In support of his plea D.W. 1, Dr. Ram Krishna Mehta, the neighbour of A 1s daughter, was exam ined.
D.W.2 further stated that the relations between the deceased namely her mother and grand mother were number good.
P, 1,.
He was informed by A 1 that the body would be cremated.
He, however, denied the suggestion that he companyld number form a definite opinion.
Thereupon P.W. 5 sent his son P.W. 6 to A 1 s house.
Many of them were in the shape of bruises and swellings.
He also deposed about the cruelty meted out to the deceased.
There were frequent quarrels.
Two sons and one daughter were born to them.
P.W. 5 is the father of the de ceased.
Coming to the injury on the neck, the Doctor stated that numberinjury was found on the bones of wind pipe and that portion also was decomposed.
Out of them P.Ws 17, 18, 19 and 20 are examined who spoke about the movements of A 2.
The evidence of P.W. 2, the Doctor, also shows that numberbrain injury companyld be traced and he also did number find any injury on the bones of wind pipe.
The police arrived and prepared a panchnama.
1 that she was beaten by her hus band.
She also stated that A 1 went to Jodhpur on the evening of 14th March and returned from Jodhpur on 18th March, 1982.
22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecu tion.
The Doctor P.W. 2 companyducted the postmortem.
P.W. 22 took up the investiga tion, held the inquest, examined the witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem.
The letter Ex.
W. 10 also belongs to the same locality.
Apart from D .W. 2 the only other inmate of the house during the crucial period was the mother in law of the deceased who was number even charge sheeted.
This witness was treated hostile.
He examined the deceased and declared her to be dead.
Finally, the High Court, relying on the companyduct of the accused after companying to know about the death of the deceased, reached the companyclusion that the two accused companyspired and got .the deceased mur dered and accordingly companyvicted them under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and 120 B I.P.C. Shri R.K.Jain, the learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court has merely acted on prejudice and suspicion and that there is absoluteIy numbermaterial to prove the companyspiracy and muchless to companynect the two accused in any manner with themurder The prosecution examined 22 witnesses.
The High Court has also referred to the earlier incidents in some of the letters.
The daughter of the deceased, who was examined as D.W. 2, aged 13 years was studying in 1Oth Class and she was also living in the same house.
In the crossexamination by the defence this witness stated that his sister Gianwati who was examined as D.W. 2 told him that she went regularly to the room of the deceased to give food from 11.3.82 to 15.3.82 and that on 16.3.82 W. 2 did number meet the deceased due to headache and on 17th and 18th March the deceased did number respond when D.W. 2 called her.
P.M. and told him that his daughter in law namely the deceased was in serious companydition.
He deposed that on receipt of the report he went to the place of occurrence, held the inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem.
A 1 stated that he was away from 14.3.
P.W. 7 is the neighbour of the accused.
P.W. 22 is the Sub inspector who investigated the case.
A 1, father of A 2, was a practising lawyer after retiring from the Government Service.
He also stated that his daughter used to give food to the deceased.
P.W. 6 is brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 5.
The deceased was married to A 2 in the year 1961.
The State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court companyvicted them under Section 120 B and Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.
The fact that she was number companying out of the room and used the same for answering the calls of nature also would snow that there was something abnormal about her and she companyfined her move ments to the four companyners of the room.
It is also numbered in the postmortem certificate that P.W. 2 sent a part of the neck and viscera for chemical and histopathological examination.
This evidence may number be very much relevant because it is number the prosecution case that A 2 was present in the house at the time of the death of the deceased.
He deposed that he knew A 1 and that he was staying in his daughters house in Jodhpur from 15th March, 1982 to 17th March, 1982.
The High Court mainly relied on the evidence regarding the ill treat ment of the deceased by A 1 and A 2 and held that the ac cused had strong motive.
They opened the room from where bad smell was companying and in that room they saw the dead body of the de ceased which was decomposed.
The accused examined D .Ws 1 to 3 on their behalf.
P.W 11 is a photographer who took the photographs of the room and the dead body.
On 11.3.82 he left for Suratgarh and later he came to know about the death of the deceased.
He deposed that on 11th March, 1982 his father A 2 came with him to the bus stand to see him off.
From the Judgment dated 19.5.1984 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
He denied about the allegations of iii treatment of the deceased.
P.W 4 is the son of the deceased and A 2.
The case registered rests on circumstantial evidence The trial companyrt held that there was numberevidence of companyspira cy between the A 1 and A 2 for murdering the deceased.
There after she did number go inside the room and on 18th March, 1982 the dead body was discovered.
He also stated that he was a Gazetted Officer in Agriculture Depart ment and he was transferred to various places and he also took the deceased with him.
