BULANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present jail appeal was preferred against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15-07-1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1993/22 of 1993 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). The Trial Court convicted the sole appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on the fardbeyan of one Choukidar namely Ras Bihari Paswan, an F.I.R. was lodged, vide Ashok Paper Mill P.S. Case No. 107 of 1992 on 26-06-1992 at 8:30 PM against unknown for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case, one Md. Salim was done to death. The fardbeyan of Choukidar was recorded on 26-09-1992 at 4:00 P.M. in the house of deceased Md. Salim, Village-Sibaisinghpur, P.S.-Ashok Paper Mill, District Darbhanga. In his fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that deceased Md. Salim was Asthmatic patient since last three years and he was not in a position to move and he was passing urine and stool on his bed itself. His wife (appellant) was taking care of him. At about 2:00 P.M., the informant got an information that Md. Salim was done to death by cutting his throat. After getting said information, he reached the house of Md. Salim and noticed that throat of Md. Salim was cut and there was a plan to bury him. After noticing the said fact, he stayed there to keep vigilance and sent his son for giving information to the police. He got information that Md. Salim was murdered by a sharp weapon in the night of 25-09-1992. In the fardbeyan, he stated that he noticed that blood-stain was already removed. Even after his search, he did not notice the weapon. He raised suspicion on the wife of deceased, who is appellant before this Court. On the basis of fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was lodged against unknown and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of sessions.

(3.) During trial, to establish the accusation, from prosecution side, 11 (eleven) witnesses were examined, namely; (1) Raudi Kunjra, (2) Maslim, (3) Kedar Nath Jha, (4) Rama Kant Sah, (5) Mahesh Bhagat, (6) Abdul Chota, (7) Dasrath Das, (8) Md. Moti, (9) Vijay Pratap Singh, (10) Rash Bihari Paswan and (11) Deo Nandan Prasad Singh. However, during trial, P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 8 turned hostile, P.W.-9 (Vijay Pratap Singh), who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased, had proved the post-mortem examination report, which has been marked, as Ext. '3'. The formal F.I.R. has been marked, as Ext. '5', whereas, fardbeyan was got exhibited, as Ext. '2'. In the case, during trial, only informant, who was examined as P.W.-10, had come to support the prosecution case. P.W.-5 and 6 were only tendered and as such, their evidence has got no relevance for adjudication of the case. So far as P.W.-7 namely Dasrath Das is concerned, he is the heresay witness. However, P.W.-7, in his cross-examination, had stated that deceased died due to ailment.