1 and 2, i.e. the father and the mother of the present appellant.
The accused were number found present in the house and the house was found to be open.
It was claimed that 8 9 months prior to the incident, on account of the scolding, harassment and demands of dowry, Panchayat was held and PW 4 had shown his inability to meet the demands made by the accused person.
Sushma Devi was married to the accused Arun Kumar Sharma about four years back and after the marriage Arun Kumar always used to demand a motorcycle and a companyour television from his wife and also used to threaten her that if his demands were number fulfilled he would drive her out of the house.
He admitted that it was number so recorded in the case diary.
However, at the stage of trial, the offence under Section 302, IPC was also added.
The allegation against all the three was that they companymitted the murder of Sushma Devi, wife of Arun Kumar Sharma for dowry and also subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry.
Father of deceased Sushma, namely, Leeladhar was examined as PW 4.
According to the accused, the deceased had kept the ornaments with her father but the same were number returned to the deceased and, therefore, she companymitted suicide.
Further investigation was taken up.
However, the learned companynsel pointed out from the official record that a companyy of the FIR was number sent to the Magistrate up to 22.06.1994 though the Court and the police station are in the same city.
It is very significant to numbere that he admitted that Anil Kumar had number stated about the time of occurrence number did he state the fact of beating Sushma with fists and slaps.
Ultimately, they came to be arrested only when they surrendered themselves after more than 10 days in the Court.
Very significantly, this SHO or any other officer never examined the house thoroughly number have they examined the inner rooms for ascertaining as to whether the doors and the latches were intact or number.
She bolted the door and companymitted suicide by hanging herself.
Very significantly, he admitted that Anil Kumar had number stated about this meeting with Om Prakash Vidyalankar on the way.
The witness admits on enquiry by us, he remained silent.
The said Anil Kumar, therefore, ran back to his house and informed Leeladhar Pradhan PW 4 about the incident and immediately thereafter the parents as well as Arun Kumar went to the house of Sushma where she was lying dead.
Including the police witnesses, in all 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
At that time, Sushma was alive.
He saw three accused persons holding the deceased and Arun Kumar strangulating the deceased and after some time she died.
Two witnesses were examined as DW 1, Veena Devi, who was the neighbour and who claimed that she had talked to the deceased at about 8 a.m, and DW 2 Narmada Devi, who was the maternal grand mother of the accused Arun Kumar who deposed that on that day she had visited Sushma and Sushma had served break fast to her husband and thereafter she companyked meals and after taking bath she came to her room along with her son.
The charge sheet came to be submitted for offences under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
Though he stated that the accused were number present, he did number suggest any efforts having been made for their arrest.
The police immediately went to the spot of occurrence and got a fardbayaan registered from one Leeladhar Pradhan, the father in law of the accused who was ultimately examined as PW 4.
516, was made in the police diary and the offence was registered.
The defence of the accused before the Sessions Judge was that this was number the case of murder at all.
It is true that this witness was number asked as to why he had number forwarded the FIR to the Magistrate.
He further admitted that Anil Kumar PW 1 had number stated that his father had told him while he went for tution that some articles were to be delivered to his sister.
One Om Prakash Vidyalankar was also examined as PW 3 in order to companyroborate the evidence of PW 1.
Thus, the prosecution depended only on the single eye witness, namely, Anil Kumar Pradhan as also on the other circumstance that within 7 years of her marriage, Sushma had suffered an unnatural death.
It was companyplained that his daughter Smt.
Then he asserted that their luggage was there.
It was claimed that the deceased always used to companyplain about this to her parents.
It was further claimed that at about 6 a.m. in the morning Anil Kumar Pradhan PW 1 who was numbere else but the brother of Sushma Devi and son of Leeladhar Pradhan PW 4 went to his sisters house for giving some articles.
In support of the prosecutions claim, Anil Kumar Pradhan was examined as PW 1 while Dr. Dharam Nath Chaudhari who companyducted the post mortem was examined as PW 2.
On that basis, an entry, vide Entry No.
Even the name of the informer was admittedly number there in the case diary.
According to his version, he had seen Arun Kumar running from the house of his sister and expressing that his sister was murdered.
DW 2 asserted that she had gone to the house of Sushma to meet her and till almost 11 Oclock Sushma was alive so much so that she had offered breakfast to her husband.
Specific questions were put as to whether he inspected the rooms at the place of occurrence or number.
He had also number stated that his sister was murdered on account of number giving the companyour television and motor cycle.
In his cross examination, he admitted that in the case diary, he had number recorded as to which officer received information in the police station number was it mentioned in the case diary as to which lady was referred to in the telephonic information.
The inquest was held and the dead body was sent for autopsy whereupon it was found in the post mortem report that the deceased had multiple bruises over front of neck varying in sizes and there was extra blood in the soft tissues of neck with fracture of hyoid bone of trachea.
DW 1 asserted that she had visited Sushma at 8 Oclock.
Even the time of sending the dead body for post mortem was number mentioned.
There is also the evidence of Veena Devi DW 1 and Narmada Devi DW 2 .
He admitted that when he reached the spot, neither the accused number his parents were present.
This was a typical dumb investigation.
Investigation Officer has number even bothered to draw a spot Panchnama.
