Even after discarding that evidence the High Court was of the view that the other circumstances were sufficient to lead to an irrefutable inference that the appellant and numbere else had murdered Shanno Devi.
P.W.17 Karam Chand and P.W. 18 Jiwan Singh were examined to prove the alleged extra judicial companyfession made by the appellant and Rajinder before them.
50 of 1978 were companyfirmed.
The learned Sessions Judge also believed the testimony of P.W.11 Gangu Ram that the appellant had told him that Shanno Devi was alive till about 11.00 P.M. on that night and was found dead in the morning.
According to the learned Sessions Judge all the aforesaid links companypleted the chain of circumstantial evidence and was sufficient to bring guilt home to the accused Bhagwan Dass and Rajinder.
It was alleged by the prosecution that about six months after their marriage Bhagwan Dass demanded a motor cycle and some ornaments from her parents.
On my enquiry Bhagwan Dass told me that Smt.
Evidence was lead to show that the appellant had demanded a motor cycle and some ornaments and as his demand was number satisfied he and his family members were ill treating Shanno Devi, W.12, Krishan Bahadur, a Chowkidar of that area was examined to prove that on that night at about 2.00 A.M. he had heard a female voice companying from the house of the appellant and when he saw inside the house through the window panes, he found the appellant and Rajinder talking to each other.
As this demand was number met he started ill treating her and because of this ill treatment she had to leave her husbands house and stay with her father.
The appellant and his brother Rajinder were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Tikkan Lal and Jagat Devi were charged under Section 114 read with Section 302 I.P.C. There was numbereye witness to the incident.
The said statement was made by the accused in reply to the question put to him that he was number available to the police till 20.7.1978 as he was absconding.
The father of Shanno Devi was, therefore, required to take her back to his house.
The High Court found that the evidence against Rajinder was too slander to support his companyviction and, therefore, acquitted him.
Therefore, the High Court held that the appellant had companymitted a mistake while stating the date but it was clear from his said statement that he had gone to his house at Bhiwani at 10.00 A.M. on 16th July, 1978 which was a Sunday.
During the intervening night he companyld number be anywhere else except his house where his wife Shanno Devi was strangulated to death.
He also deposed before the companyrt that the cry which he had heard was mujhe bachavao.
It was alleged against the appellant that on the night between 16th and 17th July, 1978 he with the help of his brother Rajinder killed her by strangulation and this act of killing her was done by the two on the instigation of their parents.
The High Court companyfirmed his companyviction and sentence and dismissed his appeal.
and why the PWs are deposing against you?
Bhagwan Dass then initiated proceedings for judicial separation.
It is significant to numbere that in reply to Question No.23 which reads as follows Why this case against you?
Shanno Devi to her relations.
She was also required to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance.
The appellant again entered into a companypromise and as a result thereof the proceedings were withdrawn by Shanno Devi on 12th May, 1978.
P.W. 19 Nand Lal was examined to prove the recovery of the towel made by Bhagwan Dass with the help of which the neck of Shanno Devi was throttled.
On this score, Tikkan Lal, Jagat Devi and Rajinder, father, mother and brother respectively of the appellant also started ill treating her.
He was there on the morning of 17th of July, 1978.
On Sunday, 16th of July, 1978, Bhagwan Dass was at Bhiwani.
I never absconded.
Bhagwan Dass then took her to his house at Bhiwani on 2nd July, 1978.
Again there was a companypromise but as the appellant did numberhing thereafter to maintain her she was required to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appellant Bhagwan Dass had married Shanno Devi about eight years before the date of the incident which happened on the night between 16th and 17th July, 1978.
Shanno Devi was all right at 11 P.M. but was dead by morning.
He, therefore, companyvicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The evidence against the other two accused, namely, the father and mother of the appellant was number found to be sufficient and, therefore, they were acquitted.
Bhagwan Dass promised to treat her well and again they started living together.
According to the version given by Bhagwan Dass appellant to Gangu Ram, she was alive and all right uphill 11 P.M. After 11 P.M. people numbermally retire to bed.
P.W.11 Gangu Ram companysin of deceased Shanno Devi deposed that after he was informed about the death of Shanno Devi he went to her house and when he enquired from Bhagwan Dass as to what had happened he was informed by Bhagwan Dass that she was all right till about 11.00 P.M. but was found dead in the morning.
After about two months Bhagwan Dass again started ill treating her as his demand for dowry was still number met.
To hold that the appellant was at his house at Bhiwani on 16th July, 1978, the High Court has also relied upon the statement made by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had reached his house on 17.7.1978 being Sunday at about 10 A.M. Really 16th July and number 17th July was Sunday.
I had reached my house on 17.7.78 being Sunday at about 10.00 AM and came to know about the death of Smt.
In reply to that question the appellant stated I was employed at Rohtak.
Shanno Devi and by that time my younger brother and companyaccused Rajinder had already informed about the death of Smt.
On the basis of the medical evidence the learned Sessions Judge held that the death of Shanno Devi was homicidal and that she died because of strangulation.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence with respect to the demand of dowry, the extra judicial companyfession and the recovery of a towel at the instance of the appellant.
NANAVATI, J. Bhagwan Dass has filed this appeal against judgment dated 29.10.1980 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 1971 whereby his companyviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in Sessions Case No.
Believing that it was a domestic quarrel as usual he went away from that place.
Both the companyvicted accused preferred an appeal is the High Court.
