RATHAN ARUNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been convicted for the offence under Section 302 and Section 201 IPC, having been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, imposed with the fine of Rs.1,000/- and directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months in default thereof, and further convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC, directed to suffer a rigorous imprisonment of six months, imposed with the fine of Rs.200/- and further directed to undergo a simple imprisonment of three months in default thereof, the appellant, Smt. Rathan Aruna, has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 15.07.2015 in S.C.No.281 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.12.2012 around 11:00 PM, Chawan Narsing Rao (P.W.1) lodged a report (Ex.P.1) with the Sangareddy Police Station that on 13.12.2012, at about 8:15 PM, he came to know that one Rathan Vijaya Laxmi has died. Upon receiving this information, he went to her house, and noticed that she had expired. According to him, some unknown persons have hit her on the head with an unknown object. He also discovered that the household articles were lying scattered in the room. According to him, the brother of the deceased, Tulasidas, Smt. Rathan Aruna, the accused in this case, and her son were residing in the adjacent house. There were some disputes between the deceased, Vijaya Laxmi, and her brother, Tulasidas. Therefore, he suspects that Tulasidas and Aruna may have killed Vijaya Laxmi. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR (Ex.P.11), namely F.I.R.No.341 of 2012, was chalked out for the offence under Section 302, and Section 201 IPC. During the course of investigation, the appellant, Smt. Rathan Aruna, was arrested. Due to her alleged confessional statement, subsequently, the police arrested Gana Jayamma (A-2). Both the accused persons were put up for trial.

(3.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, submitted twelve documents, and produced seven material objects. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted A-2, but convicted and sentenced the appellant, by the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2015 as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.