GANGA BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for suspension of sentence has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-applicant Smt. Ganga Bai, who stands convicted and sentenced under the judgment dated 29.09.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.50/2017 (C.I.S. No.51/2017).

(2.) Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently urged that the FIR was lodged by Rameshchandra, father of Smt. Reena, daughter-in-law of the applicant herein, with a specific allegation that the applicant herein and her husband Sukhlal murdered Smt. Reena. He pointed out that the first informant mentioned in the written report that Smt. Reena had earlier given birth to two daughters and that she was suspected of having conceived another female child, which could not be aborted. Learned counsel Mr. Shah urges that as per the documents Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21, manifestly, the prosecution case regarding the accused having made an effort to get the gender of the foetus tested is falsified. He further submits that the appellant is a woman and had been surgically operated upon for congestion in spinal vertebra leaving her movements constrained. He urged that the dead body of Smt. Reena was found in a room on the first floor of the house and it was physically not possible for the appellant to have climbed the stairs nor does the appellant possess that kind of strength so as to be able to strangulate the deceased. He further urges that the FIR was lodged casting suspicion upon the appellant and her husband Sukhlal for the murder of Smt. Reena, but the police exonerated Sukhlal and therefore, the appellant cannot be singled out and held responsible for the offence under Section 302 IPC in absence of positive substantive evidence to prove that she murdered the deceased. He further submits that the appellant-applicant is an old ailing lady, who is suffering from serious spinal ailments and thus, even as per the proviso to Section 437 CrPC, she is entitled to special and lenient consideration for bail. On these grounds, he implored the court to accept the application for suspension of sentence and direct release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant-applicant and urged that she had a strong motive to murder the deceased, who was suspected to be carrying a third female child in her womb. The efforts to get the child aborted proved futile, whereupon, the appellant took the draconic step of eliminating her own daughter-in-law. He, thus, craved dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.