( 1 ) SMT. Kiran Mishra has preferred this appeal the judgment and order dated 27-10-1980 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 307 of 1980 whereby she has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the murder of Ramesh Chandra, the husband of the appellant and his younger brother Naresh Chandra. Both these persons are alleged to have been murdered at about 5 a. m. on 10-4-1980 in the quarter occupied by Constable Patan Din Mishra, the father of the appellant. At the relevant time Constable Patan Din Mishra was an employee of G. R. P. Saharanpur and resided in one of the G. R. P. quarters at the Mall Godown Road within the area of police station Sadar Bazar. ( 3 ) APPELLANT Smt. Kiran Mishra after completing graduation in Bareilly college was maried to the deceased Ramesh Chandra who was a constable in G. R. P. Tundla. The marriage took place on 11-4-1979 but the relations between the appellant and her husband were not cordial from the beginning and Kiran Mishra during the relevant period was living with her parents at Saharanpur. It is said that on 10-4-1980 at about 3 a. m. Ramesh Chandra came to the house of his father in law accompanied by his younger brother Naresh Chandra aged about 22 years. They both were sleeping in the Verandah Constable Patan Din was on reserve duty at the G. R. P. Station. At about 5 a. m. Constable Shiv Kumar PW 1 and Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW 3 whose quarters were situated close to the quarter of Patan Din Mishra heard sound of a fire emanating from the house of Patna Din Mishra. They rushed towards this quarter and in the meantime heard another sound of fire and when they entered into the house through the door, they in the electric light saw that Kiran Mishra the appellant was holding single barred gun in her hand and she fired one shot on Ramesh Chand who was then sitting on a cot lying in the Verandah. Before they could do anything, Smt. Kiran Mishra reloaded the gun and fired another shot on Naresh Chandra who was also present on an another cot in the same Verandah. Before they could do anything, Smt. Kiran Mishra reloaded the gun and fired another shot on Naresh Chandra who was also present on an another cot in the same Verandah. The said constables then over powered Smt. Kiran Mishra and apprehended her with empty cartridges and gun. Both Ramesh Chandra and Naresh Chandra died instantaneously. The sound of fires attracted at the scene of occurrence Constable Patan Din Mishra, Station Officer Mahaveer Singh Yadava and few others. Smt. Kiran Mishra along with Gun and cartridges was handed over to the Station Officer Mahabir Singh Yadava, PW 5. Constable Shiv Kumar Sharma PW 1 lodged written report Ex. Ka 1 at the police station Sadar Bazar on the same morning at 6. 10 a. m. PW 8 Constable Clerk Hashmat Khan prepared Check F. I. R. Ex. Ka 2 and registered the case in the General Diary. Inspector Hari Prakash Sharma, PW 7 took up the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he found Smt. Kiran Mishra in the custody of Station Officer, Mahabir Singh. He took her into his custody so also the gun and four empty cartridges through recovery memo Ex. Ka. 13 and also interrogated her and after interrogation she was sent to jail. The Investigating Officer then interrogated constable Shiv Kumar and Station Mahabir Singh, made inspection of the Scene of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex. Ka 18. Thereafter he recorded the statement of constable Jai Pal Singh and took into his possession the blood stained clothes, earth Plaster on the wall, the strings of the cot and other things lying near the cots which are material Ex. 11 to 22. He also interrogated Constable Patan Din Mishra and other inmates of the house. ( 4 ) DR. A. L. Dhingra P. W. 2 performed post mortem examination on the dead bodies on 10-4-1980 between 4. 30 to 5. 30 p. m. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body on Naresh Chand : 1. Fire arm injury 3x3 cm. with inverted margins on right side neck, 1cm. below the ear wound of entrance without tattooing blackening or charring. 2. Lacerated wound 5cm. x 2cm. with everted margin on left side face 1/2cm. away from angle of mouth wound of exit of injury No. 1. 3. Fire arm wound 5x2cm. x 5cm. deep 1/2cm. Fire arm injury 3x3 cm. with inverted margins on right side neck, 1cm. below the ear wound of entrance without tattooing blackening or charring. 