@ C 1 rimina! Ameal No‘941 9f 200 Urméla Bai, W/o Meghnafh, Aged abou‘r 3O years, Househoid wife, Rio Viiiage: Deori, Poiice Sfafion: Berla, DES‘H’J Durg (C.I3.) - Versus — Sfa‘i’e of Chha‘tfisgar'h, Through Po!ice SfaTion: Berla, Disft: Durg (C.G.) JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- , L.C. BHADOO Judge ///;\ AUGUST 2003 HGN‘BLE THE CHIEF JUSUCE ‘\w1 ‘ ? x pv@/>/5€ {i J Sd/- J L Chief Justice J ' PG5T FOR JUDGMENT ON Jé’f‘f’ zit/GUST 2003 Sdl- L.C. BHADOO ’ i: HEGH CGURT OF JUEICATURE T 7&ELA5PUR (C.&.} £r§ménei Aggea! Nc.941 cf 2QQ1 Urmikz Bai, W/G Meghnafh, Aged about 30 years, Household wife, Rf Viiiaqe: Deori. %iice 51*a1’ion: Barb, Di3"rf.i Burg (C.G.) "' VEY'SUS =- $+a+e 01F Chha‘l‘fisgar‘h, Through Poiice S‘mfion: Beria, Dis‘rii burg (61%.) VF€3€nTi - Shri CR. Sahu, Advccafe: Far The appellam' Shri Praveen Das: Panei Lawyer: For ‘fhe Sm‘fe / responden‘r ision Bgnch: Han‘blg Shri KHN Kurangg. CV3. ana . .i Hon .m2 . arm m . . Li L. .. Bhanaa . J- JL’DL-‘rMENT (Deiiver-zd' chm Augus‘r, 2003) Th e. fciiewinc; judgment of the Ceur‘!’ was delivered by Justice LCBhad’ao: - 1. Accu$ed/appe!!am Urmi! Bai has preferred This criminai appeal under Sec‘rion 374 (2) 01: ‘rhe Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by The Judgmen‘l' clcx’fed 13*h Ame-sf 200i 3 i (Fas‘r Track Courf‘), Eemefam, Dis‘r'l'. burg, in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2901, by which i'he learned Addirional Sessions Judge afTer holding The accused/‘appeilan‘i' guih‘y of fhe murder of her sons namely, Ekesh, aged cbou’l‘ 2 % years and Poshcm, aged abou‘l‘ 1 12‘ years, convici‘ed her under $eci'ion 362 of i'he IRC and seni’encea' 'ner To undergo imprisonment/r // 33n9 n. ‘3' a” Fueav , the Seccnd Addi‘rional Sessions Judge Div / Kw feii édcr’n éf fha mum‘ér‘ and ais-c'; held her guil‘ry of The ( ‘ cgmmis$iqn 9f The offencg under Sec‘rign 309 of ”rhe I.P.C. and serufe‘rleéd 'ner- $0 u'idergo simpie irripr‘ism’x‘n‘xe'r1f for six monfhs. All ‘rhe "rhr‘ea sen‘fencas were direc+ed 1‘0 r-Lm concurrehTly. L I-z Tor HT The prosecufion case, m brief, is Thcd' on 077.11.2000 a? abou‘r 8 urn. in eor§ accused UrmHa Ba§ jumped iwo a we” along wi‘rh her Two sons mmeiy. Ekesh & Poshan. The viikxger’s puiled oui- The accused from a‘ha vrl! when she was a!%ve. Hcwe‘ ”r, by fhe fime The Two sons of The accused were fuken ouf of fhe weii, 'fhey had d'ied. p The viiiaqe Kofwar nameiy, Manqai Das (PW-8) gave merg infima‘rions +0 Pohca Sm’ricn: Berk, ragarding #ha death of Poshan vide EXP-19 and regarding The deafh o1: Ekesh vide EXP-20. Based on The merg infimaiiens, The In-eharge Station House Officer recorded FIR. (EXP- 20) and regisfered a case under Sec‘rions 302 & 309 of fhe I.P.C. He prepared the sife plan (EXP—1) and aJer giving +he nofices +0 The Panchas vide Exs.P-2 & P—3, prepared The Panchanamas of The dead bodies of Ek sh vide EXP-4 and Poshen vide EXP-5. The PaTwqri nomeiy, Khubhara Prasad Jangde (PW—6) prepared siTe pian 'vide ExsP— 19 62. P-11. The dead bodies of Poshan & Ekesh were senT for posT morTem examinaTion vide Exs.P—21 & P-ee. The accused was senT for medical examinaTion vide EXP-23. The pos‘!’ morTem reporT of The dead bodies of ?oshan & Ekes‘n were received vide ExsP—Zl d4 P—ZZ, respecTiveiy; After recording The sTaTe.e.Ts of The wiTnesses and < \»\ an i i u; )(A J4 cf‘har‘ camiiiéfio’r’] af mg iflve$?igc1%ion, f‘né Sfafion Hausa Officer! fiied chqrgg shag? bgfarg flag Caur'l’ of Judiciai Magis+rm‘e, firs? Class, Sememm, who i‘r: Tum commiTTad fhe Gas-e T‘ Th2 Cour‘r of The 5essions Judge, Durgi from where 141a Second AddH-ional 5essions Judge (FasT Track CourT), Bame‘ram, received The case m Transfer. A The {earnad Addhiaha! Sessbns Judge affar hearing The argumenfs of The Add'i‘i‘ionai Pubiic Prbsecu‘for‘ and fhe counse! far 'i'he accuseé and afmr perusa! of #he reccrds reached fhe conclusion Thaf fhere was sufficieni’ ma+eriai on record To frame charges under Sec‘l’ioh 302 cf fhe I.P.C. on fwa csunfs for :‘he murders c; Ekesh & Poshan and Sec‘rion 3E3? of fhe .T..P.C. for a‘Hemnfing f0 commif suicide agains‘l' fhe accused. (écccrdingiy, rhe iearned Ad ificnai Sessions Judge framed The charges aqainsf The accused and read over and explained The same ‘l’o the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed To be Tried’ 4:, The prasecuTian in order Ta grave The offences againsT The accused/ appellam‘ examined Ten wiTnesses. The sTaTemenT cf The accused was recorded under SecTion 313 cf The Cr.P.C. The accused sTaTed ThaT she along wiTh her children feii inTo The well and she denied The allegaTion ThaT she jumped in‘le The well. She sTaTed ThaT she has been falsely impiicaTed in The crime and she Is innocerrr. (J1 The learned AddiTional Sessions Judge afTer hearing The argumenTs of +he Addi‘i‘ianal Public ProsecuTer and The ccunsel for The accused and . / affair beiizvir‘xg am? re§ying Cm +he prosecufién evidence convicted and senfgncgd ihg agcu$edlappgllgwt as sw‘afed abave. 7“ We have heard +he learned counsel for The accused/appeHanf and bar-red Fame Lawyer appearhg rm behmf 0f The STaTe/respondem. s. As far as ‘rhe §nvo}vemen? of fhe accused in commi‘r‘ring The murder of her own sons nameiy, Ekesh & Poshan and fhe charge of she a‘H‘emp‘fing 1' csmmh suicide is concerned, ‘rhe prcsecu'don has Tried To prove Tha‘r The occused/appeiianf jumped info fhe weii along wi‘rh her Two sons wifh ”w“ +0 fini h her life and the life sf her sons as she was n01- muonuai’} l main'l'oining good heal‘rh and was no‘l‘ receiving proper freai‘menf. To prove +‘ne above charges, “He main wifness examined is Tijau (PW-2). He has sfa'l'ed' in his evidence ‘i'hai' he is fhe neighbourer of Meghnafh, l +im, Lumbmmi mc in ,3 accused. Eoi’h ‘ihe sons of Meghna‘l‘h have died 7-8 monihs back. He does no‘r know how They had died. On 'rhe fa‘i‘eful day a? fhe "eleven? i'irne he "We