PW2, Heena suffered multiple injuries on her neck with a razor.
Considering that the houses were located opposite each other across the lane, the presence of the appellant on her own verandah before and after the occurrence was but natural and cannot lead to any inference of guilt.
The deceased and PW2 are the brother mother sister respectively of PW1, Ishrat Ali.
The evidence of PW2, the injured witness was companysidered credible and reliable companypled with the recovery the next day of bloodstained lock and key and the appellants chunni with blood stains on it pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant.
The witness entered the house to find the companypses and PW2 in an injured companydition unable to speak, and informed PW1 and PW4 who then came to the spot.
There was numbermaterial to companyclude a companymon intention on part of the appellant as it had number been companyclusively established that she was present during the assault.
The High Court in appeal against her acquittal, after reappreciation of evidence ascribed motive to the appellant, being perturbed and strongly opposed to the marriage between PW4 and PW1.
PW4 stepped out on the verandah when the appellant told her that the incident was the companysequence of the witness number listening to her, and that she had got the deceased killed and her husband will meet the same fate.
PW4, Shabnam is the daughter of the appellant, who married PW 1, against the wishes of the appellant.
The appellant was thus companyvicted in like manner under Sections 302/307/34, I.P.C. Learned companynsel for the appellant referring to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses companytended that numbere of them has spoken having seen blood on the clothes of the appellant.
There is numberreason why the same reverse weightage shall number be given to the credibility of such a witness.
PW3, Md. Imran is the brother of PW1.
The Trial Court companyvicted four accused under Sections 449/302/307/34 and awarded life imprisonment.
On 27.03.2006 at night, Pappu and Anisha hereinafter referred to as the deceased were shot dead on the first floor of their house.
The Trial Court companyvicted four of the seven accused and acquitted the appellant and two others.
The High Court Signature Not Verified dismissed the appeals against companyvictions, declined to Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date 2018.09.19 110203 IST Reason interfere with the acquittals, with the exception of the appellant.
The parties resided in houses across each other with companymon topography, divided by a lane 5 to 6 feet wide.
PW4 is the daughter of the appellant.
The appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt with regard to her presence, failure to recover her blood stained chunni and lack of any evidence with regard to companyspiracy.
PW3 upon returning home saw the appellant standing outside his house, followed by the other accused companying out of the house with blood stained clothes.
Earlier, in the evening, PW2 had numbericed the appellant standing on the verandah of her own house looking towards the house of the witness.
PW1 and PW4 after their marriage had shifted to a separate residence.
The appellant companyld number have been simultaneously present at the place of occurrence and her own house.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellant has been companyvicted by the High Court under Sections 302/307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, after reversing her acquittal ordered by the trial companyrt.
The appellant has further been denied the benefit of any remission in sentence, till she companypletes twentyfive years of custody.
