Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) WRITTEN objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the Respondent and perused the judgment and order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 515 of 2009 (State v. Brajram alias Jhau and Ors.). Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellant No. 1, Sher Bahadur is the father -in -law and the Appellant No. 2, Madan Pal is the elder brother -in -law (Jeth) of the deceased. The husband, whose case is distinguishable, has already been convicted and sentenced and is in jail. It was next submitted that neither P.W.1, Bharat Singh (father of the deceased) nor P.W. -2, Smt Javitri Devi (mother of the deceased) nor any other witness supported the prosecution story during the trial and the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order despite the fact that the case was of evidence. The finding of strangulation is conjectural. It was next submitted that the maximum sentence imposed on each of the Appellants is of seven years and they are in jail from the last one year and had been on bail during the trial and never abused the same.
(3.) THE learned AGA submitted that the deceased died in the house of the Appellants otherwise than the normal circumstances and she had sustained ante mortem injuries, therefore, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act the burden rests on the Appellants to show as to how the deceased sustained ante mortem injures and died, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.;