KAKKO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by a woman named Kakko. She, along with four others, stood trial before the Court of Session, Rohtak (Haryana). Those four were Partap Singh, father-in-law, Randhir, her husband and Om and Jagbir, two brothers of Randhir. The prosecution alleges that on account of a dispute pertaining to land, the five accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to murder Kaptan Singh, the deceased, who was the brother of Partap Singh, and to cause injuries to PW 3, the wife of the deceased. Towards accomplishing their object, it is alleged, that all the five participated and used their respective weapons with the result that the deceased received 23 injuries of a variety and PW 3 received three injuries. The weapon in the hand of the appellant Kakko, was an axe (Kulhari). Her husband, Randhir, too had a Kulhari, Om, accused had a Gandasa, and the remaining two Partap and Jagbir had Jailies with them. The trial Court when sifting the evidence took the view that the medical evidence did not support positive participation of Partap and Jagbir, accused, because apparently there were no Jaily injuries on either the deceased or PW 3. They were thus, extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The remaining three accused on conviction appealed to the High Court but unsuccessfully. Out of them, the present appellant and her husband Randhir filed special leave petition in this Court but it was dismissed qua Randhir and admitted qua Kakko, the appellant. Hence the matter in hand. It is not known whether Om accused, had filed any special leave petition. It can thus be taken that the convictions of Om and Randhir accused stand maintained. The point for consideration is whether the participation of Kakko, the appellant, can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(2.) Apparently, the entire family i.e. father, his three sons and daughter-in-law were involved in the crime. As said before, two of them namely Partap and Jagbir have been acquitted, extending to them the benefit of doubt. With regard to Kakko, the appellant, except for the bare assertion that she was armed with an axe and had joined in the commission of the offence by inflicting injuries, no specific injury has been ascribed to her either on the deceased or on PW 3. Not a word has been said by PW 3 as to what specific overt act was committed by the appellant. Even on the omnibus allegation that all the five accused had participated in the assault, two have yet been acquitted. It appears to us that the participation of the appellant, especially when there were men-folk prepared to commit the offence, her joining in seems to us to be doubtful. It is rather uncommon for a woman to be joining a fray such as this, but it cannot be said that as a rule women do not participate in the commission of offences. What is significant is that if she had assigned to herself the uncommon role of joining the men-folk in inflicting injuries on the deceased and PW 3, she would have attracted more than a casual attention and PWs 2 and 3 would have rather been emphatic about the overt acts she was supposed to have performed, attracting specific attention thereby. This raises a cloud of dust.

(3.) In the circumstances, we are of the view that the omnibus allegation that she participated in the commission of the offence is fairly doubtful and thus as an abundant caution, we deem it safe to record her acquittal, more so when her husband and his brother stand convicted for the offences charged and they alone could have been enough to cause theGandasi and Kulhari injuries, which stand reflected from the injury statement of the deceased, as also that of PW 3.