MST. SUGAUI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mst. Sugani has been convicted under Sec. 201 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to 3 years Simple Imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200.00in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Motiram was the husband of Smt. Sugani and elder brother of Hanuman P.W. 1. Hanuman lodged a report Ex P. 1. at the Police Station Bhanipura on 7-8-73, that his brother Motiram has disappeared for the last one month and he has not beea able to trace him out. His family members informed that he had gone to Dulchasar but he could not be traced there. Another report was lodged by him on 10-8-73, in which he stated that he and Chanduram went to Dhani of Motiram and asked Mst. Sugani to tell the truth. Thereupon she told that the deceased used to beat her and she had given Dbatura Poison to her husband and when he became under intoxication, she cut his windpipe Kassi. It was also stated that the accused Begaram had money dealings with Motiram and had illicit relations with Mst. Sugani and he had also told Mst. Sugani to do away with Motiram. A case under section 302,201 and 109 I. P. C. was registered. Mst. Sugani and Bega Ram were arrested by Ramsingh S. H. O. P. W. 9 on 12-8-73 Mst. Sugani gave an information regarding concealment of the deceased on 12-8-73 and in pursuance of this information, the dead body was recovered on 15-8-73. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was presented against both the accused persons to the court of Munsif Magistrate Class, Churu and after committal enquiry both the accused persons were committed for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, who after trial acquitted Mst. Sugani of the offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and convicted her as aforesaid. The accused Begaram was also acquitted. Being aggrieved with her conviction and sentence, Mst. Sugani has preferred this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the appellant has been acquitted of the offence under section 302 I. P. C., she should tot have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 201 I. P. C and offence under Sec. 201 I. P. C. is not proved against her. He pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly placed reliance on the committing court's statement of Hanumanram P. W. 1 and Roopla P. W. 5. He also urged that it is not proved that the dead body was of the deceased Motiram and further it is also not proved that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused Mst. Sugani The learned counsel pointed out that information regarding the concealment of the dead body was given on 12-8-73 whereas the Tehrir to the doctor is dated 10-8-73, than the dead body ought to have been recovered earlier. Further the delay in recovery of the dead body has not been satisfactorily explained.