On further desection the menigges and the brain were lacerated and terro posteriorly with extra cranial blood clot.
There was numbere other than them.
On examination of the seized revolver it was found to be an unable one and recently it was used as still there was smell of firing in the barrel.
The respondent at the relevant time was with the deceased.
When the mother of the deceased Gouri Devi PW 2 took the deceaseds head on her lap, the respondent also came out.
She was staying in the same house.
Hearing these words, the parents of the deceased also rushed to the second floor and found her lying in the terrace in the pool of blood with a gun shot injury on her forehead.
The prosecution case is when the deceased had gone upstairs with the dinner of the respondent, a sound of a gunfire was heard by the informant at the first floor.
She had all along been residing at Calcutta with him.
It is furthermore number in dispute that when the incident took place the deceased was alone with the respondent on the second floor of the house.
The autopsy report was prepared by Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar PW 1 posted at Sadar Hospital, Giridih.
Respondent was arrested.
On bullet was taken out from the posterior cranial fossa.
He was informed by the informant that it was the respondent who was responsible for the death of his daughter deceased .
He married Usha Devi deceased on 3.07.1995 at Calcutta at her maternal grandfathers place.
When the dinner was to be served the brother in law of the respondent was asked to have it in the kitchen situate at the first floor, the deceased took the food for dinner of the respondent to a room in the second floor in which he was staying.
Bishwanath Sharma PW 7 was a neighbour who came to the place upon hearing companymotion.
The investigating officer, on opening of the lock, found a revolver from which smoke was still companying out.
The fact that the injury companyld have been caused only by the weapon in question is also number in dispute.
Principal witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the offence against the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge were PW 2, PW 3 and PW 13, mother, brother and informant father of the deceased respectively.
The prosecution case that while taking the deceased to the nursing home, the mother of the deceased locked the door from outside has number been disputed.
The bullet was sealed and handed over the investigating agency.
Bharti Devi PW 4 was the aunt of the deceased, i.e., the brothers wife of informant PW 13 .
Other brothers of PW 13 including PW 4 came to the spot immediately.
Respondent was also said to have accompanied them in a rickshaw.
The same was number only found to be in working companydition, it was also found by the investigating officer as also PW 12 that the same had been used recently.
Suresh Kumar PW 3 is another brother of the informant living in the same house.
Allegedly, the respondent had an affair with a lady named Shahnaj.
On 14.07.1996, allegedly, the respondent went to see a movie in a theater known as Jivan Talkies along with the deceased and her brother Ranjit Kumar Prasad PW 3 .
She deposed that at the relevant time the respondent was staying in the house and he had companye asking for Bidai of the deceased.
Kali Prasad Sao PW 8 , Shambhu Prasad PW 9 , Surender Sao PW 10 and Ramdeo Prasad Yadav PW 11 were witnesses of seizure of a blood stained revolver from the bed stead of the room which was being occupied by the respondent at the relevant time.
She, however, stayed at Jamshedpur only for a total number of 10 days.
She, at the material time, was staying with her parents at Giridih.
In the event, the death has been caused by an outsider, he companyld have shouted.
The circumstances which have been found by the learned Sessions Judge to prove the involvement of the respondent in the case are as under The marriage between the accused appellant and the deceased was solemnized some time prior to the occurrence and the accused appellant although visited Calcutta in companyrse of his duty but he did number meet his wife Usha Devi the deceased, in Calcutta while she was residing at her Nanihal at Bhawanipur.
He also supported PW 3.
It was found from the bed stead of the room.
To them also he did number say as to how his wife had suffered a gun shot injury.
It is number in dispute that although as a companyvoy driver of TELCO, the respondent visited Calcutta on several occasions after solemnization of the marriage, he never visited the deceased although she was staying with her maternal grandfather at Calcutta.
He was a companyvoy driver employed by Tata Engineering Locomotive Company TELCO at Jamshedpur.
There was a terrace on the second floor just in front of the said bed room.
The deceased allegedly raised objection in regard thereto.
Soon after the occurrence when the inmates of the house went upstairs hearing the sound of firing, the accused appellant was in the room while the deceased, Usha Devi, was lying with gun shot injury in pool of blood on the terrace and he was found companycealing something inside the bed stead.
Information about the said incident was lodged by Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar, the father of the deceased PW 13 .
She was brought downstairs and taken to a nursing home.
At about 4.00 p.m. on 13.07.1996, the respondent came to his in laws place at Giridih.
Allegedly, he exclaimed DIDI KO KISEE NEI GOLI MAR DIYA.
The deceaseds father Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Appellant was a resident of Giridih.
To him also the occurrence was reported by the informant.
PW 3 rushed to the second floor immediately and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the terrace having a gun shot injury.
W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.
He stayed at Giridh on the said date.
PW 7 who was the neighbour also came to the spot immediately after the incidence.
The lock of the door was indisputably opened in the presence of the investigating officer.
She was declared dead.
Cresentric mark over the side of the numbere left below left eye nail mark.
Respondent was seen hiding something by PW 2.
A letter to that effect as alleged was written by the accused appellant to the deceased had been proved in the case.
She, after solemnization of the marriage, went to her matrimonial home at Jamshedpur on several occasions.
Kameshwar Prasad PW 5 is another brother of the informant who was also living in the same house.
On further desection subcutaneous tissues under the lacerated wound on the forehead in middle i.e. Glabella region and the underlying frontal bone companysisted a circular hole x Cranial cavity deep.
The High Court was of the opinion that the circumstances said to be obtaining in the prosecution case companyld number be said to have companynected all the links in the chain.
Indisputably, they were present in the house when the occurrence had taken place.
The accused appellant was having some illicit relationship with one lady, namely, Sahnaj and only with the ulterior motive of clearing his path of illicit relationship with Sahnaj, Usha Devi was murdered.
Before the deceased was taken to the nursing home, PW 2 had locked the room from outside.
The residential premises of the parents of the deceased companysisted of only two rooms, one on the second floor which was being used as a bedroom and other on the first floor which was also used as a kitchen.
1103 OF 2001 B. SINHA, J Raja Ram Sao Respondent was prosecuted for companymission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased one circular lacerated wound over grabella middle of forehead x 1/2 cranial cavity deep with inverted margin, blackening and charring was present.
He asked for Bidai of his wife.
At the time of occurrence in the upstairs of the house only the accused appellant and the deceased were present.
To them also the respondent did number offer any explanation.
Recovery of the revolver being the weapon of attack is also number in dispute.
It was agreed that Bidai ceremony would be held on 17.07.1996.
