KUMARI JANKI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Arvind Saroj, Advocate holding brief of Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 1/8/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No. 44, Barabanki, in Criminal Trial No. 51 of 2018 (State Vs. Kumari Janki), arising out of Case Crime No. 0118 of 2017, under Ss. 302 and 120B IPC, Police Station Haidargarh, District Barabanki, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a fine of 5,000/-5,000/-, and under Sec. 120B IPC for 2 years imprisonment.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this case are that the complainant's daughter, Chamela, was married to Udai Raj approximately 20 years ago. However, Udai Raj kept a mistress named Kumari Janki ( Name Changed). It is averred that Udai Raj, along with his mistress Kumari Janki (Name Changed), and others named Rameshwar and Bahadur, were pressuring Bhawani Prasad, the deceased's father-in-law, to dispose of land situated in Dandupur. The deceased opposed this transaction. Consequently, on April 4, 2017, at approximately 2:00 PM, the accused persons allegedly locked the deceased inside the house and set her ablaze, resulting in her death from severe burn injuries. In this regard, the complainant, Chotka (mother of the deceased), moved an application at Haidargarh police station. On that basis, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under Ss. 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Udai Raj, Kumari Janki (Name Changed), Bhawani Prasad, Bahadur, and Rameshwar. The deceased was admitted to the hospital, where her statement (dying declaration) was recorded by a Magistrate. Following the victim's death, an inquest report was prepared, and the body was sent for autopsy. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) prepared the site plan, inspected the place of occurrence, and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After collecting sufficient evidence against the accused persons, the I.O. concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet under Ss. 302 and 120-B of IPC. The appellant claimed she was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) determined her age based on her academic documents and found that, as her date of birth is October 24, 1999, she was 17 years, 5 months, and 10 days old at the time the offense was committed. Accordingly, she was declared a juvenile.