Mehlu and her sic his?
Hearing the hue and cry of the victims, Smt.
Her mother, Smt.
Siraji and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment.
At the same time he saw Mehlu crying out on account of a stab wound.
It was the loss of both the mistress and the land, it is urged, that had driven the appellant to near madness.
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed his appeal and companyfirmed the death sentence.
Again, a jhagra took place between the appellant and the deceaseds husband.
On reaching Majhola, Nikki succumbed to her injury.
On the other hand, Mehlu was at the time of marriage a minor in his teens while the bride was 21 22 years old.
The prosecution story ran as follows Hansa, P.W. 1, and David P.W. 2, are brothers and the deceased was their sister.
He is the son of the brother of the appellant, P. Ws.
Therefore they should number have objected to the validation of this relationship by a marriage between the lovers.
As regards the first, Counsel has tried to companyjure up a whole history from some fragmentary facts appearing in the cross examination of PWs David and Mehlu.
But her parents did number agree to this matrimonial proposal on the ground that there was a disparity in age.
It is pointed out that there was number such a great disparity in age as would have made their marriage unacceptable to the companymunity.
Her dead body and the other injured persons were then taken to Pilibhit.
He was further companyvicted under Section 302 sic.
The story is sought to be built on three partially assumed facts Firstly, there was some dispute between Mehlu and Nikkis father on one side and the appellant on the other regarding cultivation of the appellants land.
Hence this appeal by special leave limited to the question of sentence.
Thirdly, the appellant and Mehlus father in law as well as P. Ws.
Siraji woke up.
Hansa, P.W. 1, went and lodged the report at P. S. Khatema.
The story put forth is that PWs 1, 2.
Secondly, PWs 1, 2, 3 and Mehlus father in law were fully aware of the premarital illicit companynection of the appellant with the deceased and the formers desire to companyer it with a matrimonial alliance.
About 15 days before this occurrence, the appellant again visited Mehlus house and attempted to molest the deceased.
He was also companyvicted on two companynts under Section 324, Penal Code for causing hurt to David PW 2 and Smt.
Penal Code for the attempted murder of Mehlu, PW 3 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.
The point sought to be made out is that at the time of companymitting the crimes in question the appellant was in a fit of frenzy being the culmination of the acute mental torment and torture inflicted on him by the victims.
The second is the long interval between his companyviction by the trial companyrt and the hearing of this appeal.
The appellant was anxious to marry her.
Thereupon a sharp quarrel took place between the appellant and Mehlu.
The injured were taken to Dr. Cheema at Majhola.
The appellant gave her two blows with the knife and ran away into the sugar cane field.
Shri R. K. Maheshwari, appearing as amicus curiae has pointed out two circumstances which according to him, justify a companypassionate view in the matter of sentence.
Mehlu, PW 3, is the husband of the deceased.
Nikki was 22 while the appellant was 33.
The appellant asked them to give up the cultivation, on the ground that he wanted to cultivate the land himself.
1 and 2, all by their joint efforts forced this marriage on Mehlu, although the latter was younger than the deceased.
Mehlus father also warned the appellant number to misbehave in future.
3 and the father in law of Mehlu all knew about the illicit intimacy of the appellant with the deceased.
The deceased was asleep on another charpoy about 10 or 12 paces away from them.
As regards the dispute over the cultivation of land, Hansa PW 1, has stated that they had cultivated 9 acres of the land belonging to the appellant on batai rental basis.
The appellant then immediately went to Nikkis charpoy and stabbed her.
On the night between the 2nd and 3rd of October, 1971, David and Mehlu were sleeping on one charpoy in the house of David in Nausar Farm, while Hansa was asleep on a separate company in the companyrtyard at a distance of about 10 or 12 paces from them.
For about two years preceding the occurrence, the appellant had illicit companynection with the deceased.
1 and 2 used to reside in Nausar Catholic Farm, while PW 3 was living at the Daah Farm, both within the territorial jurisdiction of P. S. Khatema.
Siraji, was also lying on a charpoy four or five paces away from her.
The appellant how 3ver persuaded Mehlus father to marry Mehlu to the deceased.
The imagination proceeds further that pursuant to this immoral arrangement, the appellant gave all his land to Mehlu and his father in law for cultivation, but after the marriage, these persons did number keep their pledged word.
S. Sarkaria, J. The appellant was tried and companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamaon, under Section 302, Penal Code, for the murder of Smt.
Nikki and sentenced to death.
According to Counsel, the persons appear to have given the appellant to understand that if he gave his land admeasuring 9 acres to Nikkis father he would be allowed to companytinue his liaison with Nikki even after her ostensible marriage to the appellants nephew.
It is further submitted that Nikkis father and these witnesses companyceived a sinister scheme with the object of depriving the appellant both of his land and the beloved.
At midnight, David woke up on receiving a stab and saw that his assailant was the appellant.
They number only banned his entry into Mehlus house, but also ousted him from the enjoyment of his land.
They agreed to the matrimonial proposal on the understanding that the appellant would thenceforth discontinue his illicit intimacy and visits to Daah Farm, About one and half months before the occurrence, however, the appellant in violation of that understanding, went to Mehlus house and insisted on going to bed with the deceased.
father were aware of the illicit intimacy of the deceased with the appellant.
