On the other hand the stand of the appellant, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that by frustration, as she companyld number give birth to a child and as she companyld number adjust in the village life with the appellant, she companymitted suicide by burning herself.
When Neelam Ranis father Bhagwan Dass PW 3 on hearing about the precarious companydition of his daughter rushed to see her at the Civil Hospital, Kaithal, all that he companyld see was her charred body.
He was companyfronted with a letter which he had sent to PW 6 in which he promised that he would never revert from what he has already companymitted to the police.
When he saw the appellant standing nearby he asked him whether she was killed by him, to which appellant answered with folded hands that it was a mistake on his part for that he should be forgiven.
But that witness did number stick to the version assigned to him by the prosecution, and hence he was treated as hostile.
The High Court pointed out that in view of the said companyviction it was unnecessary to maintain the companyviction under the Other two offences.
The testimony of PW 5 is therefore of numberuse to the prosecution except to the extent he saw Neelam Rani in flames and the inmates of the house remaining aghast.
But PW 5 in his testimony in companyrt said that he companyld number hear anything which deceased had muttered as it was too inaudible.
Appellant filed this appeal by special leave in challenge of the said companyviction and sentence.
The prosecution case in brief is that appellant was persecuting her with the demand for more dowry and at last set her ablaze for number quenching his greed for dowry.
He was to speak to the words he heard from the deceased as soon as he reached the scene of occurrence.
The above circumstance was taken seriously by the High Court as an incriminating companyduct of the appellant.
Along with it High Court companynted the evidence of Zile Singh PW 5 .
