STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SONBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shakuntala, the first wife of Surendra, gave birth to two sons Jitesh and Dharmesh. Unfortunately, after her third delivery she passed away on 28/12/1976. Thereafter, Surendra married the present respondent, Sonbai, on 26/06/1977. The couple was residing in a single room of bungalow No. 30 in a Society situate at Dani Lirnda, Ahmedabad. Both the sons by the first wife were also living with them. They were school going boys. On 12/08/1977, Dharmesh had returned from school and was seen playing outside his residence near the osri of bungalow No. 19, occupied by Shanker Rao and Tarabai. Tarabai asked him to go and wash his face as she found his eyes not clean. This happened around 5 p. m. At about 6 or 6.30 p. m. the respondent came out of her room and shouted for Tarabai as something had happened to Dharmesh. Thereupon, Tarabai and Kherunnissa went to the room of the respondent and there they found Dharmesh lying dead on a cot. The father of the child was informed and he returned from Calico Mills where he was working. The dead body of Dharmesh was buried at Saptarishi cremation ground on the bank of river Sabarmati. None had suspected foul play at that point of time.

(2.) Four days later on 16/08/1977, Jitesh returned from the school at about 4 p. m. and was seen playing in front of his residential premises by the neighbours. At about 5.30 p. m. , the respondent-accused called Tarabai and others as she found Jitesh in critical condition. Tarabai and others went to the premises of the respondent-accused, examined Jitesh and found his body cold. A doctor was called who examined Jitesh and declared him dead. The residents of the Society had collected near the premises of the respondent-accused and someone informed the police on telephone about the mishap. On the arrival of the police, the dead body of Jitesh was sent for post-mortem examination which revealed strangulation marks on the neck. Suspecting foul play inthe case of Dharmesh also, the police after completing the necessary formalities got the body of Dharmesh exhumed and sent it for postmortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed that his death was also due to strangulation as strangulation marks were noticed on his neck. The investigation then proceeded on the usual lines and the respondent-accused came to be separately charge-sheeted for the murders of both Dharmesh and Jitesh.

(3.) The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the prosecution in both the cases came to the conclusion that both the boys were in the house with the respondent-accused and hence it could be only she who had throttled them. The trial court also took note of the fact that the defence version was not to the effect that any third party had entered the premises after the two boys had returned to the premises and before they were found dead. In this view that the trial court took the respondent-accused was convicted in both the cases for the murders of Dharmesh and Jitesh.