2. Lacerated wound 5cm. x 2cm. with everted margin on left side face 1/2cm. away from angle of mouth wound of exit of injury No. 1. 3. Fire arm wound 5x2cm. x 5cm. deep 1/2cm. lateral to injury No. 1 without blackening, charring or tatooing with inverted margins. 4. Fire arm wound 6cm. x 4cm. muscle deep on upper of right back 4. 5cm. below the injury No. 3 having no blackening. Charring or tattooing. The entire mandible underneath injuries Nos. 1. 2 and 3 was fractured. Some of the teeth of the lower jaw were found fractured also. Intestines both small and large were full of fecal matter and gases. Death occurred in his view from shock and hemorrhage due to gun shot injuries. The ante mortem injuries of Ramesh Chand deceased there as follows : 1. Fire arm wound 3 x 3cm. circular in shape cavity deep on left side chest 6cms. from nipple, 5 cm. from middle of sternum with inverted margins without blackening charring or tattooing. 2. Fire arm wound 3c 2. 5 cm. x cavity deep on left side chest 4cm. below injury No. 1 not arounded with blackening charring or tattooing. 3. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm. on inner side of the left forarm lower part. On the left chest the 4th. 5th and 6th ribs were fractured. The stomach was lacerated and both intestines were full of fecal matter and gases. Death occurred in his case also from shock and hemorrhage due to injuries caused by fire arm. ( 5 ) FROM the side of the prosecution strong reliance has been placed on the confessional statement of the accused appellant recorded on 16-4-1980 by the Judicial Magistrate. Hawali at Saharanpur under the provisions of Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) ACCUSED pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. ( 7 ) TO substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution produced before the trial Court in all nine witnesses namely P. W. 1. Constable Shiv Kumar : P. W. 2 Dr. ( 6 ) ACCUSED pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. ( 7 ) TO substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution produced before the trial Court in all nine witnesses namely P. W. 1. Constable Shiv Kumar : P. W. 2 Dr. A. L. Dhingra who performed post mortem examination : P. W. 3 constable Jai Pal Singh ; P. W. 4 Shri A. N. Dwivedi, Munsif Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement of the accused ; P. W. 5 Station Officer Mahabir Singh Yadava ; P. W. 6 Sub Inspector, Mahendra Pal Sharma who completed inquest proceedings ; P. W. 7 Shri Hari Prakash Sharma, the Investigating Officer ; P. W. 8 Constable clerk Hashmat Khan who prepared Chick F. I. R. and registered the case in the General Diary and P. W. 9 Shri B. Raj Ballistic Expert. Affidavits of constable Chandra Pal Singh who had carried the dead bodies for post mortem examination, constable Bhopal Singh who was posted as Head Moharrir, Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur and had carried the sealed bundles of the case property from Sadar Bazar Malkhana to Sadar Malkhana. Saharanpur and constable Raja Ram who had carried the gun and empty cartridges to Forensic laboratory, Lucknow have also been filed. ( 8 ) ACCUSED Smt. Kiran Mishra admitted that she was married to Ramesh Chandra on 11-4-1979 and stated that his maternal uncle was interested in his re-marriage due to dowry. He had managed a notice for divorce being given by her to Ramesh Chandra. On 10-4-1980. Ramesh Chandra accompanies with Naresh Chandra had come to her house at about 3 am, and went to sleep in the verandah. Her brother was also out of the room where she hard slept with her mother and her father had gone to duty. She heard gun shots and came out of the room with the mother only when the firing had stopped. She saw both Ramesh Chandra and his brother lying dead and a gun lying in the courtyard. The door leading to the main gate was open and her brother was not there. Many persons from outside including police men arrived there and she was taken to the police station and not allowed to see members of her family. She saw both Ramesh Chandra and his brother lying dead and a gun lying in the courtyard. The door leading to the main gate was open and her brother was not there. Many persons from outside including police men arrived there and she was taken to the police station and not allowed to see members of her family. She was taken thrice to the Court of Magistrate and she gave the statement as per the desire of the Investigating