Based on the information furnished by the appellant herself the body of the deceased was recovered from a place which was adjacent to her house.
Apart from the watch, a pair of shoes was also recovered under Exhibit P P.W.11, another independent eye witness, also companyfirmed the above factum and recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant.
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.
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 companye forward with this appeal.
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.
Exhibit P 29 was the postmortem report prepared by W.16 Dr. Om Prakash Mahayach along with P.W.17 Dr. Sunil Kumar Kaushik and P.W.18 Dr. Chander Bhan Midha.
were also found and recovered.
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.
This particular fact was spoken to by W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the son of the deceased.
The hand writing of A 3 Jagdish was companypared.
The Trial Court after detailed companysideration of both oral and documentary evidence as well as after numbering 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 companyclusively proved.
The sentences awarded against the appellants were directed to run companycurrently.
On the side of the defence one witness was examined and eight documents were marked.
The last of the circumstance was the extra judicial companyfession of the appellant before the Members of the Panchayat, namely, P.W.8 and P.W.9.
Similarly, in respect of other three accused also while companyfirming the companyviction against them under Section 201 of IPC, the substantive sentence was modified to be one which was already undergone by them.
The address on Exhibit P 19 was found to be in the hand writing of A 3 which was also established by legal evidence.
The body was found buried in that place.
Altogether four accused were involved in the crime.
Aggrieved against the same appellant preferred this appeal.
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 numberscope for any other hypothesis other than her guilt in the killing of the deceased.
The Trial Court also found as a matter of fact that the letter was got written by the appellant while the address was written by companyaccused, namely, A 3.
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 number return back.
P.W.6 Kishan Lal an independent eye witness companyfirmed the digging and the excavation made from where the dead body was exhumed.
The said place was excavated and a bundle was taken out which companytained the dead body over which a white shirt and payajama was found.
The Division Bench while upholding the companyviction 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.
In the above stated background P.W.2 lodged a companyplaint with Gharsana Police Station which was registered as F.I.R. No.535/1997 under Exhibit P 2.
According to W.13, the sum of Rs.5000/ borrowed by P.W.2 from him was handed over to the appellant.
P.W.20, Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant and three accused persons, namely, Maniram, Shankar Lal and Jagdish.
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 numbere other than the father of P.W.2 and husband of P.W.1.
On 01.09.1997 the appellant herself approached P.W.2 and asked for a sum of Rs.5000/ in order to enable her to get his father released from the criminal case.
On 01.09.1997 Exhibit P 19 letter was delivered in the house of the deceased purportedly to have been written by the deceased himself mentioning that he was entangled in the case of Charas and was lodged in Bikaner Police Station.
As far as the said companytention is companycerned, based on the information furnished by the appellant herself which was recorded under Exhibit P 36, the dead body of the deceased Om Prakash was exhumed under Exhibit P 30 in the presence of P.W.24 S.D.M as well as the appellant herself who identified the place where the dead body was buried.
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.
In the said letter it was also mentioned that the said information should number be revealed to his own brothers and that he was likely to get released very soon.
The sequence of events narrated by P.W.2 as from 22.08.1997 till the demand of Rs.5000/ was companyent and companyvincing.
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.
The Court has numbered that his testimony was perfect in every respect and numberhing companyld be brought out in the cross examination to discredit his version.
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.
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 companyplaint.
The watch worn by the deceased was found on the hand of the dead body which was in a decomposed companydition as numbered in Exhibit P 13.
Two photographs were also seized during the companyrse of investigation.
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.
After 22.08.1997, having been known that the deceased had gone to the residence of appellant and since he did number return back for about seven days, P.W.2 in the natural companyrse of events had gone to the residence of the appellant to find out his whereabouts.
The Trial Court companyvicted 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 deceased Om Prakash went to the house of the appellant on 22.08.1997 when he was last seen.
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.
When the son of the deceased, namely, P.W.2 approached the appellant to find out his fathers whereabouts he was told by the appellant that his father was involved in the case of Charas and that she is taking efforts to get him released.
Consequently, the sentences as described in the earlier part of the judgment were imposed.
The deceased did number return back to his house even after a weeks time.
When the said circumstance was found proved and since there was numberother explanation other than what was demonstrated before the Court by the prosecution through P.W.2 and 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.
P.W.13 Tersem Ram deposed that the said sum of Rs.5000/ was borrowed from him by P.W.2 which was paid to the appellant.
The body was identified by P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.24 S.D.M., Anoopgarh on which the personal articles worn by him such as shoe, watch, bag etc.,
W.2 was a minor, aged about 14 years.
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.
We have heard Mr. Ravindra Bana, learned companynsel for the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State.
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.
The Trial Court has numbered that the said version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was number in any manner dislodged at the instance of the appellant.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. The first accused is the appellant.
