Except these two, others were acquitted by the trial Court.
S.I. Katkar on arriving at the police station rushed to the hospital.
P.S.I. Katkar after getting the information of registration of crime prepared the spot panchnama in the hospital where the dead body was lying, vide Exh.
However, they did number make efforts to save her.
Since the accused persons abjured guilt, the trial was held.
He numbericed large pieces of skin, flesh and ashes lying, on the floor of the room, burnt matchsticks, bottle companytaining kerosene, so also a bowl smelling of kerosene.
There were two appellants before the High Court which dismissed the appeal.
The room was having smell of kerosene all over, even felt by P.S.I. Katkar and panch Sk.
Raheman and Sk.
A 2 though informed police about Manojas burning, did number disclose as to how she got burnt.
Witness Sk.
81 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with section 34 IPC and by the judgment and order dated 17.12.1993 of learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Achalpur, they were companyvicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each with default stipulation.
She filed a criminal case against the appellant and companyaccused alleging ill treatment and cruelty.
Munir numbericed burnt pieces of clothes and one calendar was found burnt.
A 2 did number state in the report that A 1 tried to extinguish fire, though claimed by him at the trial.
A 2 disowned the marriage of Manoja with A 1.
Raheman on their arrival in the morning is an eloquent circumstance when viewed in the companytext of room remaining accessible and match box number found in the room.
After the marriage, she was residing with him.
While the proceeding was pending, A 1 companytracted marriage with deceased Manoja on 8.7.1991 and in companysequence brought her to his house and as such she was residing with A 1.
A 1 was a resident of Banosa.
In the report, A 2 did number mention that Manoja was wife of A 1 thereby indicating companyduct in suppressing true facts.
Significantly, numbermatch box was found in the kitchen.Neither A 2 number A 1 informed Manojas father about her getting burnt.
Deceased Manoja was living with A 1 and A 2 till 27.5.1992 in the house under their folds.
In the room, burnt match sticks were found which tallied with match sticks in the match box seized from the kitchen.
It was on 27th May, 1992 that A 2 went to the police station Daryapur and gave the report Exh.83 informing that the deceased was burning in the house and she was being removed to the hospital.
Deceased Manoja was burnt in the room of that very house.
He recorded the statements of various persons in the companyrse of enquiry.
That, information was sent to the police station where A D of Murg Khabari No.
In the room, bottle companytained kerosene was found.
26 and seized some articles therefrom.
It so happened that the matrimonial dispute cropped up between Hira and A 1 and as a companysequence thereof she left the matrimonial home.
Additionally, burnt pieces of skin and flesh were lying there.
These articles were seized by making a panchnama Exh.
The accused gave different versions in respect of the deceased Manoja.
The victim of assault was one Manoja Manorama daughter of Tirathraj Tiwari PW 5 hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
A 2 settled marriage of Manoja with A 1 companycealing the fact the A 1 was already married with Hira.
Only present appellant has questioned the companyrectness of the judgment.
The case based on circumstantial evidence which according to the prosecution unerringly pointed out the appellant to the author of the crime.
One Hira was married to A 1 in the year 1989.
On the other hand, A 1 and A 2 gave deliberately wrong name of father of Manoja as Akhilesh Tiwari to mislead the police.
Appellant and companyaccused saw her burning in the room.
On companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
The circumstances numbered by the trial Court are as follows Hira, wife of A 1 lodged companyplaint against appellants alleging ill treatment making specific mention of fact that A 1 companytracted second marriage.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows The appellant A 2 alongwith companyaccused Santosh Devidas Shukla A 1 and two others were tried in Sessions Trial No.
A 2 is the father of A 1.
Manoja sustained 99 burns and it was shown that she struggled for survival.
He returned to the police station and lodged the FIR vide Exh.84 on the basis of which the offence was registered at Crime No.101/92.
1, where deceased Manoja was burnt.
There were two burnt match sticks and there was one bottle companytaining kerosene and a pot smelling kerosene.
He then immediately went to the house of accused No.
Dr. Shailaja Kale PW 1 who was the Medical Officer, after seeing deceased Manoja in the hospital at about 5.35 hours declared that she was brought dead and information was given immediately to the P.S.I. who was present in the hospital.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
P.C. was registered on 27.5.1992.
He prepared the spot panchnama of the scene of offence, vide Ex.
In the companyrse of enquiry, he also made the inquest panchnama Ex.
