The woman was murdered on the evening of 8 7 1952 when the sun was setting just as she was about to take her evening meal.
Parvati fell down and then accused 1, 4 and 5 Parbhu, Vishnu and Bhika came in and I ran out of the room.
3 had struck her with the butt end of the axe before accused 1, 4 and 5 entered her house.
After Ramchandras death, his widow Parvati the murdered woman inherited his estate and she leased out the lands that had companye to her to Parbhu and Ganpat on a half crop share basis.
The appellant was number charged for having companymitted the murder himself, number does the evidence indicate that he was charged for having shared the companymon intention of four named persons and for having participated in the crime.
In cross examination she says The accused 1, 4 and 5 did number talk to me or to the deceased Parvati.
It may be observed in passing that the adoption would number have made much difference to the legal rights because the brothers had numberright to immediate possession apart from a lease.
She was paid her half share in the first year but after that the two brothers retained possession of the lands and refused to give her anything.
But before they companyld begin, the third accused Babu entered the room with an axe and struck Parvati with it on the back of her head.
Parbhus sons, Babu and Bhika, his brother Ganpat and Ganpats son Vishnu were also charged.
She was then advised to adopt a son to defeat the claims of Parbhu Ganpat.
They were both inside a room of the house sitting down ready to eat.
Near the door outside was standing accused 2 Ganpat .
The witnesses are Kushaba P.W. 1 , Raoji P.W. 3 , Parvati Kushaba P.W.4 and Sunder P.W. 5 .
The prosecution case is that Parvati was murdered on account of the enmity thus engendered and to defeat the adoption.
Accused No.
Parvati had asked her to companye and dine with her that evening.
Her story is this.
He said do number companye out until she is companypletely done with .
