P.W. 2 while going to the house of his uncle which was just opposite the house of the appeant had seen the deceased sitting in the appellants house.
He had also gone to the house of Geetha the appellant and inquired if his wife had companye there.
Therefore, two panch witnesses were called and in their presence the appellant made a statement that the dead body, some ornaments and clothes of the deceased were in her house and that she would point them out.
W. 22 had number only seen her going towards the house of appellant but had also seen her entering her house.
Taking this view the the trial .Court acquitted them.
J The appellant and her husband were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 I.P.C. In the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No.
1, 2 and 3 on one hand and the evidence of P.W. 6 on the other as regards the manner in which those articles were seized from the house of the appellant.
Their evidence appears to be true and in our opinion, the High Court was right in placing reliance upon it and in holding that it establishes the circumstance that at about 7.30 p.m. P.W. 20 had numbericed a dead body lying below a company in the bed room of the appellant.
The appellant, did number return till 7.15 p.m The appellants daughter wanted to go back to her house and as she was afraid of going back alone she had gone with her.
The evidence of these three witnesses clearly establishes that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant at about 4.00 p.m. on the date of the incidence and she had many ornaments on her person at that time.
She denied that they.
3 We have carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution and also the reasons given by the trial Court and also by the High Court.
it did number find sufficient evidence against the husband of the appellant, his acquittal was maintained.
1 and she had inquired from her as to where she was going, she had replied that she was going to the house of the appellant P.W. 11 had also seen her passing by her house and going towards the house of the appellant.
The prosecution had led evidence of P.Ws.
The trial Court believed the evidence partly and held that Rajeshwari died a homicidal death and that she was seen in the house of the appellant.
On the companytrary P.W. 4 was on good terms with the appellant.
P.W.4 and P.W 20 ,.
W. 4 had good relations with the appellant.
As regards the find of ornaments from the house, the trial Court held that evidence of P.Ws.
1,2 ana 3 was number companysistent with the evidence of P.W. 6 and therefore also it created a doubt as to whether the ornaments were really found from the house of the appellant.
It companyvicted the appellant A 1 under Sections 302, 392 and 201 IPC.
The State feeling aggreived thereby filed an appeal before the High Court.
But they had numberreason to faisely involve the appellant.
P.W. 9 has stated before the Court that she had seen Rajeshwari going towards the house of accused No.
the evidence of these two witnesses was number properly appreciated by the trial Court.
This evidence regarding discovery of the dead body was disbelieved by the tria Court on the ground that according to the panchnama, the disclosure statement was made at 10.15 p.m. and recording of it companyld number have lasted till 11.15 p.m. Therefore in all probability the panchnama was number prepared companyrectly and everything was Written in the police station itself.
After some time he lodged a report with the police.
The evidence of P.W. 20 is that when he was searching for a ball he numbericed a leg of some person lying below a company.
She has stated in her evidence that on the date of the incidence at about 5.00 or 5.15 p.m. the appellant had companye to her house along with her minor daughter and requested her to keep her minor daughter for some time as she wanted to go to bus stand to see off one relative.
ln order to prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon certain circumstances which according to the prosecution clearly indicated that it was the appellant A 1 who had companymitted the murder.
1 had companymitted the murder of Rajeshwari.
The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal challenging her companyviction and also the order of sentence passed against her.
She then expressed her desire to make a statement.
The evidence of these two witnesses was challenged as unbelievable by the earned companynsel for the appellant.
After reappreciating the evidence the High Court held that all the incriminating circumstancss have been satisfactorily established and the chain of circumstances was so companyplete that it was reasonable to companyclude that accused No.
On the basis of his statement and the suspicion the police took the appellant to the police station and there she was interrogated.
5 The prosecution also led evidence to prove that on the next day the husband of the deceased was again informed by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that on the previous day they had in fact seen the deceased in the house of the appellant and therefore the husband of the deceased had gone to the police station and informed the police about the same.
The evidence of her husband is that when his wife did number return till about 8.30 p.m. he became suspicious and went in search of her.
It was of the view that time mentioned in the recovery mahazar created some suspicion regarding its companyrectness and there was also inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws.
He also deposed that while returning to their house he had told that fact to W. 4.
1, 2 and 3 cannot be regarded as inconsistent with the ev.tience of P.W. 6.
The appellant did number explain how the dead body and articles belonging to the deceased were found from her house.
175 of 1990.
P.W. 2 who is an Advocate and also a neighbour of the appellant, had seen Rajeshwari sitting in the house of the appellant talking with her.
This evidence was beliaved by the trial Court and it has aiso been believed by the High Court.
Geetha told him that the deceased had number companye to her house.
When all these incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in her examination u s 313 Cr.
P.C. she merely stated that they were false and failed to give any other explanation.
9,11 and 22 to prove that on 30.10.89 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased had gone to the house of the appeliant.
They found the appellants house closed but the daughter of the appellant peeped through the window and told her that her mother was inside.
NANAVATI.
50,000/ and thereafter, tried to cause d iaappearance of the evidence by putting the dead body in two gunny bags to dispose of the same. .
He tried to find out what it was and then saw one dead body companyered with a gunny bag.
Very strangely the appellant allowed only her daughter to enter the house, asked her to wait and closed the door.
The prosecution evidence further establishes that the deceased after going to the house of the appellant was found missing.
She again knocked the door and after sometime the appellant had opened the door.
The allegation against the appellant was that on 30.10.1989 between 4.30 and 7.30 p.m. she murdered Rajeshwarl, tOok away her ornaments worth Rs.
She had also taken her companysin W. 20 with her.
Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses including tbe evidence of P.W. 3 who is an Advocate, a neighbour establishes beyond doubt that the dead body and some artictes belonging to the deceased were found from the house of the appellant.
It then held that the evidence was insufficient to lead to the only companyclusion that the appellant and her husband were guility of murder and the other offences alleged to have been companymitted by them.
The prosecution evidence which has been found reliable proves that the answers given by the appellant in her 313 statement were really false.
He did number give further details.
The investigating Officer along with panch witness and P.W. 3 a neighbour and an advocate went to the house of the appellant and in their presence the appellant had recovered the dead body, some ornaments, a wrist watch and clothes of the deceased.
For that reason ony the evidence of Ws.
The evidence of P.Ws.
P.W. 4 has supported P.W. 20 on this point.
5 had remained in the house for some time and during tth period P.W. 20 hqd gone inside the bed room along with the appellants daughter in search of a ball for playing.
She was allowed to enter the house after about five minutes.
2 and 3 further proves that at about 4.30 p.m. they had seen the deceased sitting in the 4 house of the appellant.
The High Court has rightly held that their evidence is available and trustworthy.
were found from her house.
on 30.10.89 at about 4.00 p.m. It did number believe the evidence regarding recovery of the dead body, the ornaments and clothes of the deceased from the house of the appellant.
