SUMITRA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of an appeal directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi ( Trial Court ) dated 22.04.1997, and the order on the point of sentence dated 23.04.1997, in S.C. No. 91/1996. The Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with further sentence in the event of default.

(2.) The Appellant was married to Sardar Singh (the deceased ). She and her husband, along with three sons and four daughters, born out of the wedlock, lived in House No. 67, Munirka. The prosecution alleged that sometime after the marriage, the couple, along with their children, started living away from the deceased's father (who lived in House No. 47). Apparently, at the material time, the deceased was not employed, and was being maintained by his father, Dalpat Singh, who also arranged for the Appellant's job. The prosecution alleged that there were disagreements and quarrels between the Appellant and her husband, because the former used to get articles from her place of work which was objected to by her husband. The prosecution also alleged that the jewellery brought by the Appellant was taken-away by her father and she also handed-over other jewellery, valued at about Rs. 70-80,000/- to her sister, Murti. The prosecution further stated that in the night of 24/25.06.1992, the Appellant tried to burn her house by setting clothes and mattresses on fire. She and her children went to her parents' house and were brought back to her matrimonial home with the intervention of the police. The prosecution further stated that one Dharampal, the Appellant's relative, came from his native village on 15.10.1992 and slept in her house and allegedly wanted to have some relationship with her. It is further alleged that he was sent to the ground floor of the house at around 02.00/02.30 AM; the Appellant asked her son, Mahender Singh to do so since the deceased wanted Dharampal to be on the ground floor.

(3.) The prosecution further alleged that on 16.10.1992, the deceased scolded the Appellant and threatened that he would disclose about her misdeeds of the previous night to her children but she entreated him not to do so. The same morning, the deceased asked Dharampal to leave the house. It is alleged that later that day there was a hot exchange of words, between the deceased and the Appellant. The prosecution further stated that on 16.10.1992, the Appellant and the deceased were at home when the children returned from school. Even at that time, the deceased threatened to narrate about her misdeeds to the children but she requested him with folded hands not to do any such thing; this happened at around 02.30 PM on that day. It was alleged that around 02.30 PM on that day, two sons of the Appellant and the deceased were sent out of the house and the daughter and third son of the Appellant went to the market to purchase some notebooks. Jogender and Vijender, two sons of the Appellant and the deceased were playing in the gali when Tejbhan (PW-4) went to the deceased's house to return an amount borrowed from him. The prosecution alleged that when Tejbhan reached the concerned room, he saw the Appellant strangulating her husband and on seeing him Tejbhan, she went out of the room. It is alleged that Tejbhan went to the deceased's father's house to inform him about the incident but the latter was not available. Tejbhan searched for him but could not find him that day and later went to his house. The prosecution's case further was that when the Appellant's two sons returned from the market, they found the room where they lived locked. They went to the house of their grandparents and told their grandmother that police had come to their house. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant herself went to the police station and informed that she had quarreled with her husband and strangulated him with a muffler and that he was lying in their house. On receipt of information, the police, along with the Appellant went to her house and found the room to be locked; since no keys were available, the lock was forced open, and the dead body of the deceased Sardar Singh was discovered in the room. The FIR was registered; investigations were conducted, and subsequently, the Appellant was charged with committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. She entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.