GUDDI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners counsel contends that as per the prosecution story Ram Partap had borrowed Rs.8,000.00 from deceased Om Park ash who was brother of the complainant. Ram Partap was not willing to return this amount. He also pointed out that deceased was having illicit relations with Ram Partaps daughter, Monica. On the night of the incident, Om Paraksh went to the house of accused person. Petitioner Geeta is mother- in-law of Ram Partap and petitioner Guddi is his wife. On that very night accused Ram Parup with other persons as well as Geeta brought back the dead body of Om paraksh to the house of the complainant. As per the postmortem report fee died of poisoning, that is, Amoma Phosphate. He also submits that there is no other evidence against the petitioners. The evidence against the petitioners is no extra judicial confession of accused Ram Partap.

(2.) Learned AAG submits that petitioners are closely related to main accused Ram Partap. The extrajudicial confession was made by Ram Partap in of their presence at the residence of the complainant but they have not admitted that petitioner Geeta accompanied Ram Partap when the dead body of Om Parkash was brought back to the house of complainant.

(3.) Police has registered a case under Sec. 302/24 against all the accused persons including Geeta and Guddi. petitioners. Geeta is mother-in-law and Guddi is wife of Ram Partap. Evidence of extra judicial confession & others circumstantial evidence is collected against the petitioners.