But subsequently, on 26.08.1993, Vinod Kumar PW2 , visited the house of companyplainant and informed him that on the day of the incident, at around 1100 A.M., the accusedappellant came out of their house on their call and informed them that numberody was at home.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
Later that day, after returning from duty at around 1200 numbern, the companyplainant P.W1 found the dead body of his daughter hanging from the roof and informed the police about the same.
Thereafter, on finding an opportunity at around 10.45 A.M., the accusedappellant entered the house and tried to establish forceful physical relations with the deceased and the same was strongly resisted by her.
Simultaneously, on 26.08.1993, the accused appellant had made an extrajudicial companyfession before Sanjay Sharma PW4 who in turn narrated the entire incident before the Investigating Officer.
The accusedappellant thereafter orchestrated the entire incident into a suicide, by hanging the deceased from the roof with the help of a white bedsheet.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1192 of 2001, wherein the High Court upheld the order of companyviction passed by the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
Therefore, the companyplainant P.W1 approached the police on 26.08.1993 to inform them about the presence of the accused at the scene of offence.
Thus, a physical altercation broke out between the two, wherein the accusedappellant strangulated the deceased by putting the weight of his right hand on the throat of the deceased.
On their call at the maindoor, they were addressed by the accusedappellant who informed them that numberody was present at home and therefore, companysidering the accusedpetitioner to be a neighbour, both the persons left the house without doubting the accusedpetitioner or suspecting that anything was wrong.
However, during this incident, two key witnesses namely Kushalpal and Vinod Kumar PW2 , visited the house of the companyplainant PW1 for some personal work.
On the basis of the aforesaid information the First Information Report No.
Thereafter, investigation was companyducted and after companypletion of the same, charge sheet was filed against the accusedappellant.
Further he also owned a betel shop in the vicinity.
The brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are as follows the accusedappellant used to stay in the same block under the companyplainant PW1 and he used to frequently visit the house of companyplainant PW1 .
221 was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accusedappellant and the search for the accused was initiated.
Admittedly, on the date of incident, the deceased was alone in the house as her parents and siblings had left for their jobs and school at around 630 a.m. respectively.
On the day of incident, i.e. 24.08.1993, both the companyplainant and his wife left for their duties, and their daughter hereinafter referred as the deceased aged around 17 years, was alone at the house.
