BABITA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused/appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by Judgment and Order dtd. 14/7/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Session Case No. 17/2014, whereby appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that complainant-PW-3 (Banwari Lal Sharma) on 30/10/2013 lodged a report (Ex.P-5) alleging that his wife (Gulkandi Devi) has been murdered by his son (Narendra Kumar Sharma), his daughter-in-law (Babita) and his grandson (Manish Sharma) after forcing iron rod in her mouth. It was also alleged in the FIR that Appellant No. 3 (Narendra) after consuming liquor used to fight every day and give life threats to the complainant. It was also alleged that appellant No. 3 got a cheque forcefully issued on 28/10/2013 for Rs.4.00 lakh which was dishonored by the Bank on account of insufficiency of fund and murder has been committed due to the above enmity. Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet against appellants for offence under Ss. 302/34 IPC. Accused appellants were charged for offence under Ss. 302/34 IPC. Accused appellants denied the charges and sought trial, whereupon 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 44 documents were exhibited. In defence, 11 documents were exhibited on behalf of the accused appellants. Explanation of accused appellants were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In the explanation, accused appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated. After hearing the arguments, Court has convicted the accused appellants for offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Sr. Advocate appearing for the accused appellants that case of the prosecution rests on the statement of PW-8 (Dharmendra) who was the tenant in the house of the complainant. It is contended that conduct of the witness is doubtful. The property in question was sold by the complainant on 28/10/2013 vide Ex.D-1 and as per the sale deed, the possession was handed over to the purchaser on the same day. It is also contended that eye-witness PW-8 (Dharmendra) is not a natural witness as he attended his regular activities even after witnessing the offence, which shows that the witness was either not present at the place of occurrence or he himself committed the offence of murder.