This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Jammu in File No. 105/Sessions dated 10-1-1995. By means of impugned judgment appellant was held guilty for having committed offence under Section 304, Part I RPC for killing her husband and his mistress. Trial Court has convicted her to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment whereof appellant has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Prosecution was launched against the appellant on the allegations that she along with her late husband Jagdish Singh migrated from Kashmir Valley to Jammu. They were tenants of deceased Darshan Kour at Digiana, Jammu. Further case of the prosecution was that deceased Jagdish and Darshan Kour were having illicit relations. Deceased lady was a young widow and the appellant along with her husband were her tenants in her house. It is further made out from the prosecution evidence that both husband and wife were living by themselves and there was no other family member residing with them.

3. On the other hand it has come on record that deceased Darshan Kour was a young widow and was residing in her house along with her children, two of whom namely Sukhvir Singh and Jatinder Singh though minors have appeared as PWs in the case. It is also established from the circumstances of this case that charred bodies of Jagdish Singh and Darshan Kour were recovered from the same room i.e. which was under the tenancy of appellant and her late husband. Medical evidence established that the burns on the body of Jagdish Singh were found to the extent of 90% and in case of Darshan Kour were to the extent of 96%. In this background prosecution claims that on the night of 28th Oct. 1993 appellant poured Kerosene Oil on the bed whereon both the deceased were fast asleep and then they were set on fire by her. With a view to put an end to the lives of both of them, she is alleged to have bolted the door of this room from outside so that they are not able to come out of it.

4. At the same time she is also alleged to have bolted the door of the room from outside where children of deceased Darshan Kour were in sound asleep. As already noted her two minor sons have appeared as prosecution witnesses.

5. Case came to be registered at the police station on the basis of a reliable telephonic information regarding the occurrence in question, whereafter police machinery swung into motion. After commission of the offence appellant is alleged to have informed PW Tirlok Singh regarding her having committed the offence in question on account of extra marital affair and sexual intimacy between both the deceased. This PW reported the matter to police on telephone and contacted some of his neighbours so that the fire is put off and house saved.

6. When Tirlok Singh along with neighbours went on the spot, door of the room was found closed from outside. It was opened. Chartered bodies of both the deceased were found near the door. At the same time room of the door where children of Darshan Kour, deceased were sleeping was also found locked from outside.

7. In the aforesaid background, after completing the investigation and collecting the materials relating to case in question, at the conclusion of the same appellant was sent for facing trial. Besides other evidence, motive made out in the circumstances of this case was that the deceased husband of appellant was having illicit relationship with deceased Darshan Kour, landlady and with a view to take revenge of their such illicit relationship, the offence is alleged to have been committed by the appellant. After committal, trial Court was satisfied that there is enough material to proceed against her, charges were framed by the Court below, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. During the course of trial prosecution examined number of witnesses, recorded statement of the appellant under Section 342 as well as t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document