Officer who had told her that she should admit the guilt otherwise her father and brother would be executed for the two murders. ( 9 ) TWO witnesses C. W. 1 Patan Din Mishra, the father of the appellant and C. W. 2 Smt. Shyama Devi, the mother of the appellant were also examined by the trial Court as Court witnesses. ( 10 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge placed reliance on the eye witness account furnished by P. W. 1 constable Shiv Kumar and P. W. 3 constable Jai Pal Singh and also on the confessional statement made by the accused on 16-4-1980 before the Munsif Magistrate and came to the conclusion that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Ramesh Chandra and Naresh Chandra were caused by the accused appellant in the manner alleged by the prosecution and finding her guilty under Sec. 302 I. P. C. has sentenced her to life imprisonment. ( 11 ) SHRI Raghu Raj Kishore, amicus curaie for the appellant and Shri Vidhu Bhushan Singh for the State have been heard at length. ( 12 ) DURING the course of argument the learned amicus curaie submitted that the possibility of the two murders having been committed by the brother or father of the appellant cannot be ruled out. Regarding the confessional statement recorded by the learned Magistrate the submission of the appellants counsel is that the circumstances indicate that the appellant was not in a fit mental state when she gave the statement and as such the statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. is liable to be ignored being not voluntary and truthful. ( 13 ) WE have very closely examined the evidence on record and find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. P. C. is liable to be ignored being not voluntary and truthful. ( 13 ) WE have very closely examined the evidence on record and find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 14 ) THE undisputed facts are that the appellant aged about 21 years had received eduction up to B. A. in Bareilly College and though she was not willing to marry her marriage was arranged with the deceased constable Ramesh Chandra Relation between husband and wife had never been cordial and appellant Kiran Mishra left the roof of her husband and came down to reside with her parents in one of the quaters alloted to her father. The appellant even managed to send a notice to her husband for divorce. If is also not in dispute that deceased Ramesh Chandra with the younger brother Naresh Chandra had come to the house of Patan Din Mishra on the relevant night and they both were sleeping on separate cots in the verandah of the quarter. Constable Shiv Kumar P. W. 1 and constable Jai Pal Singh P. W. 3 were undoubtedly next door neighbours as the quarter of Shiv Kumar was in the immediate east to the quarter of Patan Din Mishra while the quarter of Jai Pal Singh was in immediate West. They both heard the sound of fire and rushed towards the quarter of Patan Din Mishra to see as to what had happened there. They both have stated that when they reached there they found Kiran Mishra holding the gun of her father in her hand and thereafter within their view she fired two shots, one each on the two deceased. There is nothing in their statements which could shake their testimony or make the same unbelievable. They had absolutely no animus to depose falsely against the appellant. The possibility of some other person having committed the murders of the two deceased is completely ruled out from the evidence of these two witnesses as both of them had themselves seen the appellant firing at least two shots on the deceased persons. Their evidence is not to the effect that they had reached the place of occurrence after the shooting was over or that they had not seen firing upon the deceased persons. Their evidence is not to the effect that they had reached the place of occurrence after the shooting was over or that they had not seen firing upon the deceased persons. It is further in their evidence that after having seen the appellant firing two shots form the gun which she was then holding, they lost no opportunity to over power her and seize the gun when she was loading the same again, perhaps in a bid to shoot hereself as she suggested also in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. recorded by the learned Magistrate. Both these witnesses being next door neighbours were thus most natural and probable witnesses. They had been having good social