On their return from the village Olak Mohabatsingh and others handed over a written companyplaint Exh.
6 to 17, were charged for the charges punishable under Section 201 red with Section 114 of the IPC.
6 to 17 was number challenged by the State.
The trial companyrt acquitted all the accused persons holding inter alia that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances relied upon for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the accused by any reliable or satisfactory evidence.
However, the judgment of the trial companyrt acquitting the accused Nos.
23 of the DSP at Surendranagar on 16.5.84.
1 and 2 and brother of appellant Nos.
15 and Mangalsingh Devubha Accused No.
Such promises were given on several occasions when on one pretext or the other father of the deceased was prevailed upon to send his daughter to the house of the accused appellants.
At Olak they came to know that at about 1 Oclock at night Manharbas body was found burning inside the kitchen of the house and her tongue protruded.
1 to send her to Olak the deceased had told him and other members of the family that if she is forced to go there she may be killed.
The gist of the defence version was that Manharba had died at 5 Oclock in the morning on 14.5.84 due to burns accidentally received by her from the primus stove that accused Nos.
harassment and torture by the appellants on account of inadequacy of dowry.
All that they found were few bones and remnants of the body of Manharba.
On the last occasion when her father was prevailed upon by the accused No.
1 to 5 companymitted murder of Manharba during the night between 13.5.84 and 14.5.84 in furtherance of their companymon intention and that her body was disposed of with a view to screen these offenders in furtherance of their companymon intention or by aiding and abetting each other.
While companyplaining about such companyduct of the appellants before her parents Manharba expressed that she should number be sent to the village Olak.
When she did number go back to the house of her parents in law, appellant No.
The promises were number kept Manharba was never sent to Bhavnagar to join her husband on the other hand ill treatment, harassment and torture on account of inadequacy of dowry companytinued to be meted out to her.
The said companyplaint was received by the Sub Divisional Police Officer for short SDPO , Surendranagar on 19.5.84 for inquiry.
22 A. Exh.
Thereafter the body was taken from the house in a Jholi sling and cremated early in the morning by 6 Oclock.
The said companyplaint is marked as Exh.
The High Court taking numbere of the case of the prosecution formulated the point for companysideration as follows The point that arises for our companysideration in this appeal is therefore, whether the accused Nos.
While the appellants were inmates of the house in which Manharba breathed her last, accused Nos.
The rest of the accused persons, accused Nos.
Before the latter companyld reach village Olak he was companymunicated by Natubha Ladhubha Accused No.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges.
On receiving the information the shocked father accompanied by his elder brother Parbatsingh and nephew reached village Olak on the 15th.
The State of Gujarat filed appeal against the five appellants in the High Court assailing the judgment of the trial companyrt acquitting them.
3 to 5.
After marriage she left her parental home in village Chotila and started residing in village Olak where the appellants reside.
Her husband Dilubha used to reside at Bhavnagar where he was serving.
15 and 16 were sent to village Chotila to inform her father and other family members and after they had companye from Chotila to Olak in the afternoon between 3 to 4 P.M., Manharba was cremated at 4 5 Oclock in the evening.
16 that his daughter died of burn injuries during the night between 13.5.84 and 14.5.84 and her body had been cremated.
The High Court independently assessed the evidence on record and held the appellants guilty of the offences and sentenced them as numbered earlier.
1 used to companye to the house of Mohabatsingh Bachuba father of Manharba and pressed for sending his daughter with him appellant No.
The SDPO recorded the companyplaint of Parbatsingh at Sayla on 21.5.84 at about 12.35 a.m. and sent it to Lakhtar Police Station for registration of the offence.
Shortly after marriage she companyplained of ill treatment.
When he was told about the companyplaint of ill treatment and torture of Manharba he made promise that there will be numbercause for any such companyplaint in future and Manharba will join her husband at Bhavnagar very soon.
The case of the prosecution, shortly stated was that Manharba, the deceased was married to Dilubha, who is son of appellant Nos.
The High Court sentenced all the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life on the first companynt and Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years on the second companynt with the direction that the sentences shall run companycurrently.
When such was the situation Mohabatsingh father of Manharba received a message from one Thakarshi, Laghra PW 2 , a neighbour of the appellant, who used to treat Manharba as his daughter, that he father of deceased should companye to village Olak immediately.
After investigation charge sheet was filed against 17 persons including the 5 appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC also read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The young bride living alone in the house of the in laws expressed companysiderable difficulty in putting up with insulting and torturous behavior of the appellants.
23 being first in point of time was treated as FIR by the trial companyrt.
6 to 17 were their relations, who were roped in on the allegation that they had helped the appellants in disposing of the dead body of Manharba.
P. Mohapatra, J. The five appellants in this appeal were accused No.
33/84 of the Court of Sessions Judge at Surendranagar and respondents in Criminal Appeal No.
