The suspect of companymission of this crime was found to be Mannu Sao himself, the appellant herein.
By the time, she companyld be lifted to be taken for treatment, she died.
On that very date at about 9.00 A.M., he had gone over to Nalanda for some personal work and after he returned to his cabin at about 10.00 A.M., he found his wife Bimla Devi lying in burnt companydition in amidst chilly plantation in front of his cabin.
The most important witness of the present case was PW3 Dr. Bidhu Bhushan Singh who had performed the postmortem upon the deceaseds body and had written that she had been killed by throttling or strangulating and thereafter she suffered the burn injuries.
It was numbericed that she had suffered from burn injuries, both her eyes were closed and the tongue was protruding.
In these circumstances, while he was planning to go to the police station, the Sub Inspector Hirdya Narain Singh came there who was subsequently examined as PW4.
P.C. admitted to have given information regarding suicide by his wife by setting fire.
The F.I.R. was Ext.5 and a case under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC was registered.
The prosecution only examined four witnesses PW1 and PW2 companyvillagers, PW3 Dr. Bidhu Bhushan Singh and PW4 Hirdya Narain Singh, Investigating Officer.
There were serious burn injuries on her body, however, Manu Sau found her somewhat alive at that time and he asked one Bhola Babu for help to take her to a doctor for treatment.
Some emphasis was placed on the fact that PW2 a company villager, in his evidence, had said that he did number know about the occurrence and he had signed on the report Ext.1/1 at the behest of the Investigating Officer.
The postmortem was companyducted and the report Ex.4 was prepared on 14th December, 1985.
The appellant was charged with both the afore stated offences.
Keeping in view the postmortem report, the Investigating Officer had a suspicion in mind and thereafter an FIR was recorded with reference to the postmortem report, it was found that Bimla Devi had died on account of throttling and ante mortem injuries and, with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence, the body was burnt.
He was carrying on agricultural activity as he was possessed of agricultural land.
The accused has admitted the deceased was his wife and was living with him in the cabin.
This judgment of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court of Patna, though unsuccessfully.
These findings of facts and appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was number interfered by the High Court and in fact, it recorded its occurrence by reiterating these findings.
The High Court companycurred with the finding of facts recorded by the Court and it sustained the finding of guilt as well as order of sentence awarded by the Trail Court.
In postmortem examination it has been found that her death has been caused by throttling her neck.
He pleaded innocence and was subjected to trial.
number he examined this person as a witness.
What have you to say?
The villagers had objected to the accused living with the deceased in that manner.
Both the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
The Investigating Officer started the inquest proceedings and the dead body was sent for postmortem to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif.
Vide judgment of the High Court dated 11th September, 2008 thus giving rise to the present appeal.
In the cross examination of this witness, numberhing material companyld be pointed out which would help the case of the accused.
The accused can hardly derive any advantage from this because this witness was to primarily prove the death of the deceased after she had been burnt.
The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses including that of the doctor and presented the charge sheet before the Court of companypetent jurisdiction.
Swatanter Kumar, J. On 14th December, 1985 at about 11.00 A.M. a fardbeyan was recorded by Sub Inspector of the Police Station, Nalanda at the behest of Manu Sao who informed that he is living with his wife Bimla Devi in his cabin at his agricultural lands in village Mohanpur.
Even according to the prosecution he was number an eye witness and there was numberhing much which he would companytradict, as the prosecution had mainly relied upon the statement of PW3 and PW4.
