Raj Kumari vs State

Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.

Accusedappellant Smt. Raj Kumari was prosecuted for committing the murder of her husband named Ram Chandra and learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow convicted her for having committed murder of Ram Chandra and awarded her life sentence under Section 302 IPC. She was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 IPC and both these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In the appeal before this Court preferred by her against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge was challenged on the ground: (a) that the conviction order of the appellant is bad in law; (b) there was no reliable evidence on record to warrant her conviction; (c) the learned trial court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 227 of the Evidence Act; (d) the case was of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance was not complete and not conclusive to base the conviction; and (e) the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the explanation tendered by the appellant about her conduct under Section 313 CrPC.

Learned Additional Government Advocate have supported the judgment and order of the learned trial court and of awarding sentence to her as above and it was further said that there is no illegality, invalidity as well as impropriety in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court.

As per prosecution case, Smt. Raj Kumari appellant is the wife of Ram Chandra (deceased) and complainant Jangli is father of the deceased Ram Chandra. Out of their wedlock a son was born, now 24 years of age, living with them. They all were living in one and same house belonging to Jangli. They both i.e. husband and wife were not at good terms when the murder of Ram Chandra has taken place and Smt. Raj Kumari used to say that she is not satisfied with Ram Chandra her husband. 23 days before the date of occurrence some dispute arose between them and Ram Chandra had slapped and beaten her. Jangli rebuked him not to do so at that time. On 24.05.1980 after taking his midday meal, when Ram Chandra was sleeping in the "Kothri" of the house, appellant which using "Gandasa" (heavy cutting weapons) had giving blow of the same and committed his murder and buried his dead body after digging the floor of the another "Kothri" used to keep chaff and plastered the earth. Jangli father of the deceased remained in search of his son Ram Chandra and on inquiry she had given evasive reply regarding his whereabouts. In the next day morning i.e. on 2505.1980, when he was returning to his house after search of Ram Chandra, one Ram Nath and Bhudhu met him near his house and told that on a day before at noon time when they were passing on the way near his house some shriek from inside the house were heard. On this information when with their help he was searching him in his house and in the "Kothri" where chaff was stored they found some hollowness and softness in the floor earth of the "Kothri". Having suspicion and seeing the newly plastered floor, they dug the earth of the floor of the "Kothri" and find the dead body (corpse) of Ram Chandra there in the pit dug by them. When they inquired from Smt. Raj Kumari in this regard, who was also present there, she confessed her guilt before Jangli and Ayodhya and other villagers assembled there saying that as she was not satisfied with her husband Ram Chandra, she has committed his murder using "Gandasa" when he was sleeping there in the house and after committing the murder, she had buried his dead body there from where it was recovered.

Matter was informed to the police by Jangli on the same day i.e. on 25.05.1980 in the morning orally at police station Intauja. FIR was scribed on his statement and case was registered at Crime No. 140 under Section 302/201 IPC against Smt. Raj Kumari. Investigation of the case was started immediately. The investigating officer reached at the spot and seized the dead body from the pit inside the "Kothri" and inquest on the body was done and report along with other papers i.e. diagram of the dead body, challan lash, letter to C.M.O. etc. were prepared on the spot. The dead body was sealed and sent for postmortem along with papers. As Smt. Raj Kumari was there at the house, he made arrest of her and on inquiry made by the investigating officer, she again confessed her guilt before him. She also got recovered the weapon used for committing the offence of murder i.e. "Gandasa" and also got recovered "Kudal" used by her in burring the dead body. From the place of occurrence bloodstained and SadaMitti were collected by the investigating officer. Memos was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Site plan of both the places were prepared and collected the postmortem report in which detail of injuries found on the body of the victim inflicted by sharp edged weapon were shown by the doctor and he opined that the cause of death was shock of hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. Bloodstained underwear of the deceased from the dead body was also taken and bloodstained Mitti and "SadaMitti" and this underwear along with weapon used in this offence i.e. "Gandasa" under the separate sealed bundle were sent for chemical examination to the Director Forensic. Report of same was also collected by the investigating officer. As per this report, on "Mitti", "Gandasa", underwear disintegrated spot of blood were found. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the chargesheet against the accused Smt. Raj Kumari in the court concerned. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on the chargesheet submitted by the police. As the case was exclusively triable by the court of session, so the same was committed to the court of Session.

