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