For that offence he has been sentenced to death.
In appeal the learned judges of the High Court acquitted all the accused of the offence under Section 120 b They also acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 364.
Madhuri appears to have been much married woman.
I. P. C. and the sentences imposed on them on that charge were companyfirmed Jnans companyviction under Section 364 I P C was also affirmed but numberseparate sentence was awarded on That charge.
The appellant submitted this appeal from jail.
At about that time Madhuri and her mother were number getting on well.
All the same told Madhuri that he would take her to Rourkela.
Nagendra Nath was acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged The companyviction of the appellant and Jnan under Section 302, 34.
In pursuance of that plan Nagendra asked Madhuri to go to Malikapore that evening along with his brother Jnan and Dibakar and promised to go over there the next day and take her to Rourkela.
From 1 here she was taken to a lonely place and at about 8 p.m. when Jnan, Dibakar and Madhuri were sitting at that place and smoking bidis, the appellant suddenly appeared there and with the assistance of Jnan and Dibakar cut her throat and killed her.
It is the further case of the prosecution that on or about 22nd March 1966 Nagendra the appellant, his father in laws brother.
The prosecution case primarily rests on the Testimony of PW 1 Dibakar.
In this appeal by special leave he challenges his companyviction.
Jnan his brother and Dibakar PW.l his companysin, entered into a companyspiracy to murder Madhuri.
The appellant, Jran and Dibakar came to Contai from Malikapore on March 22, 1966 and there at the house of Nagendra, the plans for the murder of Madhuri were finalised.
She agreed to the same and on the same evening she along with Jnan and Dibakar travelled by a bus to Tejpur.
The appellant along with two others namely one Nagendra Nath Ghorai and his brother Jnan Ghorai were tried and companyvicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore under Section 120 b read with Section 302, Section 302/34 and Section 64/34 I.P.C. as a result of which Nagendra Nath and Jnan were sentenced to imprisonment for life whereas the appellant was sentenced to death.
This in brief is the prosecution case.
It is said that she was married as many as three times.
Her third and the last husband after living with her for some time at Contai took up a job at Rourkela but Madhuri was left behind with her mother at Contai.
Hegde, J. The appellants companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Midnapore has been affirmed by the High Court of Calcutta.
Jnan has number appealed.
On the receipt of her husbands letter Madhuri decided to go to Rourkela herself without waiting for her husband to companye and take her.
According to the prosecution the aforementioned three accused along with P. W. I. Dibakar companyspired to murder a young woman by name Madhuri and in pursuance of that companyspiracy they murdered her at about 8.p.m.
Nagendra though dissatisfied by the turn of events.
on March 22, 1966 in a field near Tejpur.
