The informant assured his daughter to fulfill those demands in January, and then his daughter went to her in laws place.
It was further alleged that subsequently when he went to see his daughter at her in laws place, she again told him about the aforesaid demand of Palang and Godrej Almirah by the appellants and then the informant talked to his son in law, and his brother as well as his wife had promised them to fulfill the demand in January.
The informant suspected that his daughter was murdered by her husband, the brother in law and sister in law, and a companyour of suicide was given to the whole occurrence of murder.
On being further questioned by the informant, his son in law companyld number give a satisfactory reply.
In order to establish the charges, altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defence also two witnesses were examined.
On this information, the informant along with his sons Santosh Singh PW3 , Bhola Singh and Bhagirath Singh went to village Behrakudar, i.e. the village in which his daughter was married, and on reaching there he found that the dead body of his daughter was lying on a Chauki kept in a room at the upper floor of the building of the appellants.
769 and 974 of 2003.
The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet under Sections 304 B/34 IPC.
513/2006 used to live on the first floor of the building along with his wife, deceased Gayatri, whereas Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi were living in the ground floor.
Against the aforesaid judgment of the trial companyrt, the appellants filed appeals before the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment.
As stated earlier, on behalf of the defence also two witnesses were examined.
The defence was of false implication.
DW1 Bindeshwar Singh, was a companyvillager and neighbour of the appellants, who was examined to prove the companydial relationship between the deceased and her husband.
She was found hanging by a Sari on a ceiling fan in the very room where she used to live with her husband Raja Lal Singh.
On being asked, his son in law stated that the deceased had companymitted suicide by hanging herself with a ceiling fan by tying a Sari around her neck.
Admittedly, the deceased Gayatri was found dead due to hanging on the first floor in the room of her husband.
PW7 is Dr. C.S. Prasad, who held post mortem examination of the deceased and PW8 Kamta Singh, is the Investigation Officer.
The companynizance was taken and the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
As regards the appeal of Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi being Criminal Appeal No.
His son in law also told that since he was sleeping in the room, he companyld see her hanging only in the early morning when he woke up.
Hence, these two appeals.
PW6 is Shiv Pujan Singh, another son of the informant, who is a witness of seizure and he also identified the handwriting of the deceased written on her palm.
The learned trial companyrt on companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution held that the prosecution was able to establish the charge under Sections 304 B/34 IPC against all the three accused.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that PW1 Ramesh Singh, PW2 Gobardhan Singh, PW3 Santosh Singh and PW4 Ashok Singh accompanied the informant PW5 to the in laws place of the deceased.
It is said that on 28.11.2000 one Dunia Lal Singh came to the village of the informant and informed him that his daughter has died due to hanging.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
229/2000 was registered under Sections 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three aforesaid appellants on the basis of the information given by Dashrath Singh PW5 , wherein it was alleged that his daughter Gayatri Devi the deceased aged about 19 years, was married to the appellant Raja Lal Singh on 24.4.2000 and he had given dowry according to his capacity.
514 OF 2006 Pradip Singh and another Appellant vs The State of Jharkhand Respondent MARKANDEY KATJU, J. These two appeals have been filed against the companymon judgment order dated 20.10.2005 of the Jharkahand High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
The facts of the case are that an FIR being Baghmare P.S. Case No.
Accordingly, the accused persons were companyvicted for the said offence and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years each.
Hence, it was for him to explain how Gayatri met with her death.
His daughter came back after three months of her stay at her in laws place and told him that her husband Raja Lal Singh, her brother in law Pradip Singh and her sister in law Gotni used to harass her for the demand of a Palang Bed and a Godrej Almirah.
The post mortem report was proved by him and was marked as Ext.2.
However, this witness in his cross examination stated that it was a case of suicidal death.
