SHANKERI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.05.1987 rendered in Sessions Case No.31 of 1986 by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by which the sole appellant Smt. Shankeri ('accused', for short) has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment of fine to undergo further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial is as under:

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that who took out the body of Prabhu from canal and in what circumstances. It is also emphatically submitted by the learned counsel that the sole eye witness is PW8 Lassi, the daughter of the accused, who is projected as eye witness but she has not supported the prosecution case. She has not been declared hostile nor has been cross examined, therefore, if her evidence is taken on its face value, then no case is made out against the accused. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that PW1 Kanti & PW2 Hurmal are projected as witnesses of alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused but infact there is no evidence to that effect. They have not stated anything before the Court that the accused made confession before them, however, the trial Court has misread their evidence and convicted the accused. On the aforesaid premise, according to the learned counsel, there is no evidence worth name to connect the accused with the crime, therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He, therefore, submitted that the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused appellant deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal and thereby acquitting the accused of the offence with which she was charged.