SHYAMU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 31, 1985, passed by the Session; Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C.

(2.) The incident which led to the prosecution of the appellant Smt. Shyamu, took-place on 17/3/1984, at about 12.30 a.m. in the house of Kachru situated in village Parsola. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged at. Police Station, Parsola, on the same day at about 3.00 a.m. by one Heera Lal Sb Shri Ganpat - the brother of the deceased Kachru. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R. by Heera Lal is that at about 2.00 a.m. on 17/3/1984, Doongar Teli came to his house and informed him that his elder brother Kachru has been killed by someone, whereupon he along with Doongar Teli went to the house of his brother and saw the dead body of his brother Kachru lying near the door and a stone was lying on his mouth. On enquiry, his sister-in-law Smt Shyamu informed him that some notorious person, after killing Kachru, has ran away. Thereupon he went to the house of Amir Mohammed - the Ex-Sarpanch of the village - and narrated him the incident. He, thereafter, came to the house of Kachru and on enquiry, his sister-in-law Smt. Shyamu the present accused-appellant - informed him that some thieves came there, took away the she-buffalo as well as the box, Tagari, Kadai, Chhalni etc. The story given by the accused-appellant did not satisfy them as she was not weeping and was standing out-side the house and was being scared. On being assured by them, she admitted her guilt and informed them that the deceased Kachru came to the house after taking liquor and was not providing meals to her and, therefore, she has killed her husband when he was in sleep and untied the she-buffalo and took away the box of the clothes and utensils etc. and placed them in the field.

(3.) There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The prosecution case rests mainly on the circumstantial evidence as well as the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused- appellant before P.W. 1 Heera Lal, P.W. 2 Doongar Teli and P.W. 9 Amir Mohammed. The circumstances which have been relied upon by the trial Court against the accused-appellant are that she was found in the house and she had-an opportunity to kill her husband as she had a motive with her. The motive which has been believed by the learned trial Court is that the deceased used to take liquor and after taking the liquor he used to give beating to the accused and was, also, not providing her food and clothes and on account of all these, she had killed her, husband by giving blows with a stone weighing 15 kg. The learned trial Court, also, placed reliance over toe recovery of Odni of the accused made at her instance which was found stained with blood by the F.S.L. examination. The learned trial Court, also, believed the extra-judicial confession alleged to be made by the accused.