back offer faking ba‘l‘h a? fhe pond of abou‘i 8—§ am. and when he sa‘i for iaking break fast he heard a sound He also saw some clo‘l'hes near fhe well. He wen‘i' Towards i'he weii and saw 'i'he accused and bo‘rh The children in ihe well. He had no? seen. Them iumping into 'lhe well. He informed fhe viiiagers and ihe viiiagers and Ko’rwar of ‘ihe village came There. The Seku um. nu» uuu v. l envy... u -uu. just like jumping v-.." .v... J Ram (PW—1) is The wiiness To The spoi map and ihe Panchanama of ‘ihe dead bodies. In para-3 of his evidence, he has sfafed fha‘l’vhe does nof f J . Kum‘ MaiT'ni (WV—4) is "r'ne daugh‘i'er' of Meghna‘rh‘ She has aiso Turned hos'l'ile. She has s . d he eVide c hn+ she does noT know how The accused and The children feli inTo The weii. kmw 'néw f‘ne chiidre’r‘u arm' Urmiic’x Eai had faiien info 'rhe well‘ He fook 9L! he bodies of fhe chlldran and also accused Urmila Boi from 1'he wzii. He 'rmd ‘nm‘ ehquir-ed ahyT‘ni'ng from Ur‘rri'ila Bai as To how she fell in +he well. This wi‘i’ness has been declared hos’rHe by 'fhe prosecu‘rion, as he hr‘ r0 ‘ g‘porwd re prasecu‘non case. In para—6, he has fur‘rher s+afed ‘rha‘i' i'r is frue ‘i'ha? Ur'miia Bai was sick and she had 1'aken Warwmem, bu? she was ho? cured. He we: nm‘ know as To wheTher‘ The husband oFrUrmiia Bai was no’r ge‘rfing her frea‘red. He does no‘l' know as To whe?he. 'umm pai firs? Threw The children info fhe well and lhereaf‘rer, she jumped info ihe well. I D Meghnaih (T’W—3) is ihe husband of ‘i‘he accused He has s‘l'a‘ied in his evidence iha‘i on “ihe fed-eful day ei' he r evani 'i'ime he was no‘i' a'l‘ his residence and he came affer ihe incident The fwo children had died on cecuni f fullng in‘ro “the well. Tms Jiiness has also been declared hosiile. In para-6, he has s‘i'a‘red ‘i'ha‘r he enquired from Urmila Bai and she infcrmed him fhaf +h° childmn ell info ihe well while They were playing and she aiso feil in‘i‘o The weil whiie frying 'l'o save Them. SmT. Laxmi Bai (?W-5) has sTaTed in her evidence ThaT when she was coming afTer Taking baTh, she saw Thai: son of The accused Ekesh fell info The wen wmie piaying and i0 Save Enes'r'l drmila Ba! Jumped ln‘l'o The 1/ r / 1i. /~\' ] an II cuorig I wii’r": I I rie’r‘ 'y'OLm ‘ Theveaffer, fhe villagers came w g r son rosncm and pgllad them 9L4? 9 the well? This wi‘megs has aiso been declared a f s . e S5-éxm‘r‘l'l ie has 5Ta‘fed Thu? She doe nuamé Ln m Cr‘Qur‘aum pain-o Er s no? know 'H1e name of ‘Hne wife of TIJ‘au {PW-2), bu‘i' she was sfanding af at I Q 01 I‘l Ts, There is m)? m ima .u m£ eviueme A Luy Wuich L iT can be inferred That H J 1‘he accuse jumped info “the we“ aing wifh her fwo sons in order 1'0 d o su ei iwea T fini fhr . On fhe ccnfrary, fAeghnaTh, The husband of he accused has S'ra‘red in his evidence 'H'laf on enquiry, Urmila Bai informed him Thm' T idren ii mm me we” pla P Lax he ch e ‘ “he ying W 5 mi Ba: has aiso sfa’red in her evidence