Ganga Bai vs State Of Rajasthan

The instant application for suspension of sentence has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-applicant Smt. Ganga Bai, who stands convicted and sentenced under the judgment dated 29.09.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.50/2017 (C.I.S. No.51/2017).

Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the appellant-applicant, vehemently and fervently urged that the FIR was lodged by Rameshchandra, father of Smt. Reena, daughter-in-law of the applicant herein, with a specific allegation that the applicant herein and her husband Sukhlal murdered Smt. Reena. He pointed out that the first informant mentioned in the written report that Smt. Reena had earlier given birth to two daughters and that she was suspected of having conceived another female child, which could not be aborted. Learned counsel Mr. Shah urges that as per the documents Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21, manifestly, the prosecution case regarding the accused having made an effort to get the gender of the foetus tested is falsified. He further submits that the appellant is a woman and had been surgically operated upon for congestion in spinal vertebra leaving her movements constrained. He urged that the dead body of Smt. Reena was found in a room on the first floor of the house and it was physically not possible for the appellant to have climbed the stairs nor does the appellant possess that kind of strength so as to be able to strangulate the deceased. He further urges that the FIR was lodged casting suspicion upon the appellant and her husband Sukhlal for the murder of Smt. Reena, but the police exonerated Sukhlal and therefore, the appellant cannot be singled out and held responsible for the offence under Section 302 IPC in absence of positive substantive evidence to prove that she murdered the deceased. He further submits that the appellant-applicant is an old ailing lady, who is suffering from serious spinal ailments and thus, even as per the proviso to Section 437 CrPC, she is entitled to special and lenient consideration for bail. On these grounds, he implored the court to accept the application for suspension of sentence and direct release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant-applicant and urged that she had a strong motive to murder the deceased, who was suspected to be carrying a third female child in her womb. The efforts to get the child aborted proved futile, whereupon, the appellant took the draconic step of eliminating her own daughter-in-law. He, thus, craved dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and persused the material available on record. The case of the prosecution is based totally on circumstantial evidence with the foundation being that the appellant was having a strong motive to kill the deceased Smt. Reena and that when the design to abort the foetus failed, the appellant took the heinous step of throttling her own daughter-in-law to death. Suffice it to say that no eye-witness was examined by the prosecution so as to conclusively establish that the appellant strangulated the deceased to death. The body of the deceased was found in a room on the first floor of the house, where the appellant, her husband Sukhlal, the deceased Smt. Reena, her husband Vinod and her children used to reside. The first informant cast a suspicion regarding the incident upon the appellant as well as her husband Sukhlal, who was not charge-sheeted by the police. In this background and keeping in view the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Narain Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan [1969 (2) WLN 41] and this court's judgment in the case of Nemi Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1996 (3) RLW 583], we are of the firm view that the appellant has strong grounds so as to challenge her conviction as recorded by the trial court. She being a lady, in custody for last more than 3 years and suffering from serious spinal cord problem is entitled for sympathetic consideration for grant of bail as per the proviso to Section 437 CrPC.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur vide judgment dated 29.09.2018 in Sessions Case No.50/2017 (C.I.S. No.51/2017) against the appellant-applicant Smt. Ganga Bai W/o Shri Sukhlal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance in this court on 01.03.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

That she will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

That if the applicant changes the place of residence, she will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.