DHOBLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Dhobli has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur u/s. 302 I. PC. for causing the murder of her husband Dheemaram and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. On the night between 2nd and 3rd May, 1969 Dheemaram was killed while sleeping on his cot in the court-yard of his 'dhani' situated at a distance of about 6 miles from village Lohawat. THE prosecution case is that there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife Smt. Dhobli (accused) and, therefore, she killed him by inflicting a number of injuries with an axe A First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by PW. l Chamuram, Ward-punch of Lohawat at the Police Station, Lohawat at 5. 00 p. m. on 3rd May, 1969. It was stated in the First Information Report that while Chamuram was at 'chotina' well, one Baburam came to him at about 10:00 a. m. on 3rd May, 1969 and told him that he had been summoned by Pokar Ram PW. 3 & Mughla PW. 2 to the house of the deceased Dheemaram, where Dheemaram lay dead in a pool of blood, though it was not known how all this had happened. It is further stated in the First Information Report that Chamuram at once proceeded to Dheemaram's Dhani, where he found Pokar Ram, Mughle and the accused sitting near the cot on which Dheemaram's body was lying and then on Chamuram's questioning as to how Dheema Ram had been killed, the accused replied that she had done him to death by inflicting blows with an axe. Chamuram then left the house of the deceased for lodging Fisrt Information Report. PW. 11 Samrathsingh, Station House Officer, Police Station Lohawat reached the scene of occurrence on 4th May, 1969 at about 10 00 a m. and arrested the accused who was there and sent the dead body of Dheemaram for post-mortem examination. After interrogating the witnesses and on receiving the postmortem report the Station House Officer challaned the accused in the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Phalodi for offence under section 302 I. P. C.

(3.) AS already stated earlier, PW. 2 Mughla and PW. 7 Mamraj do not make mention of any confession having been made by the accused in their presence PW. 3 Pokarram has given altogether a different version. He states that he did not enquire from the accused as to what had happened to Dheema, the deceased, but Ramudi PW. 4 had asked the accused in his presence as to who had killed Dheema, and thereupon the accused replied that she had killed her husband. This witness has stated that he heard the accused confessing her guilt to Smt. Ramudi. However, in cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he could not hear the talk which transpired between Smt. Ramudi and the accused, though in the next sentence he has stated that he had heard the accused saying that she had killed her husband Dheemaram. It may be mentioned here, that there is no reference in the First Information Report to any confession having been made by the accused to Smt Ramudi which seems to have been introduced only in the course of evidence. We find it necessary to mention, that, because the First Information Report was made after the alleged extra-judicial confession had been made and Chamuram, who had been to the scene of occurrence, must have been apprised of the confession made to Smt. Ramudi. He would have surely mentioned this fact in the First Information Report, if, in-fact, the story about making extra-judicial confession to Smt. Ramudi were correct.