In the Court of learned Session Judge, charges for the offences under Section 302/201 IPC were framed against the accusedappellant, but she had pleaded not guilty and claimed her trial.

On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused, seven witnesses were examined. PW1 Jangli father of the deceased and Sasur of the accusedappellant had given the version of the FIR in his on oath statement and proved the FIR ExhibitKa1. He had also stated that 23 days before the occurrence deceased Ram Chandra had slapped the accused Smt. Raj Kumari his wife and he rebuked him of not doing so. PW2 Ayodhya Prasad is the witness of the fact that in his presence floor of the "Kothri" of the house of Jangli was found having hollowness and newly plastered, when he was in search of Ram Chandra along with Jangli father of the deceased. Having suspicion, they dug the floor of the "Kothri" and they found the dead body of Ram Chandra. In this regard when inquiry was made from Smt. Raj Kumari accused who was also present there in house, she confessed her guilt before them saying that she was not happy and satisfied with Ram Chandra so when he was sleeping after taking meal in the noon on 24.05.1980, she had given blows of "Gandasa" on his body and committed his murder and after digging the earth of floor of "Kothri", she buried his dead body to disappear the evidence of crime to screen herself from the punishment. Inquest report was also prepared by the investigating officer in his presence and he has identified his signature on the same which is ExhibitKa2 on the record. PW3 Kishan Kumar Misra is the witness of the fact that police/investigating officer of the case has arrested Smt. Raj Kumari and she has confessed her guilt before Investigating Officer and on her statement/information as well as on her pointing Investigating Officer has recovered the weapon used in committing the murder i.e. "Gandasa" and "Kudal" which was used by her in burring the dead body of the deceased from where it was recovered. He has also identified his signature on the memos prepared by the Investigating Officer for the same. He is also the witness of the fact that bloodstained and SadaMitti was collected by the Investigating Officer from the place from where the dead body was recovered. PW4 Constable Dwarkadhish had stated that dead body in sealed bundle was handedover to him for the purpose of taking the same for postmortem along with papers and he further stated that he had identified the dead body of the victim before the doctor who has conducted the postmortem on the same. PW5 Mohd. Rauf another Constable stated that he prepared the chik report of the case on the oral information of Jangli and entered it in G.D. He proved the chik report entry of the G.D. about registration of the case and other entries of the G.D. related to the case. PW6 Chandra Shekher S.S.I./Investigating Officer of the case has given details of the investigation in his on oath statement and proved the papers prepared by him during the course of investigation and also chargesheet ExhibitKa16 submitted by him in the court after completing the investigation. PW7 Dr. V.S. Verma had conducted the postmortem on the dead body. He had given the details of condition of the dead body and also given detail of antemortem injuries found by him on the dead body which are seven in number detailed in the judgment of the learned trial court. He had also proved the postmortem report ExhibitKa17 and stated that in his opinion the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple antemortem injuries on the dead body. He has further opined that injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted by sharp edged weapon like "Gandasa". Probable time of the death of the deceased was given by him 12''O clock in the day of 24.05.1980.

In her statement under Section 313 CrPC correctness of certain facts brought on record in the statement of the prosecution witnesses were not disputed by her but she had claimed herself innocent and denied that she had committed the murder of her husband. She had further stated that witnesses have stated against her as they are friends of her "Sasur" PW1 Jangli and as her "Sasur" have doubt on her so she was falsely involved in this case. In reply of question No. 17, she had stated as follows:

Although, she claimed that she will adduce evidence in defence, but later on, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on her behalf.

After going through the record, hearing the parties counsel by the impugned judgment and order, learned Session Judge held her guilty for the offences under Section 302/201 IPC and sentenced her as above. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by her.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Nagendra Mohan as well as Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Government and perused the record.

