VEERAWATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 3342 of 1979 has been preferred by Smt. Veerawati whereas Jail Appeal No. 849 of 1980 has been preferred by Darbari, the alleged paramour of Smt. Veerawati, against the judgment and order dated December 11, 1979, rendered by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly. in Sessions Trial No. 488 of 1978, convicting the appellants for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment. As both these appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. The appeal preferred by Smt. Veerawati, would be referred as the first appeal whereas the appeal preferred by Darbari would be referred as the second appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is that on 12th August. 1977 at about 11.30 A.M. Hari Om deceased was in his house in Mohalla Nai Basti Police Station Baradari district Bareilly. Smt. Veerawati, the appellant in the first appeal, the widow of the deceased Hari Om also used to reside in the same house. Darbari the appellant in the second appeal used to visit the house of Hari Om very often and developed some illicit intimacy with the appellant in the first appeal. One leg of Hari Om had become useless on account of some ailment. Darbari the appellant in the second appeal was a Chaukidar in Vishnu Inter College, Bareilly. Illicit relation between the appellants in the first appeal and the second appeal was known to the deceased and the deceased had lodged a report against Darbari. In spite of being reprimanded, Smt. Veerawati did not dissuade from the company of Darbari, hence her relations with her husband became strained. On the date of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant alongwith other persons heard that the deceased was crying, hence the informant alongwith Sia Ram, Girja Mistri and Baboo THEkedar went to the house of Hari Om and tried to enter the house, but the moment they reached there, Darbari was coming out from the house and Smt. Veerawati was seen inside the house. Darbari managed to escape leaving his Rickshaw in front of the house of Hari Om. THE informant and other persons saw that some acid was thrown on the body of Hari Om deceased as a result of which his skin was burnt but the deceased was alive and stated that acid was thrown over his body by his wife Smt. Veerawati whereas Darbari the appellant in the second appeal had caught hold of him (the deceased). THEreafter, Darbari had thrown burnt cowdung cakes. All this was done so that the deceased breathed his last. THE witnesses took Smt. Veerawati to police station and first information report was lodged (Ex. Ka 1) verbally.

(3.) ON receipt of the charge-sheet, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, committed both the appellants in these appeals to the Court of Sessions on 17.10.1978 to stand their trial under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC on 16.5.1979 charges were framed against the accused. They were read over and explained to both the appellants who pleaded not guilty. In the statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. both the appellants stated that they were not present on the scene of occurrence and were falsely implicated due to enmity with Kailash Punjabi, the landlord, who wanted the house to be vacated by the deceased and Smt. Veerawati in the first appeal. Smt. Veerawati denied her illicit relation with the appellant Darbari in the second appeal or that she had any connection with him. The occurrence took place while she was away. She was taken to Police station by force. In fact, she was falsely implicated. Darbari appellant in the second appeal also denied his implication in the matter. He further stated that he was not present on the scene of occurrence and the Rickshaw did not belong to him and alleged that he had been falsely implicated.