As far as this medical evidence is companycerned, the trial companyrt also companysidered the same at length.
The pressure on the left and front of the neck was apparent.
He also found that some of the organs were decomposed and numbericed greenishbrown discolouration on the neck.
On that P.W. 1 and others went to the house of the deceased.
The accused lived in their own house alongwith the deceased.
A 1s case was that he was away at Jodhpur from 15th March, 1982 onwards and was staying in her daughters house and he came to Jaipur only on 18th March, 1982 and then he was told about the death of the deceased.
A 2 stated that he married the deceased in the year 1961 and they were blessed with two sons land one daughter.
In nature and at any rate P.W. 2s evidence has number proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the de ceased was due to injuries causing asphyxia and that the death was homicidal.
She was also admitted in mental hospital once.
P.W. 5 went there and enquired.
It is in the evidence that the deceased was number healthy both physically and mentally.
P.W. 13 is the companysin of the de ceased.
In his opinion the death was due to the injury on the head and pressure on the neck due to asphyxia.
P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased deposed that the two accused used to be angry with the deceased and they did number allow him and his family members to see the de ceased.
She used to companyfine herself to her room and she appeared to be somewhat mentally deranged.
On being informed about the death A 1 sent for Dr. Madan Lal Arora, who exam ined the deceased and declared her to be dead.
The matrimonial life of the deceased and A 2 was number smooth.
He found an injury on the head.
The Doctor P.W. 2 opined that the head injury was caused by blunt weapon and that death is.
On that P.W. 5, the husband of P.W. 1 and the brother of the deceased objected to.
Thereupon A 1 told him that the deceased would be cremated.
P.W. 2 is the Doctor, who companyducted the post mortem and we shaft advert to his evidence later.
D.W. 2 is the daughter of A 2 and the deceased aged about 13 years.
15th March, 1982 was the last day when D.W. 2 served food to the deceased.
There fore they were number present in the house when the deceased died The Medical Officer, P.W. 2 companyld number say definitely as to whether the death has occurred before four days of his examination and there is absolutely numberevidence either circumstantial or direct to hold that the death took place on 11.3.82 itself as found by the High Court.
A 1 told P.W. 5 that the deceased be cremated at 9 A.M. The brother of the de ceased told P.W. 5 that he has .seen the dead body lying in the room and that it was giving rotten smell.
At that time the companydi tion of the deceased was very weak and she was unhealthy.
He found that the body was giving rotten smell and the skin here and there was peeled off, nails were loose and the tongue was found in between the teeth.
He also stated that he companyld number say definitely whether the death in the circum stances should have occurred before four days.
When her grand father A 1 returned from Jodhpur he sent for a Doctor and the Doctor after examining pronounced the deceased to be dead.
P.Ws 4, 9 and 10 have number supported the prosecution case and the remaining evidence does number in any manner implicate A 1 and A 2 and the other remaining inmate of the house, the mother ln law of the deceased, was number even suspected.
He, however, sent the tissues of the trachea though decomposed and a piece of neck skin and also viscera for histopathology and for chemical analysis, but the pathologist companyld number give opinion regarding the piece of skin and the tissues of the trachea.
W. 4 met the deceased before leaving on the evening of 11th March, 1982 and talked to her.
A 1 who was present there told them that they would cremate the dead body that night.
After companysidering the whole evidence of the Doctor, the trial companyrt was of the opinion that it was very difficult to say that the injuries on the head were antemor tem.
On 18.3.82 the dead body of the deceased was found in her room in the house of the accused.
He opined that the death was due to head injury and pressure in the neck region.
A 2 stated that he was at Suratgarh from 11.3.1982 onwards.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Judges have also relied on some letters written by the deceased.
He admitted that since the brain was decomposed and was in semi liquid companydi tion numberinjury therein companyld be traced.
He also deposed that A 1 came to Jodhpur and stayed from 15th on wards upto 17th March, 1982.
P.W. 3 is the eider sister of the deceased.
K. Jain, R.P. Singh and R.K. Khanna for the Appellants.
P.W. 1 has also mentioned about other incidents of cruel treatment meted out to the deceased.
On 18.3.82 P.W. 1s neighbour told her that there was a telephone message fxom A 1 that the deceasd was about to die.
result of neck injury.
P.W. 4 further deposed that D.W. 2 also told the same to her grand mother.
They were acquitted by the trial companyrt.
W. 4 also deposed that his father A 2 was to go to Surat garh by the evening of 11.3.82.
He further stated that on 18.3.82 on receiving the information about the serious companydition of the deceased he went to house of the deceased and he found that the deceased had already died and the A 1 told him that the dead body would be cremated, whereupon he informed his father P.W. 5 and then lodged a report before the police.
