Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 211 (RAJ)

Dalu v. State of Rajasthan

1999-02-18

S.C.MITAL, V.G.PALSHIKAR

body1999
JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.5.85, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, it was observed from the record noticing the report of brief that the accused Dalu has died years ago, his appeal in relation to his conviction therefore, abates and is dismissed as abated. 3. That leaves the appeal by Sudi for adjudication. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and scrutinised the documents. We are of the considered view in the circumstances that even if the entire evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, there is nothing in it to choose that Sudi wife of Dalu Jaat was in any manner criminally involved in the action of causing homicidal death of Nani who was mother of Dalu Dhobi the deceased. She had no motive in killing Nani. She is alleged to be a concubine of Dalu Dhobi. 4. All the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution to circumstantially prove killing of Nani by Dalu Dhobi and Sudi have not mentioned anywhere in their depositions any part allegedly played by Sudi and therefore, merely because she was concubine of Dalu against whom, there was an evidence, it cannot be concluded that she is also guilty of causing murder of Nani. 5. The learned Judge has found Sudi guilty of an offence under Section 411 being receiver of Kada given to her by Dalu after removing it from body of Nani when she was murdered by Dalu. This evidence and finding cannot be controverted in any manner. 6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is partially allowed. The conviction and sentence against Sudi in relation to offences under Section 302 and 201 is set aside. The conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. Sudi had remained in jail for some time. Interest of justice would be met, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant Sudi. She is already on bail, therefore, the bail bonds executed by her be cancelled.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******