ROSHANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 27.4.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2004, titled as State vs. Smt. Roshani Devi, whereby accused -appellant Roshani Devi stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 2000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month, accused has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 9.6.2004, Hari Singh (PW -1) lodged a complaint (Ext. PA) with the police to the effect that on 8.6.2004 his wife Roshani Devi (accused), with whom he had strained relations, entered his house and set his personal belongings on fire. On the basis of said complaint, F.I.R. No. 116 of 2004, dated 9.6.2004 (Ext. PD) was registered by HC -Milap Chand (PW -11) against the accused under the provisions of Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. SI -Kapoor Chand (PW -14) investigated the matter, which revealed, that accused committed the alleged act at the time when the complainant alongwith his mother Smt. Mangali Devi (PW -2) had gone to attend the court proceedings at Jogindernagar. Accused had filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar. The said act was witnessed by complainant's daughter Sita Devi (PW -4) and neighbour Rita Kumari (PW -3). Rita Kumari informed the incident to Pradhan Nagnu Ram (PW -6) and Sita Devi informed the incident to Hari Singh (PW -1). The incident was also witnessed by Dalip Kumar (PW -7), Ram Rakha (PW -9) and Kishori Lal (PW -13). With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which she pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.