Case: Vimla Vs. State of Rajasthan

2. The prosecution case stated briefly is that on 15th of September, 1979, Puran Singh, the husband of the appellant took a portion of the house occupied by the deceased Smt. Sohana on rent by giving a fictitious name of one Manohar Singh Sharma. In the said rented house the said Puran Singh, the appellant and their small child were residing. In the portion of the house occupied by Smt. Sohana, her son, Jeevraj, PW 1 and herwere residing. It is the prosecution case that on 8th of October, 1979Jeevraj received a postcard informing him of the serious illness of hisand asking him to go to hisplace because of which the prosecution states that Jeevraj,left the house of the deceased to gos house. On 9th of October, 1979,Dwarka Prasad, the officerof the Police Station received an information at about 10.30 a.m. that Smt. Sohana was found dead and her tenants that is accused Puran Singh and the appellant were missing. On 23rd of September, 1980, the appellant and her husband, Puran Singh were arrested by the police and on information given by Puran Singh certain jewellers belonging to the deceased were recovered. On completion of the Investigation the appellant and her husband were charged for the offences as stated above. The trial court after completion of the trial found both of them guilty of the offences and charged and sentenced them as stated above. The appeal filed by the appellant and her husband having been dismissed by the High Court, the appellant is now before us in this case.

Reasoning:
From the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of these circumstances we not that none of these circumstances implicate the appellant herein. It is prosecution case itself that Puran Singh gave a false name of Manohar Singh Sharma while taking the house on rent. It is also noted that the prosecution has not produce any material to show that this was done at the instance or in connivance with the appellant. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution namely the writing of the postcard is also attributed by the prosecution witnesses to Puran Singh only and there is no material that this was written at the instance of the appellant. The third circumstance of recovery of jewellery of the deceased is also at the instance of the appellants husband only and there is no material to show that the same was at the instance of the appellant also. The last circumstance namely this appellant and her husband, Puran Singh were last seen together with the deceased is a neutral circumstance and cannot be held to implicate any one of the accused because it is but natural that the appellant and her husband who occupied a portion of the house belonging to the deceased could be found in her company.5. In our considered opinion none of these circumstances would implicate the appellant in the crime alleged in any manner. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, contended that the fact that the appellant rented the house along with her husband, the fact that both of them were missing and were arrested together would indicate the complicity of the appellant. We think these circumstances cannot be held to be the circumstances which would lead to an irresistable inference of the appellants involvement in the crime which was committed by her husband. Both the courts below have failed to take into consideration these vital factors which are in favour of the appellant.6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant.