Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Ganga Bai – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1245 of 2009
Decided on : 30-09-2015
(2013) 12 SCC 721 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Conviction/acquittal – Appellant charged with murder and destruction of evidence – Co-accused acquitted – Not a ground for acquittal of appellant. (Para 13)
(c) Criminal trial – Weapon and blood stained clothes recovered at instance of co-accused – Co-accused acquitted by High Court – There may be grounds for interfering with acquittal but that cannot be done in absence of appeal by the State. (Para 13)
(d) Criminal trial – Appeal against conviction – Concurrent findings of courts below – Appeal dismissed – In the meantime appellant serving out 14 years of her sentence – Now aged 79 years – High Court commuting sentence and granting permanent parole – Dismissal of this appeal not to have effect on commutation of sentence or grant of permanent parole by High Court. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-Ganga Bai was tried along with one Udai Lal and Daulat Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC for the murder of her daughter-in-law and her two minor children. All the three were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. There was also a sentence of fine with default clause.
In appeal, the High Court acquitted Udai Lal and Daulat Ram. However, in the case of the appellant, the conviction was confirmed with no modification in sentence.
Finding of the Court:
There is no reason to interfere with concurrent judgment of courts below.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :
T. Kurian, J.
1. The appellant-Ganga Bai was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, Rajasthan along with one Udai Lal and Daulat Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) for the murder of her daughter-in-law and her two minor children. All the three were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. There was also a sentence of fine with default clause.
2. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Udai Lal and Daulat Ram holding that the offences against them were not proved beyond doubt. However, in the case of the appellant, the conviction was confirmed with no modification in sentence.
3. The incident is of the year 1999. First Information Report was registered on the complaint given by PW-29. It was stated that while he was in the field gazing cattle, he heard PW-3 crying loudly of having seen a dead body of a lady lying in a trench. Along with PW-4, they also found the dead bodies of two children dumped in the trench. On 06.09.1999, the appellant and Udai Lal were arrested, and Daulat Ram was arrested on 09.09.1999. All of them were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC.
4. Though at the trial, many of the witnesses turned hostile, the Sessions Court convicted all the accused holding that the circumstantial evidence, the evidence of recovery and the presence of blood stains on the clothes of appellant and Udai Lal, were sufficient to convict them for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court acquitted Udai Lal and Daulat Ram, and hence, the appeal is only at the instance of Ganga Bai.
5. It is contented that the conviction cannot be sustained since the chain of evidence on circumstantial evidence is not complete. It is further contended that Udai Lal, at whose instance, one of the blood stained weapons, viz., dhariya was recovered, having been acquitted, the appellant also is liable to be acquitted.
6. We have heard the Counsel appearing for the State also.
7. The prosecution has relied on the following evidence:-
“(1) The deceased was last seen in the company of appellant Smt. Ganga Bai.
(2) The verification of place of incident at the instance of appellant Smt. Ganga Bai.
(3) The recovery of weapon of offence namelyDharia, spade and kulhari.
(4) Recovery of blood-stained clothes of appellant Smt. Ganga Bai.
(5) Recovery of anklet of the deceased in pursuance of the information given by appellant Ganga Bai.”
8. It has come out in the evidence of PW-5-Shanti Devi, who is the wife of PW-6-Naresh Kumar, the landlord of the deceased-Sunanda and her husband-Ratanlal (son of the appellant), that accused-Ganga Bai used to visit the deceased-Sunanda in her room. The said witness stated that she had seen Sunanda with appellant before her disappearance. It has also come out in her evidence that the appellant, after the incident, came back to her, paid the rent and took away the belongings of the deceased. PW-6-Naresh Kumar has supported the version of PW-5. PW-7-is Sultana who has also stated that the deceased along with her children was seen with the appellant in the market and the deceased had told her that the appellant was taking them to Morvan. PW-8-husband of Sultana has supported her version. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of PWs-5 to 8, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that all the deceased were last seen with the appellant.
9. It has also come out from the evidence of PW-5 that the appellant was not happy with the deceased for two reasons, viz., (i) she had already been married to another person and he had left her with her two children born to him and (ii) she belonged to a different caste. Therefore, if the appellant had accepted them in their family, they would have been cast out from the village. It is because of that only the deceased along with her family had left the appellant’s house and stayed in the rented accommodation provi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
