UMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2002, the accused-appellant Smt. Uma Devi filed the present Criminal Appeal. Smt. Uma Devi (accused) lodged a first information report on 21.01.1998/22.01.1998 in PS Jwalapur, Haridwar, which was registered as case crime no. 42 of 1998, under Section 302 IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC was submitted against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against Uma Devi (appellant), to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) Prosecution witnesses, viz., PW 1 Sanjay Tomar, PW 2 Bharat Singh, PW 3 Constable Ram Kishan Bharti, PW 4 Brij Mohan, PW 5 Vinod Bharti, PW 6 Vinay Kumar Bharti, PW 7 Bipin Kumar Premi, PW 8 HC Madan Pal Singh, PW 9 SI Data Ram and PW 10 Naipal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which she said that she was falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Smt. Uma Devi (accused herself) entered into the witness box in her defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2002, exonerated accused Uma Devi of the charge under Section 302 IPC, but she was convicted under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against her conviction under Section 201 IPC, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.

(3.) PW 7 Doctor Bipin Kumar Premi conducted postmortem on the dead body of Vyas Muni Bharti on 21.01.1998, at 3:45 p.m. A perusal of post mortem report (Ext. Ka-2) will reveal that the victim died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. In para 21 of the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court held that since there was no eyewitness to the killing of Vyas Muni Bharti, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was not proved against the accused-appellant. There was only one witness (Brij Mohan) before whom, the accused-appellant made confession of her guilt. PW 4 Brij Mohan did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the accused made a confessional statement before PW 4, the fact remains that the evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession is very weak. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. They were not aware whether the accused Uma Devi was having illicit relations with victim Vyas Muni Bharti or not. None of them saw Vyas Muni Bharti coming to the house of Uma Devi. PW 2 simply said that he came to know that somebody was killed in the house of Uma Devi. The statement given by PW 6 was of no help to the prosecution.