ORDER :

ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) aggrieved against the judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbarsar, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Session Case No.37/2011, whereby appellant, Om Kanwar, has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/-with default stipulation to undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3. On 11.03.2010 complainant, namely, Shankar Singh (PW.6) appeared at Police Station Gachichhipura and gave a written report (Exhibit-P/1) to the effect that on 10.03.2010 he and his wife were not at home, only his daughter-in-law and grand daughter were at home. He had left them hale and hearty. His neighbourer telephoned him indicating that his grand daughter was not well, on which he came home and saw her, however, could not understand anything and took her to Badu, where the doctor informed that she was dead; as it was already night, he brought her back to home. The death is not natural and, therefore, prayed that action be taken and investigation be done. He has suspicion against his daughter-in-law, Om Kanwar, who is the mother of the child.

4. Based on the aforesaid written information, the SHO, Police Station Gachichhipura registered a case vide F.I.R. No.16/2010 for offence under Section 302 of IPC and investigation commenced. The investigation of the case culminated into submission of the charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Makrana, District Nagaur, who in turn, committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar, District Nagaur.

5. The trial court thereafter framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, which she denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and also got 18 documents and one article exhibited. Appellant upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution evidence, she denied the same and claimed to be innocent and made prayer for leading defence evidence. In defence, the appellant examined two witnesses viz. DW.1 and DW.2 and got 9 documents exhibited.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court vide its judgment impugned dated 20.07.2018 proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant, as indicated hereinbefore.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that there is no evidence worth the name on record of the case so as to show that the appellant murdered her own child Guddi. He contends that the appellant was not present in the room with the child when the murder took place. He further submitted that the motive to kill child was with the matrimonial relatives of the accused appellant and hence it is clearly a case where she has been falsely implicated for oblique motive. Further submissions were made that the trial court has held the appellant guilty solely relying on the evidence of ‘last seen’ and besides the same, there is no evidence worth the name so as to implicate the appellant. The prosecution has failed to bring home guilt against the appellant on the strength of circumstance of last seen, as deposed by PW.1-Geeta, PW.2-Jamna and PW.5-Bhanwar Kanwar.

9. Submissions have been made that the child was born within seven months of the date of marriage of the appellant with her husband and her in-laws doubted the paternity of the child, which was the motive enough for her in-laws to kill the child. It was also submitte