He found the ventilator of the room open and he peeped into the ventilator of the room and found a dead body lying therein.
Thereafter he stated that Uma had gone to his sister Dodva or Pandiv.
The dead body was identified as that of the wife of the appellant.
No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant.
On receiving the information the S.H.O. Police Station, Pindwada PW 21 rushed to the spot where Lal Shankar PW 1 gave the report exhibit P 78 in which it is stated that at about 9.00 A.M. on 5.7.1998 he climbed on the roof of the house of the appellant to see the water level in the nearby pond.
The statements of Rajendra Trivedi PW 2 and Bharat Prabhu Lal PW 8 were recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Police prepared the inquest report and the site plan.
500/ , in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.
They spent night on the terrace of the temple.
The prosecution, in order to establish the case, examined in all 22 witnesses.
The ornaments found on the dead body were removed.
PW 8 companyfronted the appellant as to why he was providing misleading information.
The appellant threatened that he would kidnap the deceased if he is number allowed to marry her.
Both sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
In the month of March,1998 the appellant along with deceased came to his ancestral village Kojra and stayed in the village temple for a night.
Anadi Devi PW 13 rejected the proposal made by the appellant.
The prosecution in order to prove the crucial circumstance of appellant and deceased last seen together has examined Bharat Prabhu Lal PW 8 who is numbere other than a companysin of the appellant.
They started living in the house called Rawla.
In the morning of 6th June, 1998 he found appellant alone.
The appellant and deceased visited the village in June and stayed in the house.
The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed trial.
Thus, the evidence of PW 8 and 9 undoubtedly reveal that the appellant was providing misleading information about the whereabouts of Uma.
His version is companysistent with what has been stated by Bharat Prabhu Lal PW 8 .
Nelesh Trivedi PW 9 is another important witness who is numbere other than a companysin brother in relation of the appellant.
Thereafter he had number seen the deceased alive.
The appellant was arrested on suspicion.
The companyple stayed in the temple.
The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of evidence available on record found numbercase against Puran Kumar and companysequently, acquitted him of all the charges.
Thereafter, they were regularly companying and going to the village Kojra.
The appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.
The appellant was companyvicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.
Next day, both of them went to nearby village named Malgauv and returned after 3 4 days along with appellants sisters Kamla, Usha, Hansa etc.
They started living in their ancestral house namely Rawla after performing religious ceremony of house warming.
1927 of 2006 Sudershan Reddy, J. Leave granted.
It is clear from the evidence available on record that the appellant was providing misleading information as regards the whereabouts of deceased Uma.
On the basis of the information given by the appellant his blood stained trouser and some ornaments of the deceased were recovered.
Thereafter, the appellant and deceased disappeared from Mumbai.
Thus, it is the second incriminating circumstance against the appellant.
On 30th June, 1998 the appellant again visited the village along with his friend Puran companyaccused, since acquitted .
While in police custody the appellant gave information vide Ex.
The companyviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.
Nilesh Trivedi PW 9 also stated that the appellant was giving misleading information about the deceased Uma.
On 17 18th June, 1998 he received a message from Mumbai through one Raju Ram to inquire about the whereabouts of the wife of the appellant as it was found that the appellant returned to Mumbai alone.
The deceased Uma was working in a beauty parlor.
The appellant approached the mother of the deceased Anandi Devi PW 13 and proposed to marry the deceased.
Thereafter the deceased was number seen alive.
The appellant was, however, living with his sister in Mumbai.
The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant and one Puran Kumar since acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
Anandi Devi PW 13 did number lodge any companyplaint whatsoever to the police about the disappearance of her daughter.
Thereafter, the appellant and deceased entered the ancestral house called Rawla in the same village after performing religious rites in the presence of the appellants sisters and other family members.
PW 8 and 9 companysistently speak about the circumstance of the appellant and deceased last seen together.
He told him that he had left Uma at Nala Supara Railway Station, Bombay with her mother.
It is stated by him that he had seen the appellant and deceased Uma together on 30th March, 1998.
She was living in the neighbourhood where the appellant was living along with his sister.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
On 6.4.1998 both the appellant as well as deceased Uma talked to Anandi Devi PW 13 on telephone and assured her that they would soon be returning Mumbai.
The appellant was getting ready for going to Mumbai.
He inquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased Uma and appellant told him that Uma had gone to village Gol.
The police broke open the lock and found the dead body in a highly decomposed companydition.
On appeal, the High Court having reconsidered the entire matter companyfirmed the companyviction and sentences imposed against the appellant by the Trial Court.
On 5.6.1998 the appellant along with deceased met him.
Thereafter deceased was number seen with the appellant.
Both of them developed intimacy and fell in love with each other.
PW 8 stated that on 6th June, 1998 on inquiry the appellant stated that his wife Uma had gone to Jhadoli to meet her maternal uncle and from there she will join him at Sirohi and both of them will go to Mumbai from Sirohi.
The appellant introduced the deceased as his wife named Uma.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant is a permanent resident of village Kojra, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
He accordingly informed the police.
On 5.7.1998 Lal Shanker PW 1 informed the police that a dead body was lying in the house Rawla.
It is in his evidence that the appellant visited the village in the month of March along with the deceased.
Based on the information police registered a case for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and proceeded with investigation.
He was also companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
It was raining.