relation with Patan Din Mishra, the father of the appelant as admitted by Patan Din Mishra himself when he was examined as a Court witness. Their evidence is further corroborated by the statement of P. W. 5 Mahabir Singh Yadav who had arrived immediately on the spot. He stated that at about 5 a. m. he heard sound of fires and when he came to the quarter of Patan Din Mishra he found that constable Shiv Kumar and constable Jai Pal were holding Kiran Mishra in their custody and constable Shiv Kumar had with him a single barrel gun besides empty cartridges in which he passed on to him immediately on his arrival. The gun and cartridges smelt of recent use. He further noticed that two dead bodies one of Ramesh Chandra and other of Naresh Chandra were lying in the verandah. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of these three witnesses. ( 15 ) THE first Information Report of the case was lodged by constable Shiv Kumar promptly at 6. 10 a. m. within almost an hour of the incident. The special report of the case was also despatched on the same day at 7. 15 a. m. Patan Din Mishra C. W. 1 has also admitted that he received information about the firing incident at 6 a. m. while he was on duty at the G. R. P. Station and he came to his residential quarter and found both Ramesh Chandra and Naresh Chandra dead. He further testified that he saw that Kiran Mishra had been held in custody by police attached to police station Sadar Bazar and the police also had with them his licensed gun. He further testified that he saw that Kiran Mishra had been held in custody by police attached to police station Sadar Bazar and the police also had with them his licensed gun. As a natural consequence he inquired of his daughter as to what had transpired and the answer which she gave was what was to happened has happened it is also of significance that when C. W. 1 Patan Din Mishra reached there none in the family including his wife C. W. 2 Smt. Shyam Devi gave any contrary version of the incident. As per the statement of appellant herself, her mother had slept with her in the same room. It is inconceivable that when the father of appellant had arrived at the scene of occurrence at about 6 a. m. Shyam Devi C. W. 2 would not have narrated the contrary facts, if in fact the murders had been committed in some other manner and by some other person. ( 16 ) THE medical opinion on record also supports the prosecution story that in all probability both Ramesh Chandra and Naresh Chandra deceased had received two shots each. Dr. Dhingra P. W. 2 who performed the post mortem examination has categorically stated that the greater probability was that injuries No. 1 and 3 of Ramesh Chandra deceased were the result of different shots and the possibility of one shot leading to both these wounds seemed excluded. In relation to Naresh Chandra Dr. Dhingra opined that injury No. 1 and 3 in all likelihood could be caused by two different fire shots and that there was little possibility of injury No. 1, 3 and 4 being caused by three different shots. It is not of much consequence whether in all four or five shots were fired as the witnesses were attracted to the scene of occurrence on the hearing of the sound of shots and the fact remains that within their sight the appellant fire two shots one on each of the deceased. As per the eye witness account they had seen the appellant firing two shots on the deceased persons. It is insignificant if before their arrival accused had fired two shots or three shots. ( 17 ) IN addition to the above evidence we have also on record the opinion of Ballistic Expert P. W. 9, B. Raj. As per the eye witness account they had seen the appellant firing two shots on the deceased persons. It is insignificant if before their arrival accused had fired two shots or three shots. ( 17 ) IN addition to the above evidence we have also on record the opinion of Ballistic Expert P. W. 9, B. Raj. His evidence confirms that the shots were fired from the gun which was snatched by the witnesses from the hands of the appellant when she tried to reload the same. This licensed gun admittedly belonged to constable Patan Din Mishra and thus could readily be available to the appellant as she herself was residing in the same quarter and her father was away on duty at the relevant time. In addition to the ocular testimony of the aforesaid reliable and trustworthy witnesses, there is yet another very good piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the murder of the two deceased persons and it is the confessional statement of the appellant made on 16-4-1980 to the Magistrate Shri A. N. Dwivedi P. W. 4 which was recorded under the provisions of Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. No doubt, she retracted from the same when she was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. but for that reason alone the confessional statement cannot be left out from consideration. It is well established that an accused can lawfully be convicted on his confessional statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. even where it has later been retracted provided the Court is fully satisfied that the same was voluntary and truthful. Mere subsequent retraction and the statement of the accused that the confessional statement was made under pressure of police will not be enough to throw out such statement unless the circumstances appearing in the case raise some doubt regarding the genuineness of the statement. If the Court finds that there is no reasonable doubt that the confessional statement was made voluntarily and represented true state of facts, it is a legal and sufficient proof of guilt though the rule of prudence is in favour of seeking corroboration of a confession which has been subsequently retracted particularly in serious offences like murder etc. In such cases it becomes the duty of the Court to examine and consider the matter carefully. In such cases it becomes the duty of the Court to examine and consider the matter carefully. First of all the Court must examine and determine whether the confessional statement is wholly voluntary and when the court is satisfied with this test, the next step is to see whether the confessional statement is true and trustworthy by comparing the same with the other evidence on record in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities available in the case. ( 18 ) FROM the record it is evident that accused Kiran Mishra was arrested on the spot during the course of incident on 10-4-1980 in early hours and then was produce before the Magistrate on that day itself for the purpose of judicial remand. She was remanded to the judicial custody and was sent to jail on 10-4-1980 itself. On the same day the Investigating Officer made an application before the Magistrate to record the statement of Smt. Kiran Mishra under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. stating therein that she was willing to give her confessional statement. The learned Magistrate on this application passed the order "put up tomorrow" On 11-4-1980 the learned Magistrate passed the order "put up with the C. D. i. e. statement recorded by the I. O. of the accused. " The matter was then taken up on 14-4-1980 and from the prosecution side two days time was sought. The learned Magistrate passed the following order on 14-4-1980: allowed two days time as prayed. Smt. Kiran Mishra, the accused has been produced before me. She shows her willingness to make a confessional statement. She has been brought from the District Jail Saharanpur. She says that she is willing to make a confessional statement on her own accord and that no pressure has been brought on her by anyone. She is warned that she is not bound to make any confessional statement and that if she makes any such statement it will be used or read against her. Time for the reflection is given to her fixing 16-4-1980 for recording her statement. " ( 19 ) ON 16-4-1980 the appellant was again brought from jail and was produced before the Magistrate Shri Dwivedi, P. W. 4. Time for the reflection is given to her fixing 16-4-1980 for recording her statement. " ( 19 ) ON 16-4-1980 the appellant was again brought from jail and was produced before the Magistrate Shri Dwivedi, P. W. 4. On this date again she was warned by the Magistrate in clear words that she was not bound to make any confession and if she would make, the same could be used against her. The learned Magistrate then put a number of preliminary questions in order to satisfy himself that the appellant was making the statement voluntarily and was free from the effect of any extraneous influence or inducement. Thereafter the learned Magistrate proceeded to record her statement in his chamber from where even the escorting police/men were ousted. The said statement is reproduced verbatim hereunder : Q. Aapko Kab Giraftar Kiya Gaya? A. Aaj Satwa Din Hai. Q. Kya