Case Law Details
1. Appellant would assail her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘the IPC’ in short) and sentence of life imprisonment for committing murder of her husband namely; Rohit Kumar (since deceased), a rickshaw puller, in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2003.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Rohit Kumar, son of Ramchandra (PW-3), was firstly married with Neela Bai and thereafter with Uma Bai, however, marriage with either of these two ladies did not last long because of their bad conduct. Rohit thereafter married the appellant Jiteshwari Bai. Appellant Jiteshwari had illicit relation with the acquitted co-accused Santosh for which there used to be quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. In the intervening night of 25/26.06.2003, Santosh, who was residing nearby, went to the house of the deceased; knocked the door of the room where the appellant and the deceased were sleeping on which Jiteshwari opened the door; and thereafter, Santosh entered the room and bolted the door from inside. When the appellant & Santosh were committing sexual intercourse, the deceased awoke, therefore, the appellant & Santosh committed his murder by strangulating him by means of the silk string worn by the deceased himself. Sunita wife of Santosh found her husband missing from the house, therefore, she came out of the house at about 3:00 – 4:00 am and called her husband, on which Santosh came out of the house of the appellant and went back to his home. This is said to be witnessed by Bisahin Bai (PW-6). In the morning, the appellant opened the door and went towards the village pond with her sister-in-law (nanad) Santoshi for attending daily course. On her return, she informed her father-in-law Ramchandra (PW-3) that Rohit is not awaking on which Ramchandra (PW-3), Hiralal (PW-4), brother of the deceased & Sumitra, mother of the deceased, reached the room and saw that Rohit is already dead. He was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead.
3. On receiving information from the Doctor, merg was registered and the dead body was sent for postmortem, which was performed by Dr. R.K. Damle (PW-7), who submitted the postmortem report vide Ex.P-7 finding that the death has occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation; viscera preserved for chemical analysis; duration of death within 24 hours; and the injury (sic death) is antemortem in nature.
4. On the basis of postmortem report, crime was registered and in course of investigation, the accused persons were arrayed on the information of Sunita, wife of Santosh & Bisahin Bai (PW-6), who informed the Police that Santosh had gone out of the house at about 3:00 – 4:00 am and Bisahin Bai (PW-6) witnessed him coming out of the house of the appellant when the wife of Santosh called him. Santosh also made extra judicial confession to Mahadev (PW-2) that he and the appellant have committed the murder of the deceased.
5. After filing of the charge sheet and at the conclusion of trial, the trial Judge acquitted the co-accused Santosh for lack of evidence regarding his complicity in committing the crime, however, the appellant has been convicted on the basis of evidence that during the fateful night she and the deceased were sleeping together and in the morning the deceased was found dead, therefore, it is the appellant alone who has committed the murder of the deceased.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
