Shanti Devi W/O Shanker Lal vs State Of Rajasthan

1. The first accused is the appellant. The challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 16.02.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2002. Altogether four accused were involved in the crime. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC while the other three accused were found guilty for offence under Section 201 of IPC alone. The appellant was imposed with the punishment of sentence for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC apart from a fine of Rs.100/- and in default for further one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 201 of IPC appellant was imposed with the rigorous imprisonment for five years along with the fine of Rs.100/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo one more month rigorous imprisonment. The other three accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences awarded against the appellants were directed to run concurrently. The Division Bench while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC modified the punishment so far as it related to be one under Section 201 of IPC to the effect that the period already undergone would be sufficient in the interest of justice. Similarly, in respect of other three accused also while confirming the conviction against them under Section 201 of IPC, the substantive sentence was modified to be one which was already undergone by them. Aggrieved against the same appellant preferred this appeal.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution as projected before the Sessions Trial was that the father of P.W.2 went to the house of the appellant on 22.08.1997, that he had a sum of Rs.300/- with him on that day, that he frequently used to visit the house of the appellant and that appellant used to call him as her brother. According to P.W.2, after his father, the deceased Om Prakash went to the house of the appellant on 22.08.1997 he did not return back. P.W.2 went to the house of the appellant thrice and the appellant informed him that his father, the deceased, was entangled in a case of Charas and that she is taking every effort to get him released. Subsequently, on 01.09.1997 the Postman delivered a letter in his house which was purportedly in the hand- writing of Accused No.3 (A-3), the son of the appellant, and that on that very day appellant visited the residence of P.W.2 and asked for a sum of Rs.5000/- stating that money was required in order to enable her to get his father released from the criminal complaint. Believing her words P.W.2 stated to have borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from P.W.13 Tersem Ram and gave it to her.

3. In the above stated background P.W.2 lodged a complaint with Gharsana Police Station which was registered as F.I.R. No.535/1997 under Exhibit P-2. P.W.20, Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant and three accused persons, namely, Maniram, Shankar Lal and Jagdish. Based on the admissible portion of the said statement of the appellant the body of the deceased Om Prakash was recovered from a place near her house. The body was found buried in that place. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body. Two photographs were also seized during the course of investigation. The hand- writing of A-3 Jagdish was compared. Based on the final report, charges were framed against the appellant and other accused for offences under Sections 302 of IPC read with Section 302/120-B, 364, 364/120-B and 201 of IPC. The accused having denied the charges, case went into trial and 24 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution apart from 50 documents marked and 14 articles were produced. On the side of the defence one witness was examined and eight documents were marked.

4. The Trial Court after detailed consideration of both oral and documentary evidence as well as after noting the chain of circumstances alleged against the appellant and other accused, held that the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 201 of IPC as against the appellant and the offence under Section 201 of IPC as against the rest of the accused were conclusively proved. Consequently, the sentences as described in the earlier part of the judgment were imposed. The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which the impugned judgment came to be delivered as against which the appellant has come forward with this appeal.

10. When the above circumstances placed before the Trial Court are considered and the various tests relating to the circumstantial evidence were applied there can be no difficulty in holding that the chain of circumstances had every definite link, namely, from the date the deceased was stated to have gone to the residence of appellant and, thereafter, his death was discovered based on the information furnished by the appellant herself pursuant to which the body of the deceased was recovered from a place which was adjacent to her house. In between 22.08.1997 and the date of recovery of the body of the deceased, the appellant met P.W.2 once at her residence and, thereafter, the appellant herself approached P.W.2 asking for a sum of Rs.5000/- to enable her to get his father released from the criminal case. After 22.08.1997, having been known that the deceased had gone to the residence of appellant and since he did not return back for about seven days, P.W.2 in the natural course of events had gone to the residence of the appellant to find out his whereabouts. This particular fact was spoken to by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the son of the deceased. The Trial Court has noted that the said version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not in any manner dislodged at the instance of the appellant. P.W.2 was a minor, aged about 14 years. Therefore, when the appellant, who was known to his father who was frequently visiting her, informed him that his father was involved in a criminal case relating to charas, believing her words P.W.2 returned back with the fond hope that the appellant would take every effort to get his father released from the custody of the police. Not stopping with that the appellant herself approached P.W.2 on 01.09.1997 with a demand for payment of Rs.5000/- for the purpose of getting his father released from the criminal case. The sequence of events narrated by P.W.2 as from 22.08.1997 till the demand of Rs.5000/- was cogent and convincing. The further fact that P.W.2 in his anxiety to get his father released, succumbed to the demand of the appellant by raising funds for the payment of Rs.5000/- by borrowing the same from P.W.13 who supported the said fact by deposing before the Court. The Court has noted that his testimony was perfect in every respect and nothing could be brought out in the cross-examination to discredit his version. According to P.W.13, the sum of Rs.5000/- borrowed by P.W.2 from him was handed over to the appellant. When the said circumstance was found proved and since there was no other explanation other than what was demonstrated before the Court by the prosecution through P.W.2 and P.W.13, the said circumstance was in addition to the earlier set of circumstances which linked the involvement of the appellant in the crime alleged against her. The subsequent factum of recovery of the body of the deceased at the instance of the appellant was one other strong circumstance against the appellant in roping her involvement in the elimination of the deceased and thereby providing no scope for any other hypothesis other than her guilt in the killing of the deceased. The other recoveries made from the body of the deceased duly identified by P.W.2 was yet another relevant circumstance to show that the deceased was none other than the father of P.W.2 and husband of P.W.1. Therefore, the analysis of the above circumstances alleged and found proved definitely formed a chain of circumstances having closely linked together without giving any scope for any other conclusion than a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

16. The last submission made was that the body of the deceased was only recovered from an adjacent place not from the house of the appellant herself, we do not find any substance in the said submission in order to interfere with the judgment impugned. The very fact that the recovery of the dead body came to be made at the instance of the appellant and that too from an adjacent place to the residence of the appellant was sufficient enough to rope in the appellant in the murder of the deceased.

17. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

18. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond stands cancelled and she shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of sentence, if any.

October 05, 2012