STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has appealed against the judgment of Sessions Court whereby respondents Nirmala Devi and Chain Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 302 and 301, I.P. C., stand acquitted.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as per evidence led by it during the course of the trial is like this. Deceased Geeta Devi, aged about fifty years, was married to Chattar Singh. She could not bear any child. Her husband Chattar Singh went in for a second marriage. He married respondent Nirmala Devi. The couple had four children. Nirmala Devi and her husband used to reside at Ludhiana where Chattar Singh was employed. After marrying Nirmala Devi, Chattar Singh deserted Geeta Devi. She was left in the village. Initially she was allowed to cultivate his land, by her husband Chattar Singh, but, after some time, the land was given for cultivation to some other person. Geeta Devi, left with no means of sustaining herself, started doing odd jobs at the places of other persons. After some time, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class against Chattar Singh. The Magistrate awarded monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of rupees 150/ -. Chattar Singh who was present before the Magistrate on 1 -10 -1991, paid a sum of rupees 500/ - as part of arrears of maintenance. He did not have the money to pay the remaining amount of arrears, which it appears was rupees 4,300/ -. He took time for paying the same. The matter was fixed for 4 -10 -1991, on which date Chattar Singh and deceased Geeta Devi appeared before the Magistrate. Chattar Singh paid rupees 4,300/ - to Geeta Devi who then went to the village of her husband, where she lived in one room, provided to her by her husband. The other portion of the house of which that room formed a part, remained with her husband Chattar Singh where respondent Nirmala Devi used to reside during her visits to the village. She used to visit the village for a month every year. Deceased Geeta Devi was seen in the village last on 4 -10 -1991 by Sandhya Devi (PW6). Thereafter she was not seen by any body. A few days before that she had visited her sister 's son -in -law Karnail Singh (PW2) in a different village. She returned from said Karnail Singh 's place telling him that, she would be back within a week to assist him in thrashing maize crop. When she did not return to Karnail Singh 'splace, as promised, the latter started searching for her. He went to her house but found her room locked. He informed Behari Lal (PW3), Pradhan of the Panchayat who asked him to lodge report with the Police and also to search for her. Matter was reported to the Police on 17 -10 -1991 by Karnail Singh. As per that report, copy Exhibit -PB, the deceased had been missing since 5 -10 -1991.

(3.) PROSECUTION tried to prove that there was a strong motive for the killing of the deceased by respondent Nirmala Devi her co -wife. Evidence was also led to prove that the dead -body was recovered at the instance of the respondent. By proof of these two circumstances, the prosecution sought the conviction of the respondent Nirmala Devi.