SUNITA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dtd. 13/12/2018 and order dtd. 17/12/2018, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court), Bhiwani, in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2017, by appellant Sunita. She was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Ss. 201, 302, 297, 328, 120-B IPC. She was convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 29/6/2016, SA Rajiv 400 BWN (Security Agent) was present in village Jamalpur, in connection with some secret investigation. He was informed by the secret informer that Pooja daughter of Jagdish had been killed by administering some poisonous substance by her family members in collusion with each other as she had lived out of home with one boy resident of village Kalanaur for 7/8 days about 3/4 months ago. Her family members had brought her home in the village and since then she was not allowed to go outside the house. She was kept under strict supervision and on that day i.e. 29/6/2016, she was, however, murdered. In the night of 27/6/2016, dead-body of Naresh son of Bhana Ram was also found in the agricultural field, who related to the family of deceased Pooja. There was rumor in the village that Naresh might also have been killed by them because on that day i.e. 29/6/2016 at about 10.00 A.M., his dead-body was cremated without any medical examination or information to the police, while dead-body of Pooja was taken by her family in Maruti vehicle to the cremation ground. Her dead-body was burnt in the same funeral pyre along with Naresh by pouring kerosene so as to conceal the factum of death of Pooja from the society. On the basis of secret information vide application, Ex.PW3/A of Secret Agent Rajiv, formal FIR, Ex.PW3/B, was registered under Sec. 302/201 IPC by Inspector Ramesh Kumar. On the same day, he accompanied by HC Anil Kumar and Constable Parveen visited Cremation Ground of village Jamalpur and inspected the scene of crime. FSL team was summoned. FSL team visited the spot. Ash and bones of dead-body of Pooja were taken by Dr. Ravinder Pal, Incharge, Scene of Crime Team, SP Office, Bhiwani. Ash and bones were converted into five sealed parcels. Inspector Ramesh Kumar along with other associates also visited at the house of Jagdish, father of deceased Pooja, from where Dr. Ravinder Pal collected vomit smeared cotton, two chunnis (yellow colour and indigo/blue colour) and broken pieces of red colour glass bangles from underneath the bed (diwan). All the materials were converted into separate sealed parcels. On 30/6/2016, Mahender was produced by Satbir Singh, husband of Sarpanch of village Jamalpur, along with written complaint, Ex.PW3/G. He made disclosure statement, Ex.PW3/H, regarding his involvement in the commission of crime. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, one plastic-can of kerosene and fawada (spade), which were used in the commission of crime, were recovered from the place of concealment i.e. bushes situated near Cremation Ground of village Jamalpur. Rough sketch, Ex.PW5/A, of recovered fawada and rough site plan, Ex.PW3/K, of the place of recovery were prepared. Motor-cycle was also recovered. On 30/6/2016 itself, accused Mahender disclosed about the involvement of his other companions, namely, appellant Sunita wife of Jagdish, Ashish son of Shamsher, Pankaj son of Jagdish, Jain @ Balwant son of Dalbir, Rakesh Kumar son of Jugti Ram, Kamal Singh son of Ram Dass, Anil Kumar and Shamsher Singh sons of Bharat Singh in the commission of crime. Co-accused Shamsher Singh and Rakesh Kumar made disclosure statements vide Ex.PW8/A and PW8/B. Co-accused Kamal Singh and Anil Kumar were also arrested. They made disclosure statements, Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/E. Appellant Sunita was also arrested on 15/8/2017. She made disclosure statement, Ex.PW7/A. Investigation was completed and challan was filed against accused Sunita on 10/11/2017, after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of the case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. She denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded that she was falsely implicated in the case. Four witnesses were examined in defence. She was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal.