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
The court held that the evidence of eyewitnesses, corroborated by motive and background of strained relations between the appellant and the deceased, was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt of abetment and instigation to 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.
JUDGMENT
1. - Mst. Memoona W/o Hasan has filed this appeal u/s 374 (2) Cr. P.C., 1973 against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhalawar convicting her under sections 109 and 302 I.P.C. and sentencing her to imprisonment for life for the murder of one Babu.
2. According to the information lodged by Gani Mohammad at Police Station Patan, it was alleged that on 29-8-1974 at 2.45 P.M. while he was sitting in the company of Sabir Hussain and Kadar Khan at the well on High School Road at Jhalrapatan, accused Kedar was standing in front of the house of Kamla Brahmin. Appellant Memoona was also standing by the side of Kedar. Deceased Babu appeared there and on seeing him, Memoona and Kedar caught hold of Babu. Babu tried to get himself released but he could not succeed and appellant Memoona told Kedar to finish Babu, so that the dispute can be ended for ever. Kedar whipped out a knife from his Dhoti and inflicted a blow on the chest of Babu. As a result of which, Badu fell down on the ground, after he felt giddy, infront of the shop of Brahmini. Kedar then took out the knife from the chest of Babu and ran away. Memoona also left the place. The informant went near Babu and Babu informed him that he was attacked by Kedar at the instigation of appellant Memoona. Babu was taken in a hand-cart in the injured condition to the hospital, but before they could reach hospital, Babu breathed his last on the way itself.
3. A case was registered under Section 302 IPC against appellant Memoona and accused Kedar. During investigation, post mortem was conducted. The investigation proceeded on usual lines and a charge sheet was filed in the court of learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC against appellant Memoona. On commitment the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar framed the charge against appellant Memoona. Memoona pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Kedar could not be arrested as he remained absconding and till now he has not been put in the dock for trial.
4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. PW 2 Gani Mohammad, PW 3 Kabul Khan, PW 5 Kedar Khan and PW 6 Sabit Hussain appeared as eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence. PW 1 Dr. Madan Lal appeared as Medical expert who conducted the post mortem PW 7 Khalil was produced to prove the conspiracy to kill Babu. PW 8 Ram Narain was produced to prove Ex. P. 4. PW 9 Abdul Gafar was produced to prove the site plan PW 10 Udai Lal happened to be the Head constable who scribed the First Information Report. PW 11 Ram Pratap, Investigating Officer was produced to prove the various stages of investigation and the memos.
5. Accused appellant was examined, but she again denied the charge. She did not examine any witness in defence. After hearing the arguments learned Additional Sessions Judge found Memoona guilty as mentioned above.
6. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for appellant Memoona argued the appeal with great vehemence and submitted that there was no reliable evidence connecting the accused with the crime because so far as the appellant Memoona is concerned, the evidence is untrustworthy, unreliable, contradictory and fails to inspire any confidence.
7. Before we proceed to consider the submission of Mr. Dave in the light of the evidence produced in the case and the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge, it would be necessary to mention the facts, which gave rise to this incident.
8. It is established that deceased Babu was married to Mst. Bilkish daughter of accused Memoona. Memoona was having flour Mill and accused Kedar, who is absconding, was working on that shop. Accused Kedar alleged to have developed illicit relation with Bilkish and was also residing with Memoona and was virtually maintained by Memoona. Bilkish was not going to the house of deceased Babu and Babu was trying to take her away. This created strained relations between them.
9. The suggestion of the prosecution is that it is on acco
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
