KAMALA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail against the judgement and conviction dated 12.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Court No. 1 Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 634 of 2006 (State Versus Kamala Devi) arising out of Case Crime No.56 of 2005, under section 304 (2) I.P.C., P.S. Sulltanpur Ghosh, District Fatehpur whereby the appellant was convicted for 7 years rigorous imprisonment along-with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In case of none payment of fine, he further undergo 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment and the period already undergone to be adjusted.

(2.) The facts of the case on brief are as under :

(3.) After the FIR investigation was initiated and inquest report was prepared. The dead body was sealed, murder weapon Gandasa was also recovered on the pointing out of the appellant-accused Kamala Devi. After completing all the formalities, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. The charge under section 304 I.P.C. was framed against the appellant from which she denied and claimed trial. During the trial complainant was produced as P.W. 1, who turned hostile and being cross examined by the Government counsel, but his evidence is material upto the extent that when he came to the house, he found the dead body of the deceased being slained. P.W. 2 is Ram Swaroop, Public Witnesses, who was said to be eye witness of the incident, but he did not support the prosecution case during trial and was declared hostile by the prosecution. According to him he was not at the place of incident and he did not see the actual occurrence. P.W. 3 Km. Mamta Devi, is the daughter of the deceased and at the given time she was studying in class VIII and she was 16 years of age. She supported the case of the prosecution and culpability of the appellant. Although she was declared hostile by the prosecution but during the course of cross examination she again resiled from the hostility and deposed that it was the appellant who caused death of her mother. P.W. 4 Ram Bharose, is the father of the deceased and as per prosecution murder weapon was recovered in front of him but this witness did not support the prosecution case in this regard and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Lallan is the scribe of the FIR and he has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the FIR was being scribed by him on the dictation of the complainant. It is also stated by him that he was not known to the complainant prior to the writing of the FIR. P.W. 6 is Dr. Harish, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased and found six incised wounds upon the body of the deceased and it is being admitted by him that the injuries could have been caused by Gandasa. He also supported the prosecution case that the death could have been caused at 2.00 p.m. on 19.7.2005. P.W. 7 Abdul Halim is being produced who conducted the inquest after the murder and also investigated the place of incident, took plain and blood stained soil from the place of incident also got the appellant arrested, then on the pointing out of the appellant Gandasa is said to have been recovered and all these formalities are being drawn on papers. P.W. 8 is the Head Constable Shiv Dan Singh, who executed the chek FIR as well as G.D. entry of the registration of the case is being made by him. G.D. Entry of the Fard recovery of murder weapon is also done by him and is being proved by him in the court. P.W. 9 is Shiv Singh Yadav, who prepared the inquest report and other relevant papers and all these papers are being proved by him. The statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. is being taken wherein she has stated that she is being implicated falsely being the second wife but no oral or documentary evidence is being produced by the appellant. The trial court after hearing the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the statement of P.W. 3 Km. Mamta Devi, daughter of the deceased, is vital evidence against the appellant. The recovery of the murder weapon is also being accepted by the trial court. It is also observed by the trial court that P.W. 1 Jagdeo, the complainant, and P.W. 2 Ram Bharose, P.W. 4 Pachchu Ram, father of the deceased, though turned hostile, but they are concealing the facts from the court and on the basis of the evidence of these witnesses trial court draw certain inferences against the appellant. It is also observed by the trial court that defence of the appellant is shaky one and although she might not have been having any intention to kill the deceased but she caused it that is why she is being found guilty by the trial court.