JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Mst. Sugani has been convicted under Section 201 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to 3 years Simple Imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/-in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Motiram was the husband of Smt. Sugani and elder brother of Hanuman P.W. 1. Hanuman lodged a report Ex P. 1. at the Police Station Bhanipura on 7-8-73, that his brother Motiram has disappeared for the last one month and he has not beea able to trace him out. His family members informed that he had gone to Dulchasar but he could not be traced there. Another report was lodged by him on 10-8-73, in which he stated that he and Chanduram went to Dhani of Motiram and asked Mst. Sugani to tell the truth. Thereupon she told that the deceased used to beat her and she had given Dbatura Poison to her husband and when he became under intoxication, she cut his windpipe Kassi. It was also stated that the accused Begaram had money dealings with Motiram and had illicit relations with Mst. Sugani and he had also told Mst. Sugani to do away with Motiram. A case under section 302,201 and 109 I. P. C. was registered. Mst. Sugani and Bega Ram were arrested by Ramsingh S. H. O. P. W. 9 on 12-8-73 Mst. Sugani gave an information regarding concealment of the deceased on 12-8-73 and in pursuance of this information, the dead body was recovered on 15-8-73. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was presented against both the accused persons to the court of Munsif Magistrate Class, Churu and after committal enquiry both the accused persons were committed for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, who after trial acquitted Mst. Sugani of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and convicted her as aforesaid. The accused Begaram was also acquitted. Being aggrieved with her conviction and sentence, Mst. Sugani has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. Sugani of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and convicted her as aforesaid. The accused Begaram was also acquitted. Being aggrieved with her conviction and sentence, Mst. Sugani has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the appellant has been acquitted of the offence under section 302 I. P. C., she should tot have been convicted for the offence under Section 201 I. P. C and offence under Section 201 I. P. C. is not proved against her. He pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly placed reliance on the committing court's statement of Hanumanram P. W. 1 and Roopla P. W. 5. He also urged that it is not proved that the dead body was of the deceased Motiram and further it is also not proved that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused Mst. Sugani The learned counsel pointed out that information regarding the concealment of the dead body was given on 12-8-73 whereas the Tehrir to the doctor is dated 10-8-73, than the dead body ought to have been recovered earlier. Further the delay in recovery of the dead body has not been satisfactorily explained. 4. I have carefully considered the above contentions of the learned counsel but do not find any force in it. It may be mentioned that Hanuman and Roopla have not supported the prosecution case at the trial and permission was given to the Public Prosecutor for cross-examination. Their statements recorded by the committing Magistrate were taken on record under Section 288 Cr. P. C. Both these witnesses have stated in their committing court statement that the dead body was of Motiram and his clothes have also been identified. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the dead body was of the deceased Motiram. Further as regards the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused Mst. Sugani, there is satisfactory evidence on record. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the dead body was of the deceased Motiram. Further as regards the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused Mst. Sugani, there is satisfactory evidence on record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in this connection has relied upon the statement of Ramsingh, Investigating Officer P. W. 9 and on the testimonies of P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 4, Ramsingh has proved the information memo Ex. P. 22. This information, in my opinion, is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is in pursuance of this information, the dead body was discovered and recovered, It may be stated that the delay in recovery of the dead body has been satisfactorily explained by Ramsingh P. W. 2. Further so far as the statement of Dr. Shi vial Bundela is concerned, there appears to be a slip on his part in stating that the police sent the report Ex. P. 5 on 10-8-73 for conducting the postmortem. This report Ex.P. 5 in fact is dated August 13, 1973. It is on this document that he made an endorsement on August 14, 1978. There does not appear to be any infirmity in the prosecution case, so far as the offence under Section 201 I. P. C. is concerned against the appellant. I concur with the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant has been found guilty of the offence under Section 2.01 I. P. C. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is at present aged about 64 years, at the time of her statement 4 years ago, her age was 60 years. She has remained under custody from 12-8-73 to 22-4-74 for a period of 8 months 10 days. He urged that looking to the age of the appellant and period of her custody her sentence may be reduced to the period of her custody. 6. I have considered over the question of sentence. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be served, in case the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period of her custody. 7. In the result the appeal is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, her sentence is reduced to the period of her custody. 6. I have considered over the question of sentence. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be served, in case the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period of her custody. 7. In the result the appeal is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, her sentence is reduced to the period of her custody. Thus her sentence stands set off. She is already on bail, her bail bonds are discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******