JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 79/2011 whereby she has been convicted u/s. 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

1. As per the prosecution story, on 10.2.2011 near about at 9 pm. complainant Ramchandra went to his agricultural field and after returning back next day at about 8.00 am. he was informed by Surpanch Dulesingh Patel and Kanhaiyalal that Kalu has been murdered by his daughter-in-law by means of Axe in the yesterday’s night at about 9 pm, Kalu sustained injuries on his head and hands and he is lying dead inside the house. The complainant immediately rushed inside the house of Kalu and saw Kalu lying dead in a pool of blood. “Dehati Nalis” vide Exh. P/5 was recorded at his instance, police reached the scene of the crime called five independent witnesses and drew “Safina” Form” vide Exh. P/7,and “Naksha Panchayatnama” vide Exh. P/8. The appellant was arrested on 11.2.2011 vide Exh. P/2. Her statement was recorded u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Axe used in the commission of the offence were also recovered. The appellant was medically examined, and the Doctor found swelling over Buttock’s upper part which was said to have been caused by the deceased. On the same date, bloodstained soil, pieces of broken bangles and a bloodstained mattress were recovered. All the seized articles were sent to the FSL, Sagar. The dead body of Kalu was also sent for postmortem which was found homicidal.

2. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s. 302 of the IPC. The charge was read over to the appellant and she denied it but stated that the deceased Kalu was coming towards her with an Axe, but he fell down and sustained the injuries and she has falsely been implicated in this case. She also stated that her husband used to work at a brick-making furnace and she used to live alone in the house. The deceased Kalu had the intention to make an illicit physical relationship with her due to which she lived for three months in her parental house. she has further disclosed to the Court that even on the date of the incident, his father-in-law tried to commit rape , hence in defence, she assaulted him due to which he died. Learned trial Court disbelieved her statement and proceeded with the trial by calling the prosecution witnesses to prove the sole charge against her. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got exhibited 19 documents as Exh. P/1 to P/19. In defence, the appellant examined herself as D.W.1.

3. After evaluating the evidence that came on record learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated first. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. After arguing on merit of the case learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if it is established that the appellant caused the injuries, by means of an axe to her father-in-law the same was done in exercise of the right of the private defence for which she is protected under section 100 of the IPC. We are impressed with this alternate submission of the learned counsel as it is a case where the appellant came up with a specific defence that she assaulted the deceased in order to save herself as he wanted to rob her honor . The prosecution has examined daughter of the appellant Anita aged about 13 years as P.W.3 who deposed that her grandfather i.e. the deceased was forcing her mother to go with him inside the room for which she refused. Thereafter, her grandfather assaulted her mother on her back due to which she fell down and deceased climbed on to of her. Her mother took out the Axe from the hand of deceased and assaulted him. She has not been declared hostile . In cross-examination, she has admitted that her grandfather wa