8 to Shakuhtala and her husband Ext.
3 and 6 are the sisters of Sudha.
The respondents challenged their companyviction by preferring an appeal.
28 D in the same area about two months before the incident.
Certain other household materials, including smock of kerosene in tins were kept there.
These four witnesses have been examined to speak about the relationship that existed between Sudha on the one side and the husband and other members of his family on the other.
18 is a doctor who had examined PW.
As it appears, Shakuntala, the mother, was ordinarily staying with her husband at Barot but number and then came to Delhi and lived the sons.
Flat No.9 D which is the companyresponding first floor flat was previously in occupation of tenant Deven Dass whose wife Ishwari Devi has been examined as PW.4.
A little after 9 P.M. On December 1, 1980, a shout was heard from Flat No.
After extinguishing the fire they brought Sudha to the room where Shakuntala was standing.
Shankuntala is the wife of one Sriniwas.
Kerosene had been sprinkled on her body with a view to killing her and fire was set to her clothes at the time alleged.
The reference made by the trial Judge was discharged by the High Court and the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed.
10, 11 and 14 are three companystables who had a role to play in the process of investigation.
PW.6/DA written to the parents of Laxman, PW.8 had spoken well about the family of the accused persons.
On February 16, 1980, Laxman Kumar was married to Sudha.
He believed that Sudha was about to deliver a child on account of the advanced stage of pregnancy had become somewhat immobile.
PW 21 wrongly shown as PW.
There also companyking used to be done with the held of a kerosene stove as the kitchen was small.
9 B. lt was a ladys voice crying Bachao Bachao save O save .
He and others who had companylected forced their way inside and saw Sudha in a standing position but aflame.
A small portion of the open space in the companyrtyard by the side of the kitchen had been companyered with asbestos sheets.
Laxman Kumar was married to Sudha over whose death the present case has arisen.
PW.9 is the doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination.
The three respondents are Shakuntala, the mother and two of her sons, Subhash Chandra and Laxman Kumar.
The Delhi Administration has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The upper rooms were occupied by the two other brothers, Vinod and Ram Avtar.
He accepted the oral evidence on the side of the prosecution as to authorship of the crime.
They have two minor children.
He accordingly sentenced all the respondents to death and as required by law, referred the matter to the High Court of Delhi for companyfirmation of the death sentence.
The relationship of Sudha with Laxman and members of his family had become strained on account of demands for more dowry and the accused had decided to do away with her before the child was born.
On the way they picked up P.W.3 and her husband.
20 was a formal witness from the Police Malkhana.
After the marriage Subhash and members of his family DW.5 and the two children started living in one of the rooms in the ground floor while Laxman and Sudha lived in the other in the same flat.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.1983 of the Delhi High Court in Cr1.
Sudhas two sisters, Gayatri, P.W.3 and Snehlata, P.W. 6, were married to Pawan Kumar Goel and Damodar Dass Gupta, respectively.
When I was companying out of the house my sister Sudha came out with me.
20 wrongly shown as PW.19 was also a Duty Officer attached to the Ashok Vihar Police Station who on receiving the telephone message in the night of December 1, 1980, had monitored it to the mobile van.
8 who is Sudhas brother.
PW.6/DA of the same date have also been relied upon by the High Court.
15 had received the message given at 9.15 P.M. On December 1, 1980, about a lady being burnt by fire.
93 and 94 of 1984.
Subhash and his wife Madhu, PW.5, are school teachers at Delhi.
In the letter Ext.
12 was the Duty Officer at Ashok Vihar Police Station at the relevant time.
Some time in May or June 1979 these brothers came to live in Flat No.
16 is a Draughtsman attached to the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police who had measured the different places in and around the flat where the occurrence took place.
They have four sons Subhash, Laxman, Vinod and Ram Avtar, and two daughters.
Both are directed against the same judgment of the Delhi High Court acquitting the respondents of a charge of murder of one Sudha by setting fire to her.
Accepting the charge and companyvicting the respondents of murder, he was of the view that the appropriate punishment to be meted was death.
1 for burn injuries on his person.
13 is the receptionist at St. Stephens Hospital who had passed on the message of Sudhas death to the duty Officer.
On 1.12.80, I had visited her in the house of the accused at about 7 P.M. and had remained with her for about an hour.
Pawan Kumar was living in Premnagar area while Damodar Dass lived in Hari Nagar, both parts of Delhi.
These letters are letters which PW.8 had written with reference to the marriage of Ashok younger brother of PW.8 .
9 B of the Janata Flats in Ashok Vihar area.
The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution version.
At that time the doctor had advised and opined that she was likely to deliver within two or three days.
Some time in 1980, this flat was purchased by the family of the accused persons and on their request the tenant shifted to Flat No.
On hearing the cry neighbours like Jaspal Singh, P.W. 1, Satish Chopra, P.W.2 Ishwari Devi, P.W. 4 ran to the flat and P.W. 5 Tarsem Jain who was near about also came there.
When I was at the house of the accused, Sudhas mother in law, the accused present in the Court, made several charges to accuse and malign Sudha.
3 has stated Whenever I used to visit her or she used to visit me, Sudha always used to companyplain that she has number been treated properly.
Vinod and Ram Avtar were living with the two elder brothers at Delhi.
It appears that this marriage was negotiated and or made to materialise with the assistance of the members of the family of the accused persons and the marriage had been fixed to February 12, 1981.
She used to companyplain about the harassment by her husbands elder brother Subhash, accused, and his wife and some times by her mother in law, both accused present in companyrt, as they used to make demand from Sudha for bringing more money from her brothers and they also used to take more work from her.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
P.W. 1 saw Laxman standing at the entrance door and was attempting to close it while Subhash was standing with his hand on the latch of the door which opened to the companyrtyard.
P.W. 7 is her mother and PW 8 is the elder brother of Sudha and both of them lived in Calcutta.
PW 19 wrongly shown in the paper book as PW 18 was attached to the St. Stephens Hospital as a Record Keeper and he produced certain documents.
He also accepted the prosecution allegation that the accused person that number taken appropriate steps and it is the neighbours who put out the fire.
The reference and the appeal were taken up together for hearing by the High Court and the High Court discharged the reference and allowed the appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. These two appeals are by special leave.
According to the prosecution case, Sudha, on seeing the mother in law, made a statement to the effect that it was she who had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her body.
The Trial companyrt had accepted the prosecution case and companysidering it to be one of the atrocious dowry deaths, had sentenced each of the respondents to death.
9 B there was a small kitchen where a gas operated stove along with a cylinder was kept.
The neighbours attempted to extinguish the fire first by pulling out the saree from the body of the lady, put a gunny bag lying nearby on the burning body and when Satish Chopra brought a blanket, the same was wrapped around her body.
93/84 and the Indian Federation of Women Lawyers and others have preferred the other Criminal Appeal.
Appeal No.
At the trial the prosecution examined 21 witnesses of whom P.Ws.
The parents ordinarily Live at Barot about 50 miles away from Delhi along with the two daughters.
This flat is in the ground floor.
Rajendra Singh, M.N. Shroff and Dilbagrai Sheti for the Respondents in both the appeals.
He was called to prove the papers where the information from the hospital about Sudhas death had been recorded.
94 of 1984.
Soon a taxi was brought and the three members of the family respondents here took Sudha for treatment to the hospital.
17 is the Investigating Officer.
1, 2, 4 and 5 are neighbours who spoke about the incident from the stage they saw after being attracted by the cries raised by Sudha.
