AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Alok Awasthi
As per PUD No.1076/Warrant/2026 dated 23.04.2026 received from Jail Superintendent, appellant No.2 - Lachchhu S/o Rama died on 06.05.2020 during the treatment at M.Y. Hospital, Indore. Hence, the appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No.2.
The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.01.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Jhabua in Sessions Trial No.48/2014, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 450 & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under 03 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-, Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with usual default stipulations.
The case, as alleged by the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 02.03.2014, informant - Jetabai and her husband namely Bucha were sleeping in their home in Village - Gola Chhoti. Their two sons had gone to work in Gujarat. The door of the house was locked and the lights were on. At around 01:00 am, Jetabai woke up to the sound of the door opening. She saw her brother-in-law, accused - Lachchhu entering into the house with a stone in his hand and hit Bucha on the head. His wife i.e. appellant - Shailbai / Shelbai, followed him and also hit Bucha on the hand. When Jetabai screamed, the accused fled from the spot. Bucha died on the spot. When Jetabai went out and raised an alarm, Jamsingh S/o Hira, Bhasu S/o Bhuru, Jemal S/o Ragu, Kalsingh S/o Lalchand and Nagarsingh S/o Limji arrived. Thereafter, Jetabai narrated the entire incident to them. On arrival of the Sarpanch and Tadvi, Jetabai came to Jhabua Police Station and lodged a report of the incident as at 06:30 am.
Acting upon the aforesaid information, crime has been registered against the accused under Sections 452 & 302 of the IPC. The police reached on the spot, prepared spot map (Exhibit-P/5), Lash Panchayatnama vide Exhibit-P/6 and dead body was sent for autopsy. Blood-stained soil, plain soil, two blood-stained stone, a blood-stained shawl and a blood-stained mat was seized from the spot.
Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded for trial. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for commission of aforementioned offences.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the conviction of the appellant is based on the statement of Jetabai (PW-1), who lodged the FIR. The contents of the FIR and the statements of this witnesses is contrary to medical evidence. As per the medical evidence, no injury was found on the hand of the deceased, however, this witnesses has deposed that Shailbai / Shelbai inflicted injury on the hand of the deceased by means of stone. On such premises, a prayer has been made that the present appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State has opposed the aforesaid prayer and argued in support of the impugned judgment. A prayer has been made that the present appeal be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of Jetabai (PW-3), who is the eye-witnesses of the incident. She in her deposition before the Court has stated that appellant - Shailbai / Shelbai inflicted injury on the hand of the deceased and the appellant -Lachchhu (now dead) inflicted injury on the head of the deceased by means of stone. The FIR also contains the same version.
To examine the testimony of Jetabai (PW-3), it would be appropriate to consider the statement of Dr. Anil Damor (PW-2), who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and found the following injuries:-Injury No.1 - lacerated wound measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the head; and Injury No.2 - lacerated wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the right cheek below the ear.
This witness further opined that right ear of the deceased was cut by 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. During the internal examination of the deceased, he found hematomas on the left and right sides of his head. The right and left chambers of his heart were empty. The deceased had an occipital fracture and his upper five ribs were also broken. The deceased died due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to hemorrhage shock.
As per the statement of Dr. Anil Damor (PW-2), no injury was found on the hand of the deceased as stated by Jetabai (PW-3) in the FIR as well as in the statement before the Court that the present appellant caused injury on the hand of the deceased by means of stone. In view of the opinion of PW-2, benefit of doubt can be given to appellant - Shailbai / Shelbai .
The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, while dealing with the similar issue, in the case of Satya Prakash Pathak v/s State reported in 2005 Supreme (Raj) 1281, wherein the evidence of eye witness was contrary to the medical evidence has held as under:-
27.In view of what has been discussed above while analyzing the evidence of the eyewitnesses individually, it appears that the witnesses have not seen the occurrence. Therefore, on the basis of above alleged eye witnesses finding of guilt recorded against the accused appellant cannot be said to be based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is to be seen further that in the same set of circumstances the other two accused persons namely Smt. Vishnu and accused Prem have been acquitted. After carefully examining the evidence of eyewitnesses, we are of the opinion that they have not given a true version of the incident and it is not safe to rely on their testimony for basing conviction. The initial version of PW . 5 is regarding 12 accused persons in the first information. Then challan was filed against 4 accused persons and additional charge-sheet was filed against one accused Prem. Smt. Vishnu and Prem have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. The evidence of the eyewitnesses as discussed hereinabove is contrary to the medical evidence and there is variance of serious nature as discussed above in the evidence of PW . 5, 6, 10 and 13 also.
28.In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused appellants by placing on record reliable evidence to hold guilty of the charges levelled against them. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence rather misread the evidence, as such the conviction and sentenced recorded against accused appellants deserves to be set aside.''
Even otherwise, there is no investigation by the police as to how the accused entered into the house of the deceased that too in the night when the door was shut. In such circumstances, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.01.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Jhabua in Sessions Trial No.48/2014 convicting the appellant - Shailbai / Shelbai under Sections 450 & 302/34 of the IPC is hereby set aside extending her the benefit of doubt. She is acquitted from the charges under Sections 450 & 302/34 of the IPC. The appellant be released forthwith, if she is not required in any other case.
The finding of the trial Court regarding disposal of articles is hereby affirmed.
Ex-consequenti, Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
Let the record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.