Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SABINA, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.
Saroj Bai - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2018
Decided On : 09-07-2019
For the Appellant : Harendra Singh Sinsinwar.
For the Respondents: Javed Choudhary, P.P.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 120-B IPC - SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS - COURT HELD THAT APPELLANT WAS FALSELY INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND ACQUITTED HER.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant was convicted of murder and conspiracy under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for the death of her sister-in-law, Chandresh. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with other accused, had killed Chandresh due to a dispute between Chandresh and her husband, Chandraprakash. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that she was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the murder of Chandresh. The court noted that the only eyewitness to the murder, Anita, was the sister of the deceased and had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The court also noted that there was no corroborative evidence to support Anita's testimony.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the murder of Chandresh? 2. Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the murder of Chandresh. The court noted that the only eyewitness to the murder, Anita, was the sister of the deceased and had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The court also noted that there was no corroborative evidence to support Anita's testimony.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against her, and set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 411 dated 30.10.2009 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar under Section 143, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. Prosecution story in brief was that Chandresh daughter of complainant-Laxmi Chand was married to Chandu @ Chandraprakash in the year 2002. Chandresh had been murdered by her husband Chandraprakash, mother-in-law Sushila Devi, brother-in-laws Vishnu Prasad, Banti and Gopal Lal, sister-in-law Saroj and Basanti Lal, Ravi Kumar and Devi Shankar on 29.10.2009. The accused were raising demand of dowry from Chandresh. Anita sister of Chandresh was also married in the same family. On the basis of the statement of complainant-Laxmi Chand formal FIR was registered.
3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against co-accused of the appellant and proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant. Thereafter, supplementary challan was presented against the appellant.
4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302, 120-B IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after close of prosecution evidence, prayed that she was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellant examined one witness in her defence.
6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 27.06.2018 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Family members of the deceased had participated in the funeral of the deceased. Statement of prosecution witness-Anita was liable to be disbelieved as she had made material improvements in her statement. Son of the deceased appeared in the witness-box in defence and has deposed that the appellant had not committed the crime.
8. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that from the testimony of PW-2-Anita it is evident that the appellant in connivance with other accused had committed the murder of deceased-Chandresh.
9. Present case relates to murder of Chandresh. Deceased has died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. As per the postmortem examination report (Ex-P24) cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia. Ex. P24 was proved by PW-12 Dr. Mangilal. Thus, it is evident that the death of the deceased was not under natural circumstances but she had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home.
10. Deceased-Chandresh was married to accused-Chandu @ Chandraprakash. Anita sister of the deceased was married to Jagdish (brother of accused-Chandu @ Chandraprakash). Thus, prosecution witness-Anita was also residing in the same house. Hence, the statement of prosecution witness-Anita is relevant for deciding this case because her presence at the spot is natural.
11. Prosecution witness-Anita while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2 has deposed that Chandresh was her sister and was married to Chandu @ Chandraprakash and out of their wedlock, two sons were born to them. Behaviour of Chandraprakash was not good towards her sister Chandresh and he used to give beatings to her. The reason for giving beatings by Chandraprakash to Chandresh was Saroj, as Chandraprakash was having illicit relation with appellant-Saroj Bai. Appellant-Saroj Bai had also threatened them that she would not allow them to live in the matrimonial home. On 29.10.2009, she had prepared meals alongwith her sister. Chandraprakash started abusing and she told her sister not to pay any attention to his abuses. Then she went upstairs and at that time Chandraprakash was quarreling with Chandresh. Sushila Devi, Chandraprakash, Saroj, Gopal and Vishnu Prasad were also present in the house at tha
