1983 Supreme(Raj) 450
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.M.Lodha, S.N.Bhargava, JJ.
Mst. Memoona w/o Hasan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 1975.
Decided On : 12-08-1983
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Headnote
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Abetment - Section 109 and 302 IPC - Appellant convicted of abetting and instigating the murder of her son-in-law by her paramour - Evidence of eyewitnesses corroborated by motive and background of strained relations between appellant and deceased - Conviction upheld.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Memoona was convicted by the trial court for abetting and instigating the murder of her son-in-law, Babu, by her paramour, Kedar. The prosecution alleged that Memoona caught hold of Babu's hands while Kedar stabbed him, and that she instigated Kedar to kill Babu. Memoona appealed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of three eyewitnesses, who testified that Memoona caught hold of Babu's hands and instigated Kedar to kill him, was credible and reliable. The court also found that the motive for the murder was Memoona's desire to get rid of Babu so that Kedar could live with her and her daughter without any interference.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and reliable. 2. Whether the motive for the murder was sufficient to establish appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and reliable, despite some minor discrepancies in their statements. The court noted that the witnesses were consistent in their testimony that Memoona caught hold of Babu's hands and instigated Kedar to kill him. 2. The court also held that the motive for the murder was sufficient to establish appellant's guilt. The court found that Memoona had a strained relationship with Babu and that she wanted to get rid of him so that Kedar could live with her and her daughter without any interference.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 109 and 302 IPC.