Aapko Kisi Police Karmachari Ne Dhamki Di Hi? A. Jee Nahi. Q. Kya Kisi Police Karmachari Ne Koi Vayada Ya Pralobhan Ya Utprerna To Aapko Nahi Di? A. Jee Nahi. Q. Kya Aap Janti Hai Ki Main Ek Magistrate Hoo. A. Jee Ha. Q. Kya Aap Yah Janti Hai Ki Jo Bayan Aap Dengi Wah Aapke Virudh Prayog Ho Sakta Hai Aur Usase Aapko Saja Bhi Ho Sakti Hai? A. Jee Ha. Q. Kya Aap Janti hai Ke Bayan Dene Ke Liye Aap Badhya Nahi Hai ? A. Jee Ha. Uprokt Prashno Ke Jo Uttar Smt. Kiran Mishra ne diye hai unse main santusht hoo ke wah apni swecha se Bayan dena chahti hai aur us per kisi prakar ka dabav nahi dala gaya hai aur nahi use kisi police karmachari ne dabav dala hai ya use pralobhan hi diya gaya hai. Atha main uska dhara 164 Cr. P. C. ke antargat Bayan likne ko agrasar hota hoo. Ha. Ashpasht Aa. Na. Dwivedi Magistrate Pratham Shreni Saharanpur Iske Pahle ki main abhiyukt Smt. Kiran Mishra ke Bayan dhara 164 Cr. P. C. ke antargat likhu yah uchit pratit hota hai ki use is ashya ki chetawani punah ke ki jay ki wah Bayan dene ke liye badhya nahi hai aur yadi wah esa koi byan degi to wah uske khilaf parha ja sakta hai aur usese use saja bhi ho sakti hai. Aa. Na. Dwivedi 16-4-1980 ki wah swecha se sab samajhte huea byan dena chahti hai. Aa. Na. Dwivedi 16-4-1980 ki wah swecha se sab samajhte huea byan dena chahti hai. Atah ab main uska byan lena prarmbh karta hoo. Ha. Ashphasht Aa. Na. Dwivedi Byan Smt. Kiran Mishra Abhiyukt Aayu 17 warsh niwasi Jee Aar Pee quarters Saharanpur Q. Aapko Kya Kahna hai? A. Main doctori parhna chahti thi. Mere pita retire hone wale hain. Unki kuchch sal ki service rah gayee hai. Unhone mujhse kaha ki pahile we meri shadi karenge fir mujhe jo parhan ho wah parhu. Mere ek bara bahi hai. Wah parhata hai. Mujhese badi ek bahan hai wa do bahine chchoti hai. Badi bahan ki shadi ho chuki hai. Meri shadi Shri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi se 11/04/1979 ko huee. 8 din ke under hi mere pan bap ne bager puri tarah se chchanbin kiye meri shadi Shri Ramesh Chandra se kar di thi. Unke bare koi pura pata nahilagaya tha. Pita Jee ne Ramesh se dahej ke bare me puchcha tha to pahile usne kichchnahi kaha aur yah kaha ki jitna ho sake de dena. Mere pita jee ne 7-8 hazar ka dahej diya. Shadi ke bad mai Ramesh Chandra ke sath uske ghar chali gayee. Unhoney dahej ke pichche mere sath bara bura bartaw kiya. Muchche do din gaon me rakha fir iske bad muchche tundala junction me apane quarter me lay gaye jaha we G. R. P. me naukari karte they. Uske bad muchche roj dahej ke pichche we marte they. Ladai Jagra kartey they. Iskey Bad mainey unse kaha ki service karkey main unki dahej ki kami ko pura kar dungi to unhoney kaha ki aur bhi tarikey hai dahej ki kami ko pura karnekey ke liye naukari karna hi aawashyak nahi hai. Iske bad we roj sharab pikar aatey they aur apney sath apney gande dosto ko latey they aur unsey paise lekar mere sath galat kaam karana Chahtey they. Mere mana karne par unhone muchchey bahut buri tarike se mara. Muchche uskey bad khun ki ulti honey lagi. Iskey bad jab meri bachney ki ummid nahi rahi to logo ne unse kaha ki iskey ghar walo ko khabr kar do. Unhoney mere ghar walo ko khabr kar di. Mere mana karne par unhone muchchey bahut buri tarike se mara. Muchche uskey bad khun ki ulti honey lagi. Iskey bad jab meri bachney ki ummid nahi rahi to logo ne unse kaha ki iskey ghar walo ko khabr kar do. Unhoney mere ghar walo ko khabr kar di. Uske bad Agra me muchche sarojani naidu Aspatal me mere maa bap ne bharti kara diya ilaj ke liye aur mujhey Ramesh Chandra ne dhamki di thi ki apney maa bap se is barey me kuchch bhi nahi batana. Mera us asptal mai ilaj hota raha. Meri halat main kuchch sudhar aa gaya. Dr. Patni ka ilaj chal tha. Uske bad doctor ne yah salah di ki mujhe kahi ghumaya jay. Ghumaney ke bahaney mere pati Shri Ramesh Chandra fir mujhe loha mandi me Dr. R. K. Jain ke pas asptal se chupchap le gaye they waha unhoney mere bijali ke shock lagwaye they. 6-7 shock lagwaye they. Is karan shock lagwaye gaye ki main pichche ki bat ko jo unhoney kiya hai bhool jaoo. Q. Fir kya hua. A. Uske bad fir mujhe tundla le gaye. Fir mujhe sharanpur wali gari me lita diya aur kaha ki apney pita ji ke pas chali jao. Tundla se saharanpur mere sath koi nahi aaya. Saharanpur me aur police walo ne mujhe ghar tak pahuchaya. Fir pita jee ne mujhe saharanpur aspatal me bharti kara diya. Doctor ne kaha ki bijali ke shock lage hai we ilaj nahi kar sakte aap Agra le jaye jaha bijali