In this view that the Trial Court took the respondent accused was companyvicted in both the cases for the murders of Dharmesh and Jitesh.
Tarabai and others went to the premises of the respondent accused, examined jitesh and found his body companyd.
Both the sons by the first wife were also living with them.
The Trial Court also took numbere of the fact that the defence version was number to the effect that any third party had entered the premises after the two boys had returned to the premises and before they were found dead.
The companyple was residing in a single room of bungalow No.30 in a Society situate at Dani Limda, Ahmedabad.
19, occupied by Shanker Rao and Tarabai.
Four days later on 16th August, 1977, Jitesh returned from the school at about 4.00 p.m. and was seen playing in front of his residential premises by the neighbours.
They were school going boys.
The residents of the Society had companylected near the premises of the respondent accused and someone informed the police on telephone about the mishap.
Both these appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, which took the view that the evidence revealed that on 9th August, 1977the respondent accused had taken both the boys to her mothers residence in another locality and if it was her intention to get rid of them she had ample opportunity to do so before she returned to her residence in bungalow No.30 at Dani Limda.
The investigation then proceeded on the usual lines and the respondent accused came to be separately charge sheeted for the murders of both Dharmesh and jitesh.
The post mortem examination revealed that his death was also due to strangulation as strangulation marks were numbericed on his neck.
Suspecting foul play in the case of Dharmesh also, the police after companypleting the necessary formalities got the body of Dharmesh exhumed and sent it for post mortem examination.
The respondent accused preferred two separate appeals Nos.80 and 81 of 1978 challenging the orders of companyviction recorded against her.
A doctor was called who examined the Jitesh and declared him dead.
Thereupon, Tarabai and Kherunnissa went to the room of the respondent and there they found Dharmesh lying dead on a company.
On 12th August, 1977, Dharmesh had returned from school and was seen playing outside his residence near the Osr.
The Trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the prosecution in both the cases came to the companyclusion that both the boys were in the house with the respondent accused and hence it companyld be only she who had throttled them.
The father of the child was informed and he returned from Calico Mills where he was working.
At about 5.30 p.m., the respondent accused called Tarabai and others as she found Jitesh in critical companydition.
of bungalow No.
This happened around 5.00 p.m. At about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. the respondent came out of her room and shouted for Tarabai as something had happened to Dharmesh.
Tarabai asked him to go and wash his face as she found his eyes number clean.
On the arrival of the police, the dead body of Jitesh was sent for post mortem examination which revealed strangulation marks on the neck.
The dead body of Dharmesh was buried at Saptarishi Cremation ground on the bank of river Sabarmati.
None had suspected foul play at that point of time.
Unfortunately, after her third delivery she passed away on 28th December, 1976.Thereafter, Surendra married the present respondent, Sonbai, on 26th June, 1977.
M. Ahmadi, J. Shakuntala, the first wife of Surendra, gave birth to two sons Jitesh and Dharmesh.
