BIMLA Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the learned ASJ dated 25.02.2008 in S.C. No. 20/2005. The appellant was convicted along with other co -accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120 -B IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution had alleged that on 09.09.1999, at about 01.10 am, an information was received through D.D. No. 48 regarding a stabbing incident. The police went to the spot - H -123, Gali No. 4, Parvatiya Anchal Colony, Burari. By then, the injured Satish had been shifted to the hospital by the PCR. He was declared "brought dead". After conducting spot investigation articles such as blood samples, earth control, a khukri sheath, mattress and saree were seized. Later the deceased's inquest proceedings were conducted and the body was sent for postmortem - a report of the same was received. The police alleged that the present appellant, Bimla, wife of the deceased had illicit relationship with Parmeshwari. She did not like her husband and, therefore, entered into a conspiracy with the co -accused Parmeshwari. They in turn conspired with Lokesh and Arvind to commit deceased's murder. Lokesh was to be paid Rs. 45,000/ - and the accused Arvind was to be given a share in the property of the deceased, for participation in the conspiracy. It was alleged that further to this conspiracy, in the intervening night of 08.09.1999/09.09.1999, Lokesh and Parmeshwari went inside the deceased's room and murdered him with a khukri. The prosecution, during the investigation, recovered blood -stained jeans, a pair of shoes and shirt worn by him at the time of the incident, pursuant to the disclosure statement. At the behest of Lokesh, a khukri was recovered; as well as a vest and a shirt which he wore at the time of committing the offence. The police lifted the foot prints, allegedly of Parmeshwari and Lokesh on the chatai at the spot and from the room staircase and roof of the house. After conclusion of investigation, the accused were charged with committing the offence under Ss. 452/302/114/120 -B/34 IPC. In addition, the present appellant Bimla was charged with offence punishable under Sec. 411 IPC. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses, besides relying on material exhibits. The Trial Court had, by its impugned judgment convicted all the accused, including the present appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the co -accused Parmeshwari and Lokesh had preferred appeals, being Crl. A. 244/2008 and Crl.A. 245/2008 which were allowed by the judgment and order dated 16.03.2010 (Parmeshwari v/s. State & Lokesh Kumar v/s. State). Learned counsel relied on the material parts of that judgment, particularly the following portions: