Chhoti vs State Of Rajasthan

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment & order dated 19.05.1983 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Gangapur City in Sessions Case No.70/1982 whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offences as follows :-

U/s 309 IPC - Six Months Simple Imprisonment.

U/s 302 IPC - Life Imprisonment.

Brief facts are that on 17.4.1982 a written report (Ex.P-3) was submitted by Ghasidya at Police Station Khareda to the effect that Mst. Chhoti

Widow of Shri Ramji Lal along with her minor daughter jumped in the well of the village. On information Ratan Lal, Shiv Charan, Giriraj and

Rameshwar went there and brought her and her daughter out of the well. Her daughter Ramkanya died at the spot. On this, an FIR No.120/1982 was

registered at Police Station Gangapur City for offences u/s 309 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police submitted challan against

Mst. Chhoti.

Accused Mst. Chhoti was charged for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. wherein the appellant

stated that evidence adduced by the prosecution was false and she had been falsely implicated due to enmity. The accused appellant examined one

witness in her defence.

After hearing the arguments of the rival parties, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City convicted and sentenced her vide

impugned judgment & order dated 19.05.1983 as stated hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present case was of no evidence. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove by

direct or indirect evidence to the effect that the appellant had attempted to commit suicide or had any intention to cause death of her daughter

Ramkanya.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial court had failed to consider the defence of the appellant that she had

slipped into well while she had gone there for taking bath. He submitted that almost witnesses had been declared hostile.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the trial court had wrongly inferred that since the daughter was born to the appellant in the

course of her widowhood, she had been defamed.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the judgment of the trial court was based on surmises and conjectures whereas there was

direct evidence on record against such conjectures. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the conviction and sentence be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution case and submitted that the accused appellant had been rightly punished for the

alleged offences. He submitted that the learned trial court had not committed any mistake in punishing the accused appellant.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through impugned judgment & order and whole material available on

record.

In the present case, Ghasidya had lodged report (Ex. P-3) at Police Station Gangapur City, where the appellant Chhoti along with her daughter

Ramkanya had jumped into well to die. After that, they were taken out of the well. Daughter Ramkanya had died. Ghasidya was examined as PW-4.

He did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. In cross examination, he clearly deposed that he did not know as to why Chhoti had

jumped into the well. He also deposed that he had not seen her in the well. He deposed that villagers had narrated the story before him as he was

Ward Panch. Therefore, he had given report (Ex.P-3).

Ratan Lal (PW-1), Shiv Charan (PW-2) and Rameshwar (PW-5), in their statements deposed that they did not know as to how Mst. Chhoti fell

into the well with her daughter Ramkanya. In cross examination, they also deposed that they did not know that Chhoti had slipped into the well while

she was going to take bath. Kadoo (PW-7) did not support the prosecution case.

It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand its own legs. The learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the

prosecution case in its right perspective. The prosecution has failed to produce any direct or circumstantial evidence which shows that the accused

appellant had attempted to commit suicide and cause death of Ramkanya.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court had erred in ordering conviction of the appellant. It is a settled preposition of

law that prosecution is required to prove its case against an accused by leading cogent and convicting evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable

doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Whenever, a doubt occurs in the prosecution story, benefit of the same has to be

extended to the accused. In the present case, appellant is liable to be acquitted by extending her benefit of doubt.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment & order dated 19.5.1983 are quashed and set aside. The conviction and sentence for

the offence u/s 302 and 309 IPC passed by the learned trial court against the appellant is set aside and she is acquitted of the charges framed against

her. The accused appellant is on bail as her sentence had been suspended vide order dated 4.7.1983. She need not surrender. Her bail bonds shall

stand discharged.

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Mst. Chhoti Widow of Shri

Ramji Lal is directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial)

of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment

or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.