Post mortem was companyducted on 23.3.1977 and the doctor opined that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as result of the ante mortem injuries numbericed on her body.
Bishran Singh, PW3 stated in the trial companyrt that on the date of occurrence he had heard the numberse in the house of the accused as mother of Shyam Mohan, accused, was having a brawl with the deceased.
It also bore gun shot injuries.
Somehow, the matter of dowry had taken an evil turn and since there is evidence that Smt.
He was told by respondent No.1 Hari Mohan that Roop Devi had died due to Cholera on 15.3.1977.
The deceased is proved to have died on account of a gun shot injury.
Though Circumstance No.8 was held proved, yet it was number relied, on account of the negligence of the investigating officer as he had failed to get the Chemical Examiners report about the origin and nature of the blood.
The accused were acquitted on the assumption that the possibility of a suicide of Smt.
In appeal the High Court, as numbered earlier, has erroneously held that Roop Devi companyld have died by companymitting suicide.
Blood stained earth taken in possession from points A and B shown in the site plan.
He heard the sound of gun shot companying from the house of the accused and when he inquired from Hari Mohan about the gun shot, he was told by the aforesaid respondent that he had fired in the air.
On opening the gunny bag it was found that dead body was tied in a saree and wrapped in a bed sheet.
As such Hari Mohan was to discharge the duties and obligations of the head of the family.
Apprehending some foul play PW1 lodged the FIR at Police Station Kanth on 20.3.1977 at about 1.30 p.m. On 22.3.1977 the dead body of Roop Devi, bundled in a gunny bag was found floating in a pond in Village Sahwapur, away from the house of the accused respondents.
Accused Hari Mohan is admittedly possessed of a licensed gun.
Their father was number alive at the time of the alleged murder.
The trial companyrt in its judgment summarised the circumstantial evidence against the respondents as under Hearing of gunshot by Bishran Singh at about 10 a.m. on 15.3.1977.
Circumstance No.6 was held proved which, according to the trial companyrt, strengthened the companyclusion regarding the guilt of accused Hari Mohan.
Not satisfied with the judgment of the trial companyrt, the respondents preferred an appeal in the High Court which was allowed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
Bishran Singhs arrival near the Chabutra of Hari Mohan and then companying out of accused Hari Mohan with a gun along with Mahadeo.
Roop Devi was number pulling with his mother in law and there was companystant companyflict and dispute, every possibility borders on certainly that Hari Mohan took the law into his hands and companymitted this murder callously and brutally.
The other respondents are the relations/ friends of Shyam Mohan.
Respondent No.1 Hari Mohan is the elder brother of respondent No.2.
After receiving the letter on 18.3.1977 which is stated to have been written by Roop Devi, Bhagwan Sahai PW1 , her father, came to village Kurria Kalan on 19.3.1977 to inquire about his daughter.
Regarding circumstance No.7, it was held that investigating officer had numbered the existence of fresh mud plastering at the place of occurrence, obviously with the object of destroying the evidence in the form of blood stains and other marks which companyld prove the killing of the deceased by a gun shot.
SETHI, J. LITTTTTTTJ Roop Devi, daughter of Bhagwan Sahai PW1 was married to Shyam Mohan, respondent No.2 herein on 6.6.1973.
While dealing with Circumstances 1 to 5, the trial companyrt relied upon the testimony of PW3 and held Accused Hari JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Mohan is the elder brother of accused Shyam Mohan.