Certain facts of the case brought on record on behalf of the prosecution are not disputed to the accusedappellant. Admittedly, she is legally wedded wife of Ram Chandra (now deceased) and out of their wedlock a son was born who was about two years of age at the time of death of Ram Chandra. It is also not disputed by her that PW1 Jangli is father of Ram Chandra and "Sasur" of her. From the statement of the prosecution witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, it is also undisputed fact that dead body of Ram Chandra was recovered on 25.05.1980 in the morning hours from the "Kothri" of the house of PW1 Jangli where deceased was living jointly with the accused and PW1 Jangli. The dead body was recovered from there after digging the earth. This work of digging of earth was done by Jangli PW1 with the help of Ayodhya Prasad PW2 and in the presence of Ram Nath and Budhu and one Karigar etc. It is also undisputed fact that after registration of the case on the information given orally by the PW1 Jangli at police station concerned, Investigating Officer reached on the spot and found the dead body of Ram Chandra there in a pit in the "Kothri" of the house of Jangli from where he had also collected bloodstained and SadaMitti in the presence of the witnesses. ExhibitKa14 is the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer from where this dead body was recovered and bloodstained and SadaMitti were collected. He marked the place in it where the dead body was lying in the pit. He has also shown the place in the same house which was pointed by the witnesses where the murder of Ram Chandra has taken place.

Ram Chandra has not died his natural death, but he was murdered as injuries were there on his body, details given by the doctor PW7 Sri V.S. Verma in postmortem report ExhibitKa17 and also in his own statement. The doctor had stated that cause of death of Ram Chandra was shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries found by him on the body and as per his on oath version these injuries were caused by using the sharp edged weapon like "Gandasa" and the time of death was approximately 12''O clock in the day on 24.05.1980 which is the case of the prosecution as it comes out from the FIR as well as statement of PW1 Jangli and PW2 Ayodhya Prasad. It was certainly a case of homicide and it is also clear from the record that whoever inflicted injuries to him his intention was to commit his murder which is clear from the detail of seat and injuries found by the doctor on his body. Doctor has also stated the direction of the injuries by giving head and tale of the injury which also suggest that no obstruction was made by the deceased when injuries were inflicted on different parts of the body which corroborated the case of the prosecution that when he was sleeping only then injuries were inflicted on his body. Time of death of Ram Chandra was also given by the doctor in his on oath statement which supports the case of the prosecution and it is also clear from the record that nowhere this time of death was disputed on behalf of the accused. There was no suggestion on behalf of the accused to the witnesses of the prosecution that Ram Chandra was done to death at some other place and at different time and date and the body was brought there from any other place other than the house of the deceased and it was buried there in the "Kothri". There is no reason to disbelieve the on oath statement of the prosecution witnesses and work of investigation done by the investigation officer in this regard and it is proved by the clinching evidence available on the record that the murder of Ram Chandra was committed in the house of Jangli and later on his dead body was buried there after digging the earth of the floor of the "Kothri" from where it was recovered on 25.05.1980 in the morning.

Now it is to be seen whether there is any participation of the accused appellant Smt. Raj Kumari in this crime or not. She had denied that she committed the murder of her husband Ram Chandra. She had pleaded in her statement under Section 313 CrPC that she left the house after permission of her husband in the day on 24.05.1980 and went to see her ailing mother and she came back in the evening after seeing her. She had taken a plea of alibi from the house when the murder has taken place.

In order to prove the guilt of accusedappellant, the prosecution has relied upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence of the fact of the murder of Ram Chandra. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence should be such that it lead to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused and every other hypothesis is ruled out. It was further argued that if any link in the chain of the circumstance is missing, the prosecution story becomes suspicious and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction of the accused.