fhaT hen she was coming back affer w fag bah, e saw #ha? Ekesh d faiien info The we” while playing kin sh ”a and in order To save him, mila Bai jued inTo The weii along wiTh her Ur mp 13. The main wiTness is FrinTan Bai, The u 9f Tijau (P-2) who was i.e W sTanding in TronT of her house According To The prosecuTion, she saw how The accused and children fell inTo The well, buT se has noT been h examined by The prosecu‘i'ion. ET sees ThaT efforTs were made by The Trial Cour‘i' To secure her efere The Cour"? and examine her, bu‘l‘ she b COUIO 1 x nl' . D6 1 $€PV€Q 1 and T pPOGUC€§ T T GS a Wi'l'i'leSS li’l The C052. O‘ 1 Th accuSEO/appenanf i I II in her s‘Tai'emenT recorded under Sec‘i‘ion 313 of 4. e The CrP has sTaTed ThaT she fell inTo The well along wiTh her children, L which Tijau (PW—2) had seen. Tijau (PW—2) has sTaTed in his evidence , HE 61 él nuuSm hu I‘ m $\‘ ~ .LL TrIdT .L ' flé I.nae . .I Ho ._ . 'Cluauy Séén now The GCCUS’ed and The children fa” info ‘fhg well. 15. Therefore; fhere is no evidence in fhis case 1’0 prove fhe charge agains‘r .Ll- me uouuaw/ apiaeuam II .u n. umorfunafe fhaT The accused has 103T her 'kwo sons. If is ‘i’me ‘H’Iaf evidence has come on record fha'l' accused I In.“ u, ”mu ou. W‘s sick since I.as. a. K s—u t mcmns L. am. .J she was framed also, buT she was no? fuily cured and she was disfurbed on accoun‘i' of fha'i'. But merey I on nus L. ground "to in. ence can we d awn ThaT she Jumped Imo fhe weii aiona wi’rh her children in order fo end her life and Tha’r of her ”LHAnan unnun an. n .In a c. .miwl wse, heavy horde. lies on fhe prosecu‘lion f0 prove The offence againsi' i’he accused beyond reasonable doubt Suspicion, however sfrong if may he fh canno+ Tam. The place of proof There is a long gap belween ‘may be 'l'rue’ and "i‘rue’. In ‘rhe presenf case 1'he prosecuhon has {ancd .o prove “the charges levelled against ‘l‘he accused beyond reasonable doubf Tha'r she fhrew her sons im‘o The well to commit ‘lheir murder and thereaffer , Jiurmwd u,“ im‘o ‘rhe well To commi‘l smctde. ‘. For “l'he foregoing reasons, we are of f'ne opinion ‘l’haf The finding of The frial Cour? is no? based on convineing and. legal evidence and ‘l'he ‘l'rial \Courf has nol‘ properly apprecialed f'ne evidence produced in ‘l‘he case. The ‘H‘ial Cour‘l' has merely, eonvic'l‘ed ‘l'he accused by drawing ‘l'he finding of ‘t’he Trim orreci Therefore, fhe irifa‘rarmé, wh'ic'ri ii r10? c Cgur’r cannai’ be sustained: ceéds and 't'he sameis allowed. The 18. In We result. 'l'hz appeai sue The corw§c+§ws cmd 52 g ssed agains? #‘ria accused/’appellant by on o1: We offences unéer Sections 302 & ‘ win} Cour? for the commissi 309 of fhe “LRC. we s‘? aside and she §s acqui‘r‘red of The said charges. The accused is in jaii since 08.11.2000. She be se? cri- iiber‘i'y for‘i'hwifh, /. I, wh. ' i if m? required in any 61’her‘ case. frfi \i ‘L/isdk VM/\ a‘ i , L.c. BHADOo Sd/- ‘ vi i i é thief Justice i 1