711 of 2008 when he had gone to the mosque, were missing.
As per the prosecution story, on the 2nd of March, 1995, at about 745p.m.,
A. No.
PW 10 went to the village Mosque for namaz and while he was offering prayers he received information that his wife had been killed.
He rushed back home and found that the appellant, his wife and his mother in law who had been present in the house Crl.
The trial companyrt relied on the evidence of P.W. 9 Tarsem who claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence and after numbericing some of the companytradictions and differences vis vis his evidence and that of P.W. 10, gave the benefit of doubt to four of the accused, but companyvicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 and 120B of the IPC.
As per the prosecution story, P.W. 10 had companytracted a second marriage with the deceased Nazeema Khatoon sometime before the incident and she was pregnant as on that date.
The first informant P.W. 10 is the father of the appellant.
The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the accused.
He, accordingly, lodged a report against these three persons as well as Mohd.
Masi and Mohd.
This is a rather unfortunate case.
Shaukat who had been encouraging the appellant to sort out his step mother.
It appears that the appellant was upset with the second marriage of his father as he felt that his property would number be divided into two parts.