There is no dispute on the aforesaid position of law as stated by the learned counsel for the appellantaccused. In the present case, there is an evidence of extrajudicial confession made by appellantaccused Smt. Raj Kumari before PW1 Jangli complainant and "Sasur" of the accused appellant and PW2 Ayodhya Prasad. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court, it reveals that court held that evidence of extrajudicial confession is a weak type piece of evidence and in the present case, evidence adduced in this respect by prosecution does not inspire confidence. The statement of PW2 Ayodhya Prasad regarding extrajudicial confession was not relied by the learned trial court mainly on this ground that his statement is selfcontradictory and also there is contradiction in his statement visavis with the statement of Investigating Officer. From the statement of PW2, learned trial court has inferred that he has stated that after recovery of the dead body, he had gone to his house from the spot and failed to give any explanation as to why he has left the spot immediately thereafter. The learned Session Judge found that it leads to the conclusion that he was not present when the accused Smt. Raj Kumari would have allegedly made her confessional statement. His statement was further not relied by the learned trial court on the ground that there are contradiction in his statement visavis with the statement of Investigating Officer where inquest proceedings has taken place and inquest report was prepared. In his statement, this witness has categorically stated that when the dead body of Ram Chandra was recovered from the pit in the "Kothri", he was present there. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC in answer to question No. 17, she had also conceded the presence of this witness when the dead body of Ram Chandra was recovered from the "Kothri". She had also not denied the correctness of this fact that his "Sasur" PW1 Jangli had inquired from her about the dead body of Ram Chandra there. In his own statement PW2 Ayodhya Prasad had stated that she had confessed her guilt before him saying that:

It is correct that in crossexamination he has stated that he after recovery of the dead body immediately left the house of Jangli and went to his house, but nowhere it is stated by him that Raj Kumari had not confessed her guilt in his presence. By mere this statement that after the recovery of the dead body he immediately left the house of Jangli, it is not proper to hold that confession before him by Smt. Raj Kumari is not established on record. On what type of question of the learned counsel for the appellant in crossexamination he has stated so, it is not clear from the record. He has gone at lengthy crossexamination by the learned counsel for the appellant. His statement was recorded after 14 months of the occurrence in the Court. It is established law that in appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration or embellishment if not fetal to the prosecution case does not create any infirmity. When the witness examined in the court after passing such long time of the incident, he cannot be expected to depose with mathematical precision. When the dead body was recovered and Smt. Raj Kumari was in same house and immediately inquiry was made by Jangli from her about the dead body of Ram Chandra there and she had confessed her guilt there. PW1 Jangli has also stated in his on oath statement that in the presence of this witness PW2, she had confessed her guilt. She herself admitted presence of PW2 in the house when Jangli inquired from her about dead body. As regard the contradictions in the statement of PW2 with the statement of Investigating Officer regarding the place where inquest was done and report was prepared it is hardly material because both the places are of the part of the same house. It is not disputed by the lapse of time such type of contradictions are very much natural.

In case 1988 Crl.J. 848 Appa Bhai vs. State, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishment to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witness altogether if they otherwise trustworthy. From the above, it is clear that trial court has wrongly not placed reliance on the statement of this witness before whom the accused, as per prosecution case, has confessed her guilt. Moreover, from the judgment of the trial court, it is clear that PW1 Jangli has also stated about the extrajudicial confession made by the accused Smt. Raj Kumari before him. He is "Sasur" of the accused. He was in such a position that if confession is made by her before him she can believe that he may help her. The learned trial court held that there is nothing to disbelieve him on record and the learned trial court has found his testimony creditworthy in every respect but as his statement was without any corroboration regarding the extrajudicial confession so he had also not placed reliance on his statement also.

In case of Aftab Ahmed Ansari vs. State of Uttranchal reported in (2010) 2 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1054, the Hon''ble Apex Court after placing reliance on several other citation including State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthoni, 1985 S.C.C. (Cri.) 105 held that "it may be correct that evidence of extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, but there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that it cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. It can be acted upon if it comes from the mouth of an unbiased witness in respect of whom nothing even remotely is brought out indicating that he may have motive for implicating the accused". In the instant case, confession was made by the accused appellant before nobody else but her "Sasur" father of the deceased.