The sum and substance of their evidence is that A 2 was posted as expert of plant protec tion in Suratgarh and that leave was granted to him on 11.3.82.
P 15 written by the first accused does number in any manner incriminate them and the High Court has grossly erred in holding that A 1 and A 2 entered into companyspiracy merely on the basis of companyjec tures and surmises drawn from the letter.
Sushil Kumar and AruneShwar Gupta for the Respondent.
Thereupon he and P.W. 6 went and .gave a report to the police.
The dead body was found in the house of A 1 and A 2, where admittedly the deceased was also living but she used to companyfine her self to that room where the dead body was found She was sick and unhealthy and that she was number even companying out of the room.
129 of 1983.
She denied the suggestion that the body was decomposed even on 16th and 17th March, 1982.
P.C. both the accused stated that they are innocent.
In the cross examination she affirmed that she fell ill on 16.3.82 after companying from school and therefore companyld number give food to her mother.
303 of 1984.
Thereafter A 1 informed P.W. 5, Jagmohan Prasad, the father of the de ceased.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. There are two appellants.
P.W. 12 is Gurubux Saxena who got the telephonic message from A 1 that the deceased was seriously ill and thereupon he in formed P.Ws 1, 5 and 6.
He was cross examined at length.
He also examined his grand daughter D.W. 2, namely the daughter of A 2 and the deceased.
After companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.
They are father and son respectively and they figured as A 1 and A 2 before the trial companyrt.
P.W. 6 lodged a report before the Police.
He further deposed that the neighbour told them that he re ceived a telephone message from A 1 that the deceased was about to die.
He also speaks the seizure of some letters.
He also.deposed about the ill treatment meted out to the deceased.
They have preferred this appeal under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of General Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B I.P.C. for causing murder of Madhu Saxena, wife of A 2 and daughter in law of A 1, the deceased in the case.
At that time admittedly A 2 was number in the house and he was at Suratgarh.
The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased was number mentally sound.
P.W. 8 is a practising Doctor and he deposed that on 18.3.82 A 1 came to him at about 5.30.
He only attested the site plan prepared by the police.
She only stated that she got the information about the death of the deceased.
Then on 17th and 18th March, 1982 her mother did number talk to her, therefore she returned with the food.
A little later P.W. 6 also came and told him that the de ceased had died before many days and her dead body was giving rotten smell.
D .W. 1 is a Doctor at Jodhpur.
The accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 201 and 120 B I,P.C. only and in our view the trial companyrt rightly held that numbere of these charges were proved against them.
He further stated that the deceased was sick and unhealthy and was staying at Jaipur.
D.W. 3 is the son of A 1 and brother of A 2 residing at Jodhpur.
He only deposed that the body was emitting foul smell and he signed the inventory prepared by the police.
The pathologist numbered that the skin was discoloured and that the tissues and the mussle attached to the trachea showed numberabnormality.
On that day they found that the deceased was number talking and two ladies who came to meet the deceased, told that there was something wrong.
In the examination under Section 313 Cr.
Thereupon he called the Doctor P.W. 8 who examined and pronounced the deceased to be dead.
The accused dented the offences.
P.W. 1 an Assistant School teacher in Jaipur and related to the deceased deposed that she attended a dinner in the house of the deceased and A 2 and in the year 1978 when the deceased came to her house she was having some spots of beating by sticks on her back and the deceased told PW.
In further cross examination he admitted that he did number make the culture of the maggots crawling on the head.
There he found against the companyumn cause of death, the Doctor has put only a question mark.
Thereupon he went to the house and saw the deceased.
He found the dead body as highly decomposed and had reached an advanced stage of putrefaction.
She in general stated that her mother was sick and unhealthy and used to companyfine herself to the room and she used to give food to her.
The evidence of D.W. 2 who is numbere other than the daughter of the de ceased and was very much in the house throughout ategorical ly stated that her mother was alive on 15th March also.
He also admitted that the swelling of the eye was number due to the injury.on the forehead.
P.Ws 14 to 21 are the formal official witnesses.
P.W. 9 also was exam ined to speak about the cruelty but he was treated hostile.
W. 2 Dr. M.R. Goel examined the dead body on 19.3.82 and found 10 injuries which were ante mortem.
He further deposed that on 18.3,82 the deceased died and he was asked by P.W. 5 to go to the house of the deceased.
The learned Sessions Judge numbered the details in the post mortem certifi cate Ex.
Later he was told by A 1 who came to his house that the deceased died and the Doctor has declared her dead.
1982 onwards and was at Jodhpur in his daughters house.
