- (1.) DEV Kant Trivedi, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants u/s. , 302/34 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them by Sri K. K. Verma, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi on 6-12-78 in Session Trial No. A-55 of 1978. The facts giving rise to the Sessions Trial No, A-55 of 1978 are as follows:
(2.) SMT. Shanti, the deceased was the wife of appellant No. 2 Ram Sanehi. The marriage had taken place in the year 1968. Immediately after the marriage when com plainant Sarju Prasad Munim, father of Shanti went to the Sasural of SMT. Shanti, the mother-in-law and Jethani of the deceased threatened him that they will get appellant Ram Sanehi married again. Ap pellant Ram Sanehi as well as his family members told the complainant that Shanti is ugly and is unable to do household chores. Complainant then accompanied by SMT. Shanti came back to his house. On being pressurised by biradari people. SMT. Shanti was taken away to her Sasural, but subsequently appellant Ram Sanehi again came with Shanti and left her at complainant's house. The ornaments of SMT. Shanti were, however, not given SMT. Shanti who then lodged a report at the Police Station. Again a Panchayat of the biradari people was convened and SMT. Shanti in accordance with the decision of the Panchayat went to her Sasural. For some time SMT. Shanti lived with appellant Ram Sanehi at Unnao. During this stay at Unnao the landlord of appellant Ram Sanehi informed the complainant telegraphically about an attempt having been made by the appellant Ram Sanehi on the life of his wife SMT. Shanti. The complainant then went to Unnao and SMT. Shanti was taken back to his house by the complainant about 1-1/2 year prior to the incident. About three months prior to the incident appellant Sripal came to the house of the complainant and took SMT. Shanti to her Sasural giving the assurance that SMT. Shanti will not be ill-treated. On 16th of February, 1976, the complainant came to know that SMT. Shanti has been killed and her husband has run away. A written report was then lodged by com plainant Sarju Prasad Munim, father of deceased at Police Station Mallawan, Dis trict Hardoi. A case was registered at Police Station Mallawan. Earlier on the same day at 8. 30 a. m. appellant Sripal made a written report at PS. Mallawan that SMT. Shanti had committed suicide in the night intervening 15/16th February, 1976. On the basis of the said report, panchayatnama was prepared by S. I. Moh-kam Singh who found the dead body in the verandah of the house of the appellants. A piece of Sutali was found around the neck of the dead body. A piece of Sutali was also found in an iron ring of the slab of the verandah. The father of the deceased who had reached at the house of the appellants, however, told to S. I. Mokam Singh that it was a case of murder. Post- mortem ex amination was conducted on 17th February, 1976 at 1 p. m. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against theap-pellants Sripal and Ram Sanehi and SMT. Maheshaw mother of the appellants and SMT. Ushadevi,wife of appellant Sripal Charge were framed against the appellants and the co-accused on 5th July, 1978 under Section, 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The appellants and the co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was admitted to the appellant Sripal that marriage of Shanti, deceased had taken place 'with appellant Ram Sanehi in the year 1968. They, however, denied the ill-treatment by Ram Sanehi and his family members with the deceased. It was also admitted by him that Smt. Shanti had gone alongwith Sarju Prasad. He also admitted that he lodged the report at Police Station on 16-2-76 regarding the suicide of Shanti. Appellant Sripal claimed that the post mortem report was got incorrectly made by Dr. Maheshwari who is nephew of Champa Lal, employer of complainant Sarju Prasad. Ram Sanehi, however, stated that the marriage had taken place in the year 1970. He denied that he ever ill-treated the deceased. He stated that he was not present at the time of Panchayatnama. He also stated that he does not know whether the cause of death was hanging or suicide. He pleaded alibi stating that he was on his duty at Unnao on the 'ribewell of Nagar Palika between 4 to 12 noon. Healso stated that Bhagwati Prasad gave a wrong infor mation to the complainant. He further stated that the ornaments of his wife were embezzled by Sarju Prasad complainant. He stated that Smt. Shanti committed suicide.
(3.) THERE is thus no dispute that the death of Smt. Shanti Devi had taken place in the house of the appellants which was the Sasural of the deceased. The only dis pute raised by the appellants is that the death occurred due to suicide committed by the deceased and no foul play was in volved. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 wit nesses including the complainant, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and the Investigating Officer of the case. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Chandra Gupta and Sri Ram Deo Tewari were examined in defence.;