He was not going to be benefited in any way by falsely implicating the appellant in the case of murder of his son. He was having any cause to falsely implicate her, it is also not shown. From his statement, it also reveals that for her help he had rebuked his son when he has slapped her 23 days before of this case of murder. In such a situation to go in search of corroboration to his statement is of no use and from his statement, it reveals that evidence of extrajudicial confession adduced by the prosecution through this witness PW1 is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproaching and the same can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon. From the above it is clear that wrongly the learned trial court has discarded the on oath statement of PW2 Ayodhya Prasad. Discrepancies between the testimony of PW2 and Investigating Officer regarding the place where inquest work was done does not in any way affect his statement regarding the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before PW1 and PW2 in the matter. They both were not stranger to the appellantaccused. She may rely on them that they may help her in the matter. PW1 and PW2 both were subjected to lengthy crossexamination and even a suggestion was not put to the witnesses that the confession was tainted and nonvoluntarily or that it was obtained by coercion, inducement or promise of favour. Words spoken by the witnesses in the court are clearly unambiguous and unmistakable regarding the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant showing that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witnesses which may militate it. Evidence of extrajudicial confession in the matter can be accepted and can be basis of conviction in the present matter. After subjecting the evidence of these witnesses to a rigorous test on the touch stone of credibility, this Court find extrajudicial confession referred to by the witnesses is reliable and is to be accepted by the court. No sufficient cause has been shown by the trial court in discarding the same.

Another chain of circumstance brought on record to hold to the accused guilty in the matter is the statement made by her before the Investigating Officer after she was taken into custody about recovery of incriminating articles. As per prosecution case, she had confessed her guilt before the Investigating Officer and another witnesses and stated that she can get recovered the weapon used by her in assaulting the deceased and "Kudal" used by her in burring his dead body there. Investigating Officer PW6 Chandra Shekher in his on oath statement stated that both these articles were recovered on the information and pointing of the accused Smt. Raj Kumari when she was in custody and she had handed over the "Gandasa" to Investigating Officer after going inside the "Kothri" which was hidden there by her underneath of the wooden plank (patra) kept in the "Kothri" and pointed the "Kudal" which was placed by her in the courtyard. He had also proved the recovery memo''s of both these articles ExhibitKa3 and 4 on the record. PW3 Krishan Kumar is the independent witness and has corroborated statement of the Investigating Officer saying that accused Raj Kumari got recovered both these articles i.e. "Gandasa" and "Kudal" as stated by the Investigating Officer in his on oath statement. He has also identified his signatures on ExhibitKa3 and 4 and stated that both these memo''s were prepared on the spot by Investigating Officer. There is no reason to disbelieve on the testimonies of both these witnesses. The learned trial court in the impugned judgment and order had dealt the evidence of these witnesses at length. Case law cited in this regard on behalf of the accused was also referred by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment and sufficient reasons are given why the law laid down by the court in these cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer ExhibitKa15 about these recovery is also available on record. Learned Sessions Judge had concluded in this regard in the impugned judgment that he does not find any reason to disbelieve the recovery of the incriminating articles in the case and in his view the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused Raj Kumari used in committing the murder and burring dead body of her husband Ram Chandra. There is no reason to disturb this finding of the trial court in the facts and circumstances of case.

The motive of the crime committed by the appellant is said that she had stated before her fatherinlaw PW1 Jangli that she is not satisfied with her husband. PW1 Jangli had stated in this regard in his on oath statement:

From the statement of PW2 Ayodhya Prasad, it is clear that after seeing the dead body of Ram Chandra she had not wept there which shows her conduct demeanor and also suggest that it was in her knowledge that dead body of her husband was there in pit. In his on oath statement of PW1 Jangli has also stated that 23 days before the date of incident there was a quarrel between the deceased Ram Chandra and Raj Kumari and Ram Chandra had given 23 slaps on her face and he had rebuked Ram Chandra in this regard. It is correct that these facts are not there in the FIR and his statement under Section 161 CrPC but from the FIR, it is clear that it is there she was not happy with her husband so she has committed his murder. This all shows that since from beginning it is a case of prosecution that she was not happy with her husband to the reasons best known to her or to the deceased who is now no more in the world. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Why Jangli has falsely implicated her in this matter, it may be in her personal knowledge. From the crossexamination from Jangli, it is not brought on record that there may be any cause to Jangli to falsely implicate her in this matter. The FIR has been lodged by Jangli who is an illiterate and old villager. It is not expected from him to give the meticulous details regarding the motive of crime. It was rightly held by the trial court that motive of committing the crime to the accused Smt. Raj Kumari has been fully established by the prosecution.

