changed his version namely, mother being serious and she intended to see
her grand daughter i.e., deceased. He has also deposed that deceased was
picked up from her marital home after informing the mother-in-law of the
deceased and assuring her to be brought back before 10 AM in order to
enable her visit to the Doctor who was attending to Ms. Pramila for
pregnancy related tests. PW-2 has also narrated the manner in which he
was made to believe the words of the appellant and was coaxed to fetch the
watchman of Savkar Hospital. He has clearly deposed by the time he
returned he had seen as to how Ms. Pramila was lying on the lap of the
appellant who had strangulated her resulting in foam oozing out of her
mouth and as a result he had shouted at the appellant which resulted in
drawing the attention of the neighbours and help was sought from the public.
Appellant is said to have escaped from the scene of occurrence leaving the
deceased in the auto and she was rushed to Savkar Hospital initially and later
shifted to the civil hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
11.
The testimony of PW1 and PW2 fortifies the case of the prosecution
the motive of the appellant for commission of the crime. There was no
reason for PW1 to depose falsely against her husband and it is also not the
case of the appellant that his wife had any enmity towards him and she has
falsely deposed against him. The evidence of PW1 is not shaken in the cross
11
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents