STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KANOORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 378, Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan questioning the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Sessions. Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 115/80 on 19-2-1981.

(2.) The prosecution case can be summed up as follows:- Accused Smt. Kanoori was the wife of deceased Gumana Ram. Their marriage was solemnized some five years before the occurrence but the GaunaT had taken place one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the accused was not satisfied with her husband deceased Gumana Ram as she wanted to lead luxurious life but her husband being a rustic villager, did not provide luxuries to her, and therefore, she on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of June, 1980 went where Gumana Ram was sleeping in the enclosure known as TAwade m order to keep a watch on the cattle, and killed her husband by a sharp edged weapon known as Jharbar. Smt. Meera, mother-in-law of the accused, it is said, was awakening when the accused had gone to TAwadeT and returned there from and she had even asked the accused for water to drink and the accused had served water to her. It is said that in the morning when Meera went to awaken Gumana Ram, she was aghast seeing her son in the pool of blood. She shouted and other family members rushed there. After some time many persons including PW 3 Amana Ram and PW 5 Bhoma Ram, Sarpanchas, also reached there. First Information Report was lodged by Amana Ram uncle of deceased at 4-30 p.m. on 3-6-1980 on which a case tinder Sec. 302 I.P.C. was registered. The police rushed to the spot, held the inquest, inspected the site and interrogated the witnesses. The accused was arrested and her blood stained clothes were seized. On the disclosure statement made by her a TJharbar (weapon of offence) was also recovered. The clothes seized from the accused and the TJharbarT recovered at her instance were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, from where report Ex. P/6 was received in which it was opined that the clothes and JharbarT were stained with human blood. The autopsy had been held by Dr. T.C. Sangatramani (PW 9). After the completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted.

(3.) Accused was charged under Sec. 302 I.P.C. to which she pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Accused in her statement under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. denied accusation. She examined two witnesses Urja Ram and Khema Ram in defence. The learned Sessions Judge held that Gumana Ram had met homicidal death. He further held that the prosecution case that the accused had caused injuries to Gumana Ram causing his death was not proved beyond reasonable doubts. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent.