He called his parents and tried to resuscitate the deceased by massaging her but to numberavail.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at great length and have gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge.
Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court which was allowed and the respondent was acquitted.
The State, then, came up in appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court which is number being heard by us.
Thereafter, the parents of the deceased were informed but as they suspected some foul play, they lodged an F.I.R. at the Lahori Gate Police Station at 6.25 AM.
After Police investigation, the matter was handed over to the C.B. I, which after, making a thorough investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the respondent who was then companymitted to the Court of Session and tried by the Sessions Judge who companyvicted the respondent under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced hi to imprisonment for life.
It appears that the deceased was married to the respondent on the 8th June, 1969 but was unfortunately found dead at the house of the respondent on the morning of 14th June, 1969.
The first person who attended her and found her dead was the respondent.
A detailed narrative of the prosecution case is reproduced in the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is number necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court acquitting the respondent Gulzari Lal Tandon of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing the murder of his newly married wife, Meena Tandon.
