The dead body of the deceased was taken into possession by Kapur Singh Payal P.W.5 , Patwari, who initially investigated the crime.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Puola Devi hereinafter referred to as deceased daughter of PW 3 Amar Singh was married to Kamal Singh, son of accused Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, District Tehri Garhwal.
Subsequently, the investigation was taken up by, Bachchan Singh P.W.6 , Patwari, who further interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused persons.
She had apprehended that she would be killed in her in laws house.
Puola Devi, always companyplained about the harassment being made to her by the accused appellants whenever she visited her parental house.
The role ascribed to the appellants was that they held the legs of the deceased.
A 3 on the basis of the first information report received from Lal Singh and made necessary entry in the general diary, companyy of extract of which is Ext.
A 1 , , Lal Singh P.W.1 had mentioned that Puola Devi was married to son of Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, where she used to get harassment at the hands of her in laws.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution version was specific that it was Dayal Singh who was responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.
A 6 , police form No.
He went to the Patwari and came to know that dead body of his daughter has already been taken to Narendra Nagar.
A 2 and other necessary papers including sketch of the dead body Ext.
He prepared the check report Ext.
Lal Singh P.W.1 at the end of the first information report expressed suspicion that after companymitting murder of his niece Puola Devi, kerosene oil was poured over her body and it was set on fire to companyceal the fact of murder.
Accused appellant Mula Devi is mother in law and accused appellant Rajmati is sister in law of the deceased.
Since the High Court accepted the appeal of the companyaccused Dayal Singh who was supposed to be the main culprit, on the self same evidence, the appellants companyld number have been companyvicted.
In appeal, as numbered above, appeal of Dayal Singh was accepted while that of present appellants was dismissed.
A 11 .
Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held after companymitment to the Court of Sessions.
Meanwhile, Lal Singh P.W.1 , uncle of the deceased, had already lodged the first information report on 30th of May 1990, after he received information that Puola Devi had died in her in laws house.
It needs to be numbered that in the interior hills of Uttarkhand, certain Revenue Officials are given the police powers.
On the next day, at about 5.00 P.M, he proceeded for his home Village Kulpi, District Tehri Garhwal, and reached there on 01.06.1990.
A 10 against all the three accused for their trial in respect of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC.
13 Ext.
She often told that her in laws used to ask her to give her jewellery to them else they would kill her.
On 30.05.1990, Amar Singh P.W.3 father of the deceased , who used to work in Delhi, received a message there that his daughter Puola Devi has died.
In the first information report Ext.
On the basis of the first information report, Crime No.02 of 1990 was registered against all the three accused persons under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC by Patti Patwari, Baman Gaon.
He also prepared the site plan Ext.
It is submitted that the circumstances highlighted by the trial companyrt and companycurred with by the High Court do number make out any case against the appellants.
A 7 , sample of seal Ext.
The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.
Dr. P.P. Raturi P.W.7 Medical Officer, Narendra Nagar companyducted the autopsy on the dead body of Puola Devi on 01.06.1990, at 1000 A.M., and prepared the postmortem examination report Ext.
He had also stated in his report that whenever Puola Devi used to companye to her parental village she companyplained of the harassment meted out to her by the accused appellants.
He inspected the spot, took the dead body in his possession, prepared the inquest report Ext.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 201 IPC.
After companypletion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet Ext.
However, the appeal of the companyaccused Dayal Singh, who was companyvicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, was allowed.
The cause of death in the opinion of the Medical Officer was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation.
He also found postmortem burn injuries.