Statement of Smt. Raj Kumari recorded under Section 313 CrPC has its own importance in the present case. She had admitted that her husband left the house in the morning of 24.05.1980 for the purpose of irrigating his field. Her fatherinlaw has left the house at about 9.00 a.m. of the same day and went to Bazar and he came back in the evening. She was all alone in the house. It is admitted to her that her husband Ram Chandra came back after irrigation work. She had set up her defence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that when her husband came back after irrigation work, she sought his permission to go to see her ailing mother since in dream she saw that her mother''s condition is very serious and so her husband has permitted her to go there with condition to return back till evening. She left her matrimonial house and came back in the evening. In her statement, she had stated that she left her matrimonial house at about 9''O clock in the morning. Till 9''O clock of morning her husband came back, it is nowhere in her statement. When in dream she saw her ailing mother, it is not clearly stated by her. If she saw as such in the night, she can very well seek permission from her husband in early hours when he left house for irrigation purposes. Although, she had stated that she came back upto the boundary of village with her father after seeing her ailing mother but no sufficient cause has been shown by her why his father did not come up to her matrimonial house. Her father was the best witness to support her case that she was not present in her matrimonial house when the murder of Ram Chandra was committed, but to the reasons best known to her he was not produced. Learned trial court has rightly dealt this plea of the accused appellant saying that it is a plea of alibi of her and there was heavy burden upon her to establish her this plea of alibi but no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by her, although she sought permission to adduce evidence in defence in her statement under Section 313 CrPC. It was rightly held by the learned trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case she failed to prove her plea of alibi and this also goes against the innocence of her. This also shows that she has taken false plea which can be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances showing her guilt. The learned trial court has concluded in the judgment saying that "the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above unmistakably points out to the conclusion that it was no one else then the accused Raj Kumari who has committed the murder of her husband Ram Chandra. The circumstances placed before the court by prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused Raj Kumari unerringly leads only one hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused Raj Kumari. The recovery of incriminating articles in the case at the instances of the accused Raj Kumari irresistible leads to the conclusion that accused Raj Kumari was the author of the crime and committed the murder". Learned counsel for the accusedappellant argued that Raj Kumari being the lady could not dare to commit the murder of her husband and she was also not of such built that she can successfully do this offence and after committing his murder she will be able all alone to do all that i.e. digging of the earth, keeping dead body there and plaster work at the place where the dead body was buried. As earlier said how she did so, it is in her personal knowledge whether she had taken help of any one in committing this offence and disappearing the evidence to screen herself from the punishment. There cannot be any specific evidence with the prosecution in this regard in the facts and circumstances of the case. In arriving the aforesaid conclusion by learned Session Judge that if we add the evidence of extrajudicial confession adduced by the prosecution which was ignored by the trial court, case of the prosecution further strengthened to held guilty to the accused appellant in the matter. On the close analysis of the evidence of the prosecution it is obvious that the testimony of the witnesses is credible. Witnesses are unanimous on the facts how the occurrence has taken place and their testimony found corroboration from the medical evidence and circumstances, extrajudicial confession made by the accused and the other circumstances brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. In Allarakha vs. State reported in 2002 Cr.L.J. 1489, the Hon''ble Apex Court laid down that miscarriage of justice from acquittal of a guilt is no less than from convicting an innocent.

From the above all discussions, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking arguments of learned counsel for the parties into consideration as well as going through the judgment delivered by the trial court, we are also of the definite opinion that there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the charges leveled against her.

In the aforesaid circumstances findings of trial court to held guilty to the accusedappellant and sentencing her for minimum prescribed sentence under the law is hereby confirmed and appeal filed on her behalf is liable to be dismissed.

Appeal is hereby dismissed. Accused appellant is on bail. She is not present today. Her bail is hereby cancelled. Record of the case along with copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for taking steps for procuring the attendance of the accused appellant before him and taking her into custody. After such custody she will be sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to her. The court concerned will submit report of compliance within two months.