SHAKUNTALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Shakuntala, has challenged her conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 201 r/w Section-34 of IPC by judgment dated 11th September, 2001 and her sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and her sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) By the same judgment dated 11th September, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 125/2001 titled as State vs. Shakuntala, wife of Pritam Singh and Israr @ Bachan @ Bhura arising out of FIR No. 213/1996, PS Seelampur under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, accused Israr was acquitted of offences under Section 302, r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the ground that no efforts were made during the investigation of the supplementary challan to link accused Israr with the injuries which he had sustained when the offence was allegedly committed by him and there was only the disclosure statement of accused Shakuntala who had named accused Israr which was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Also the disclosure statement of Shakuntala had not been corroborated by any independent evidence in respect of accused Israr, nor did accused Israr himself make any disclosure statement. Furthermore his name did not figure in the alleged photocopy of the complaint Ex PY which was allegedly made by Joginder, the deceased and therefore, the prosecution had failed to link accused Israr with the commission of offence with which he was charged and thus the said accused was acquitted.

(3.) The prosecution case against the appellant Shakuntala was that the deceased Joginder Singh had married the appellant in a temple. According to the allegations of the prosecution, House No.- U-12, Gali No.-1, Arvind Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi was purchased by Sh. Joginder Singh in the name of the appellant, but on account of the strained relations, he wanted to sell it off and was compelling her to dispose of the same and give 50% of the sale consideration to him to which the appellant was not agreeable.