LALITA DEVI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Lalita Devi has been convicted Under Section 201, Penal, Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years; she was acquitted of the charge of murder Under Section 302, Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 3rd July 1946 the girl, Baohia, being the daughter of the appellant's sister, was found missing. Her mother, Mombati (p. w. 7) was in search of her and was told on the way that she had gone towards the house of the accused. She thereupon came to accused's house and asked about the whereabouts of her daughter and was told that she had been sent away by the appellant after her hair was dressed and she was given a tica of vermilion on her forehead. Mombati then states that at this time a young girl by name Agni came upon the scene and asserted that Bachia had been killed by the appellant. On this assertion being made, Mombati (P.W. 7) wanted to search the appellant's house and the appellant bolted the door from inside, and while Mombati attempted to scale over the compound wall in order to reach the appellant's room, she was struck with a lathi and brickbats. Later, a large number of villagers including Mombati's husband, Geno Singh and her father -in -law, Kanhai Singh arrived. They sent for Bajo Singh, the appellant's husband, on whose arrival and at whose orders the door was opened by the appellant, Thereupon a search was made and the Corpse of the deceased Bachia was recovered. It was found that the child had been cut at her throat just below the adam's apple, the cut extending more to the right with a deep wound than to the left. Kanhai Singh went to the police station and lodged the first information report. The police after due formalities submitted charge -sheet against the appellant. The enquiring Magistrate committed her to the Court of Session with a charge under Section 201. The learned Sessions Judge added the charge of Section 302 but ultimately acquitted her of that charge.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge found as a fact; (l) that the appellant had assaulted Mombati either with brickbats or with stick or with both in order to prevent her from scaling over the wall and getting into her rooms, (a) that she and her husband were the only inmates of the house, (S) that the possibility that Bajo Singh {the appellant's husband), who was an inmate of the house, might have murdered the girl could not be ruled out, (i) that the dead body had been kept concealed in the room for which the occupants of the room must be held responsible, (6) that Agni chokri who had given evidence before the police that the appellant had murdered the girl by cutting her with pahaaul had been gained over by the defence, (6) that it was only upon Agni chokri's assertion of the appellant having committed the murder that she shut the door and bolted it from inside in order to prevent Mombati from entering into her house when Mombati wanted to do so in order to search the rooms, (7) that Mombati having been instrumental in getting the appellant, a young woman of IS or 16, married to Bajo Singh, an old man of 70, the accused felt exasperated and with an immature brain like hers engineered a plan like this for avenging the wrong done to her by her sister, and (8) that all these circumstances lead to an irresistible inference that the appellant by preventing the people from entering into her house in order to make a search for the de -ceased girl wanted time and opportunity for disposing of the dead body and thereby to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder with the intention of screening the offender. On these findings he found her guilty and convicted and sentenced her as above.