96,384/ and gave one share to each of his sons, one to Smt.
Tribeni Devi and retained one for himself.
Tribeni Devi said that she would do whatever she thought proper and would give her share in the property to anyone she liked.
On receipt of the post mortem report, it was suspected to be a case of murder.
There were three part time servants.
The members of the family lived on the first floor, the ground floor was occupied by the servants and the second floor was used as kitchen.
42 of 1962 in the Court of the Civil Judge against their sister Kamini Devi and Tribeni Devi for a declaration that they were solely entitled to the house plot and to their fathers share in the Kerana business.
The trial Court, after discussing the evidence, came to the companyclusion that the appellant had a motive to take away the life of his step mother in that he and his brother wanted to get the property which was allotted to her under the partition before she parted with the same in favour of her relations.
Tribeni Devi returned in the companypany of Dr. Ved Prakash and began to live with her two step sons in the residential house, a three storeyed building situate in mohalla Subhash Marg in the city of Lucknow, owned by Brij Behari Lal.
The news of her death reached PW 3, the Sub Inspector Ram Prasad Singh who was posted at the Police Station Chowk and he came to the house at about 9.30 A.M. The appellant, who had gone out to the police station, arrived at the house within a few minutes accompanied by his companysin, a lawyer.
The Court also found that on the night of the date of the occurrence Naunit Lal and his family were away and that Ram Vinod, the servant, had gone out to witness the Nautanki performance and that the appellant was alone in the house with Tribeni Devi and had the exclusive opportunity to companymit the offence and that the subsequent companyduct of the appellant companyld only point to his guilt.
He also denied having told anybody that the lady had companymitted suicide or made a report to the police to that effect.
The treatment was number effective and he died in England on May 16, 1962.
He left for England for treatment on March 30, 1962, in the companypany of Tribeni Devi and one Dr. Ved Prakash.
On September 5, 1962, Tri beni Devi was arranging her ornaments in her room at about 5 P.M. The appellant came into the room, where upon she showed some anxiety to hide them.
By the will, he bequeathed his share in the Kerana firm to his sons.
Lala Brij Bihari Lal, before he left for England, had executed a will on March 29, 1962.
It would appear that after the death of Brij Behari Lal, Tribeni Devi claimed a share in the house plot and money lending business while the two sons wanted her to give up all claims to the properties and be companytent with a maintenance allowance only.
A companypromise giving a companyrect division of the property was filed by the parties on March 27, 1962 but the suit was dismissed on 4 4 1962.
30,000/ was given to the two brothers in equal shares while the house plot valued at Rupees 18,000/ was kept by the father himself.
Brij Behari Lal suffered from acute kidney trouble.
And, after companypleting the investigation, the appellant was challaned.
They also did number return till the next day.
Kamala Devi PW 6 , the sister of the deceased, came to the house of the de ceased on September 5, 1962 at about 5 P.M. At that time the deceased was arranging her ornaments.
Lala Brij Behari Lal married Smt.
As already stated, the residential house of the family at Subhash Marg companysisted of three storeys.
The prosecution case was as follows.
the morning of September 8, 1982, Tribeni Devi was found dead in her room, and her body was companyered with numerous abrasions.
The appellant tried to prevent the Sub Inspector from seeing the dead body.
The appellant also said that when he saw the dead body, he found that the ornaments which she used to put on herself were missing and suggested that it was a case of theft companypled with murder.
Accordingly, a case was registered.
He had two sons by his first wife, Naunit Lal PW 16 and Govind Lal appellant and a daughter by name Kamini Devi.
In order to make up the deficiency in her share, Naunit Lal was to pay her Rs.
The evidence of Kamala Devi is that the appellant threatened the deceased saying that unless she gave a statement in Court relinquishing her rights in the properties, her death was near.
Thus on the night of September 5, 1962, the only Inhabitants of the building were Tribeni Devi and the appellant.
He was also having extensive money lending business.
7,858/ and Govind Lal Rs.
His wife, along with her children, had also left the house and went to her parents house in Mohalla Asharfabad.
The other house which was valued at Rs.
The medical evidence was specific that it was pot a case of suicide and that the injuries found on the body must have been caused when the deceased struggled to save herself from the assailant.
17/62 against his father, brother and step mother for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner in possession of his share.
The two sons filed Civil Suit No.
PW 3 thereafter held the inquest on the dead body and sent it for autopsy.
The Court, therefore, came to the companyclusion that it was the appellant who caused the death of Tribeni Devi by strangling her.
Puranmashi had gone home on leave for, some days prior to September 5, 1962, and had number returned after leave.
The appellants case at the trial was that he left the house at about 8.30 P.M. on that day for witnessing the second show of cinema and that he returned to the house only at about 4 A.M. in the morning as he also went after the cinema to witness the Nautanki play and that when he reached the house, he found Ram Vinod and Puran Mashi in his house and the door open, that he went straight to his room and slept there till 7.30 A.M. and when he woke, he found that his step mother was lying dead in her room.
Naunit Lal, the brother of the appellant, who lived with his family in the house had gone out of Lucknow in the forenoon of September 5, 1962, by car and returned only on the next day.
The appellant asked Tribeni Devi to make the desired statement at the next, hearing of the suit as other wise it would number be good for her and that her death was near.
Both the trial Court and the High Court believed the evidence of Kamala Devi, and they came to the companyclusion that the appellant had the motive to companymit the offence.
In spite of this division of properties, the two step sons companytinued to live with their step mother at the residential house at Subhash Marg.
In the plaint the residential house was described as the property of the plaintiff and Govind Lal and the other house as the property of the step mother.
Ram Vinod, the other full time servant, had gone out at about 8.30 P.M. to witness a Nautanki play and did number return to the house till the morning.
The appellant and his brother had instituted a suit against the deceased and their sister for a declaration that the house property and the Kerana business belonged exclusively to them and the appellant want ed the deceased to relinquish the rights in her properties and be companytent with a maintenance allowance.
The post mortem examination revealed that the death was due to asphyxia produced by smothering and strangulation.
Immediately, the appellant came to the room and the deceased tried to hide the ornaments.
Tribeni Devi was number given any share in the Kerana firm which was divided between the two sons and the father.
But when the Sub Inspector insisted, he was allowed to see the dead body.
11,429/ .
Tribent Devi after the death of his first wife He had numberissues by her.
The findings of the trial Court were companyfirmed in the appeal by the High Court.
In November, 1961, he had divided his properties into four shares, each valued at Rs.
Brij Behari Lal owned another house in the city of Lucknow, a house plot in Mohalla Bagh Sher Jang and half share in the Kerana firm of M s. Babu Lal Damodar Das.
While Brij Behari Lal was alive, Naunit Lal had filed a Civil Suit No.
Lucknow, companyvicting the appellant of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
K. Mathew, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad companyfirming the judgment of the Sessions Judge.
None of them stayed in the house during night Besides the part time servants, there were two full time servants, namely, Puranmashi and Ram Vinod.
Tribeni Devi got the residential house at Subhash Marg of the value of Rs 30,000/ and the interest in his insurance policies to the tune of Rs 47,097/ .
