The High Court of Rajasthan on 04/12/2020 in the case of State Of Rajasthan v. Meena comprising of a bench of justice Sabina & Justice Chandra Kumar Songara upheld the decision passed by the Trial Court and acquitted a wife charged for the Murder of her husband, after the bench noted that “Keeping in view the material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt hence High Court came to the conclusion to dismiss the case”.
The Present case relates to murder of Mohar Singh, husband of the respondent. This case was registered at the police Station of Saipau, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, after completion of investigation challan was presented against the Respondent under Section 302 IPC. Respondent did not plead guilty to the charge framed against her and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. Daughters of the deceased had seen the Respondent committing murder of her husband. Trial court vide judgment dated 28.05.2019 ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present leave to appeal by the State.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the trial court has erred in ordering acquittal of the respondent. Case rests on eyewitness account. Daughters of the deceased had seen the respondent committing murder of her husband. Learned trial court has erred in disbelieving the statements of PW-8 Bhuro and PW-9 Versha.
Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that from the complete reading of the statements of alleged eye-witnesses PW-8 Bhuro and PW-9 Versha, it was evident that they had not witnessed the occurrence. There was no injury mark on the person of the deceased to corroborate the alleged eye-witness account.
It was made by the Prosecution that Respondent was having illicit relations with Hakim Singh and she had committed murder of her husband. To prove its case, the Prosecution has placed reliance on the testimonies of Bhuro and Versha.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here
However, in examination in chief, these two stated that they have gone for sleep after dinner. On hearing voice of their father, they had got up and saw that their mother was strangulating their father. They informed their uncle about the incident in the morning. Their mother i.e Respondent had told them that their father had died on account of consumption of liquor. Versha in her cross-examination stated that everybody had seen dead body in the morning and till then nobody knew as to how her father had died.
The doctor stated that there were no strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased. Then High Court said that: Keeping in view the material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt hence High Court came to the conclusion to dismiss the case.
0 Comments