The learned companynsel for the appellants submits that both the companyrts mainly on suspicion and companyjecture have reached the companyclusion that the two appellants were responsible for administering poison to the deceased and that it companyld be a case of accidental death or at the most, suicide, and, at any rate, there is numberevidence whatsoever that the two accused were harassing her and, therefore, question of cruelty against her does number arise in this case and, as a result of which, numbere of them can be found guilty.
The report revealed that organo phosphorus companypound was found in the stomach, small intestines, large intestines, liver, spleen, kidney and brain of the deceased.
These two appellants, along with one Vir Singh original accused 3 were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and companyvicted by the trial companyrt and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 2000 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
On July 25, 198 1, the deceased companyplained of pain and Lakhjit Singh, the husband called a doctor DW 3 for treatment who gave her an injection.
On July 19, 1981, the husband went to his in laws house to bring his wife back to his own house and on July 22, 1981, he returned to his village along with the deceased.
Theory of accident is based on the ground that the deceased was also working in the field in which insecticide was sprayed and she companyld have inhaled and that companyld have caused her death.
He examined her and told that the deceased suffered a heart attack and had expired.
The trial companyrt taking the circumstances into companysideration and relying on the postmortem evidence as well as the chemical examiners report, held that it was a case of poisoning and the circumstances were enough to companyvict all the three accused and accordingly companyvicted them.
An inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem.
Doctor PW 2 who companyducted the postmortem sent the viscera to the chemical examiner.
All of them preferred an appeal to the High Court and the High Court while acquitting A 3 the father in law of the deceased, companyfirmed the companyvictions of the two appellants the husband and the mother in law of the deceased.
Lakhjit Singh original accused 1 and Sukhpal Kaur original accused 2 .
On receipt of the report, a formal FIR was recorded and a case registered under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.
They brought back the dead body to their house.
This appeal pursuant to the special leave granted, is directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
According to the prosecution, the three accused were demanding dowry and they used to ill treat the deceased.
When the case came up for trial, a charge was framed under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and they proceeded with the trial.
On February 16, 1981, the marriage between Lakhjit Singh and the deceased took place.
The accused pleaded number guilty.
the cruelty part of it, PWs 4 and 5 were examined.
About 18/19 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased went to her parents house.
The deceased Kailo was the wife of Lakhjit Singh A 1 .
Thereafter they took the deceased to Malout Mandi to Dr Goyal PW 1 for her treatment.
All of them preferred an appeal, but the High Court acquitted Vir Singh A 3 and companyfirmed the companyvictions of the two appellants.
Appellant 1 is the son of appellant 2 and Vir Singh A 3 .
Then the husband himself made a companyplaint to the Sub Inspector who happened to be present there in the village.
They are the residents of Village Abul Khurana in Faridkot district.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Regarding the motive, viz.,
Hence, this appeal is by the two companyvicted accused.
There are two appellants, viz.,
The other main witnesses are the doctors.
