iii PW1 Nathu Lal father , PW2 Kailash uncle and PW13 Smt.
Guddi was number allowed by the accused appellants to go to her matrimonial home.
Following are the circumstances which weighed with the Additional Sessions Judge That Smt.
The accused persons denied the charges and the case went to trial.
The Additional Sessions Judge, placed companysiderable reliance on the dying declaration stated to have been made before PW 3 Prem Chand, a neighbour which find a place in the statement Ex.
On the basis of the said Parcha Bayan, FIR No.
Further, it was also pointed out that PW4 Smt.
P.C. was companysidered as dying declaration and number the Parcha Bayan.
Guddi, aged 19 years died after two years of her marriage due to 99 burn injuries after pouring kerosene on her enlightening match stick, therefore the death is homicidal.
P14A of the deceased was recorded by ASI, Ram Kishan and signed by SHO Mohan Lal PW13 in the hospital.
On the side of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined.
During treatment, Guddi died at about 10AM on the same day and the case was companyverted into Section 302, IPC.
iv The version of Prem Chand, PW3 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.
P6 made by him to the police under Section 161 of Cr.
The prosecution case is as follows Guddi, the deceased, was admitted in the hospital on 11.09.1998 with ninety nine per cent burn injuries.
Reliance was number placed by Additional Sessions Judge on Parcha Bayan of deceased.
P.C. PW3 has stated that the deceased had raised hue and cry after the burn injuries and abused the father in law Sharvan Ram and based on the evidence of PW3 and his 161 statement, the Session Court found the accused persons guilty.
P.C., who was declared hostile.
Suraj Devi mother of the deceased in their statements have deposed that Smt.
300/98 was registered at police station Madanganj Ajmer against the accused persons under Section 307, IPC.
During the companyrse of investigation, both the accused persons were arrested on 12.09.1998, first accused is the father in law and second accused is the husband.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment in B. Criminal Appeal No.
124 of 2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan.
Parcha Bayan Ex.
ii Deceased was in the custody of accused appellants and simply on account of going outside the house were the occurrence took place custody will number be ceased.
