7/88 and started investigation.
Eleven witnesses were examined to establish the accusations.
Raju, hereinafter referred to as the deceased in the year 1984 and his father had already died before 15 years back and since then he was living with his mother Prem Kanwar, the present appellant and uncle Puran Chand and he was number in service and thus was unemployed.
On that day, he went out from his house for some work and when he returned back at about 1.30 p.m. he found crowd near his house and also found fire in his house and people were extinguishing the fire and he came to know that his wife, the deceased was burnt and had died and, therefore, he had companye to inform the police.
P/12 before Jagmalram PW 11 SHO, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that he was married with Smt.
Prosecution version unfolded during trial is as follows On 23 04 1988 at about 2.05 p.m., the accused Krishnalal lodged an oral report Ex.
During investigation, postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was got companyducted and the post mortem report is Ex.
The appellant and two others faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 304 Part B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in short Dowry Prohibition Act .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan questioning companyrectness of the judgment of acquittal passed by a learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar.
