IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction based on credible dying declaration and corroborative evidence, affirming the accused's guilt in the murder case.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted and accused appellant may be acquitted under section 302 IPC and she may be set at liberty.”

2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.11.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.142/92 (State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Shanta), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 24.01.1992, a telephonic information was given to the police official, namely, Deva Ram (PW-6) by one Yogendra Chandra (Medical Jurist), General Hospital, Udaipur to the effect that on the said date, one Smt.Wali Bai, wife of Mangilal Banjara, resident of Ode Mohalla, has been brought to the hospital in a burnt condition, whereupon she was admitted in the hospital and treatment started accordingly.

3.1. Upon receiving such information, PW-6 Devram along with the then ASI Bhagwantilal went to the General Hospital, Udaipur, where Smt. Wali Bai was undergoing treatment, to make the necessary enquiry in relation to the incident in question. Upon reaching the hospital, the said police officials prepared Parcha Kayami (Ex.P-10) wherein it has been mentioned that Smt. Wali stated, upon being questioned, that her co-wife Shanti @ Shanta (accused-appellant) had burnt her by pouring kerosene, while Smt. Wali was sleeping. When Smt. Wali raised an alarm, her husband came to her rescue and covered her with blankets, while her co-wife ran away as she wanted to kill Smt. Wali.

3.2. On the basis of the above, an FIR bearing No.19/92 dated 25.01.1992 was registered under Section 307 IPC and the investigation commenced thereafter. During the course of investigation, Smt. Wali died on 01.02.1992, as a consequence whereof, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-appellant, which she denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter.

3.3. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced witnesses (PW-1 to PW-8) and got exhibited the documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13); in defence, witness (DW-1) was produced and the documents (Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2) were exhibited, whereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which she pleaded innocence and her false implication in the criminal case in question.

3.4. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.11.1993 against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that though no eyewitness of the incident in question was produced by the prosecution during the trial, but the husband (DW-1 Mangilal) of the deceased, deposed that at the relevant time, he alongwith the accused-appellant were present at the place of incident and both tried to save the deceased from burning, in course of which, they sustained burn injuries on hands. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, in case the incident had happened in the manner as claimed by the prosecution, then also it is highly doubtful as to how the daughter of the deceased, sleeping with her at the relevant time, did not receive any burns, and thus, by no stretch of imagination, the prosecution case regarding happening of the incident in question as alleged, is