SMT. SAROOPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These both the appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.3.1982 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in ST. No. 71/81, whereby convicting accused appellant Smt. Saroopa Devi for the offences under Sections 302/149, 147, 307/149 Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302/149 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307/149 Penal Code and one year's imprisonment under Sec. 147 Penal Code and also separately convicting accused appellants Rajveer, Ramveer and Premveer for the offences under Sec. 148, 302/149, 307/149 Penal Code and sentencing each of them for life imprisonment under Sections 302/149 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 307/149.

(2.) It is said that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and materials on record. Merely on conjuncture and surmises the guilt of the accused appellants has been established. Independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution though their presence is also ascertainable from the evidence on record. The injured witness namely Shishupal Singh (PW-5) had not given the account of the entire incident. His statement remained confined to his sustaining of the injuries. His testimony would not render any support to the prosecution version with regard to the homicidal deaths of his brother Balbir Singh and his wife Smt. Ganga Devi. The testimonies of the child witnesses are also said to be not trustworthy and their presence at the time of the incident is also not believable. The statements of both the prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Km. Asha Devi and PW-2 Km. Kusma Devi are inconsistent with regard to the place from where they had witnessed the incident. Further the recovery of the weapon after about one month would not render any assistance to the prosecution when the possibility of the country made pistol passing on in different hands cannot be ruled out. So is also the position of the empty cartridges which were sent for the report from the ballistic expert after a considerable delay. Moreover the witnesses of the recovery have also not been examined by the prosecution and so such recovery of the weapons used in the crime would itself becomes doubtful.

(3.) These appeals are resisted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. It was contended by him that there was strong motive for the accused to have, eliminated the deceased and the injured for all times to come as they were not keeping harmonious relation. There is evidence of the injured witness namely Shishupal Singh (PW-5) which is corroborated by the medical evidence. Such testimony of the injured witness sufficiently proves the guilt of the accused appellants. The other witnesses namely PW-1 Km. Asha Devi and PW-2 Km. Kusma Devi were the natural witnesses. The incident had taken place in the evening hours and their presence cannot be ruled out. They have also given the clear account of the incident. The minor discrepancies which are natural to occur would not deter the prosecution case.