SARASWATI DEVI @ SARLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing murder of Chironjiyabai.

(2.) It is not in dispute that Chhangu (P.W. 13) is the husband of deceased Chironjiyabai, his find wife is Premiyabai (P.W. 15) who had left him and 1 years before the present incident Chhangu had married the deceased. After the marriage she lived for a few days and then went away to her parent village and returned only 2 days before her murder to live with Chhangu in village Gotare. Ramrati (P.W. 4) is the mother. Prembai (P.W. 5) is the sister, Ananjilal (P W.6) is the brother and Musammadbai (P. W 9) is cousin sister of Chhangu. Ramknpal (P.W. 11) is his brother in-law i.e., husband of Prembai and he is also brother of the deceased. Tilakdhari (P.W, 12) is the father of the appellant Saraswatidevi @ Sarla. She was worried in D.P. but she had gone to her husband's place only once or twice and mostly she was living with her parents in village Gortare. The prosecution case is that Chhangu had developed illicit relationship with the appellant since long. Most of the time he used to be in her house and eat there and that is the reason why his first wife Premiyabai left him. Chhangu had then taken another wife, his sister-in-law Nanki and she also left him. On 13.6.1981 the deceased along with Anandilal had gone for picking up Mahua flowers. The appellant then came there and asked Anandilal to go to his house as he has been called by his mother. Then the appellant alone was present with the deceased. After sometime at about 3 p m. the appellant raised an alarm that 3 persons have killed the deceased and they have run away. Hearing her cries, Ramrati (P.W. 4) and Anandilal reached there and so also Sonsaiya (P.W. 7. They found the deceased lying injured profusely bleeding with a blood stained knife find near her body. Tilakdhari (P. W. 12) also reached there and after informing Chhangu (P.W. 13) both went and lodged a report Ex. P. 15 in policy station Kotwa 3 miles away at 5 p m that on hearing the alarm of his daughter she disclosed that three persons had assaulted ,the deceased and had run away. P.S.I. Bagdi (P.W. 20) took up the investigation, prepared the Panchnama Ex. P. 2 and then sent the dead body for postmortam examination. Dr. A K. Sinha (P.W. 18) on doing the autopsy found as many as 11 incised injuries all over the body one scratch over right elbow and clotted blood in vagina. The death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to right lung, liver and tracheas. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.S.I. Bagdi arrested the appellant on 146.1981 and seized blood stained blouse, peticoat and sari from her person and also sent her for medical examination as she had some injuries. Dr. R.L. Chopra (P.W. 21) found one incised wound semicircular 1" on right little finger, middle third, palmer surface, two abrasions over right forearm and one lacerated wound t' oval skin deep over right palm. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ex. P. 27 found presence of blood among others in the blouse, peticoat and sari of the appellant while Serologist vide report Ex. P. 28 found presence of human blood on these clothes. On completing investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the murder. The defence is of denial and also implication. According to her, she had no injuries on 13 & 14-6-1981 but on 15.6.1981 bleeding injury was caused to her fingers by pressing them against the door in the police station and she got blood stains in her clothes because she had wiped the injuries with her clothes. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the circumstantial evidence on record came to the conclusion that that it is the appellant who committed the murder and there was no possibility of any third person committing the crime. The circumstantial evidence on record excludes all hypothesis except the guilt, of the appellant.

(3.) Shri R.N. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the FIR itself the earliest version of the incident has been given i.e. the deceased was assaulted by three persons who had run away. The appellant had also protested that she is being falsely implicated when she was arrested. Therefore, the possibility of other persons committing the crime cannot be excluded. Anandilal (P.W. 6) is a child witness and has been tutored. Moreover, he did not mention in his case diary statement that he had seen injuries on the hand of the appellant. According to Shri Dilip Naik, learned Govt. Advocate, the case against the' appellant has been proved beyond doubt and the evidence excludes any possibility of her being innocent.