ke shock lage hain. Uske bad pita jee agra le jane ko taiyar ho gaye. Usi sham ko Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi Aaye. Unhoney mere pitaji se kaha ki we mujhe agra ilaj ke liye le jayenge. Unhe pita ji ne mana kiya to unhoney daroga janak singh se kahlaya ke bhej do main ilaj karaunga. uske bad daroga je ne kahake fir mujhe bhijwa diya. Mere pita ke sath meri maa bhi gayee thi. Tundala junction par we le gaye. Apne quarter rakha. Ek chchotey motey doctor se ilaj karney ko kaha. Doctor ne meri halat dekhkar yah kaha ki case serious hai we ilaj nahi kar sakte. Fir Ramesh Chandra ne kaha ki use ilaj nahi karwana wah to dikawa kar raha hai. Wah mujhey mar kar apne dahej ki kami pura karna chahta hai. Apne quarter rakha. Ek chchotey motey doctor se ilaj karney ko kaha. Doctor ne meri halat dekhkar yah kaha ki case serious hai we ilaj nahi kar sakte. Fir Ramesh Chandra ne kaha ki use ilaj nahi karwana wah to dikawa kar raha hai. Wah mujhey mar kar apne dahej ki kami pura karna chahta hai. Is per thorey hi dino me meri halat bahut najuk ho gayee. Fir logo ne kaha ki ise ghar bhej do yah mar jayengee to use (mer pati) fansi ho jayengee to usne kaha ki maine bijali ke shock lagwa rakhe hai wah kuchch nahi kah sakti. Uske bad mujse bahaney se puchcha ki tum kay yah kaho ki bijali ke shocknalgwaye hai to mainey ha kaha tha. Is per wah mujhey marney laga. To fir mummy ne sabse kaha ki meri larki to bhejwa do yah marjaywngi. Sabke kahne sunaney par mujey saharan-pur bhejwa diya. Mummy ke sath meri halat bahut kharab thi. Fir mere maa bap ne mujehey Dr. M. K. Dutta Ambala walo key yaha bharti karaya. Waha mera ilaj chlata raha iske bad bhi mujhe khun ki ulti hona band nahi huee. Fir unhoney kaha ki chandigarh lejakar operation karo. Mummy ne kaha ki thorey dino ke bad paiso ka intjam karke chandigarh le chalenge. Fir mujhe saharanpur mummy apney quarter me ley aaye. Ilaj Dr. Dyutta ka hi chalta raha. Iske bad jab Ramesh se dawai key liye paise chithi se mangawaye gay to usne mana kar diya aur kaha ki use kuchch nahi dena. Ramesh fir Saharanpur Aaye aur mujhe dhamki di ki tujhe zinda nahi chodunga maar dalunga aur chala gaya. Uske bad fir maney dar ke mare ki wah mujhe mar denga mane moradabad ke railway ke S. P. wa Agra ke G. R. P. ke S. P. ko darkhastey bhejwai, Moradabad mai khud bhi gayee thi aur S. P. Saheb se apni faryad ki thi. Fir maine Ramesh Chandra ko talak ka notice wakeel ke madhyam se bhejwaya tha. Naresh Chandra bhi dhamki deta tha aur apney bhai se kahta tha ke mar do tumhara kuch nahi hoga tum dusari shadi kar lena. Naresh Chandra mere yaha aaya tha aur kaha tha ke kya maine talak ka notice diya hai. Mere dwara ha kahney par usne kaha tha ki dekhna iska anjam tumhey pata lag jayenga fir wah chala gaya tha. Naresh Chandra mere yaha aaya tha aur kaha tha ke kya maine talak ka notice diya hai. Mere dwara ha kahney par usne kaha tha ki dekhna iska anjam tumhey pata lag jayenga fir wah chala gaya tha. Q. Fir kya Hua tha? A. Aaj se lagbhag saat din pahiley ki bat hai Ramesh Chandra aur Naresh Chandra mere yaha kareeb 3. 30 baje raat aaye they. Raat ko train se aaye they. Main under kamrey me so rahi thi. Pita jee duty par gaye they. Mere bhai Nanhey urf Jairam Koyley ka intjam karney chaley gaye thay. Kundi meri choti bahan Guddi ne kholi. Bahar baramde main fir charpai dalkar Ramesh Chandra wa Naresh Chandra let gaye. Main, Meri Maa, Nani wa Guddi bhitar kamrey main lete thay. Main ek alag charpai me lati thi aur wey tino ek charpai main leti thi. Mere pati ne meri choti bahin se mere barey me puchch tha. Guddi ke dwara yah batlane par ki main under leti hoo unhoney kaha tha ki kya abhi tak mari nahi Main uska subha intajam kar dunga Mainey yah sab sun liya. Uske bad dono bhai aapas main dhiry dhiry batey karne lage. Q. Fir Age kya Hua? A. Fir wey do baramdey me apani apani charpai main so gaye. Kareeb 4baje we so gaye they. Main iske bad dar gayee thi subah we mujhe mar na dey. us samay mujhe apney dimag ka thik dhang se pata nahin tha ki main kay karney ja rahi hoo. Fir mainey Bandook uthai. Wah mere pita jee ki licensee bandook thi. Pahiley mainey yah socha ki main khud apney bandook marloo us samay kareeb 5 baje ya 5. 30 baje ke kareeb ka samay hoga. Mainey bandook main kartoos bhare ki main apney mar loo fir mainey socha ki pahiley unko mar doo fir apney mar loongi fir main iknali bandook ko lekar kamery se bahar aayee aur fir Ramesh chandra chaturvedi ke nazdeek bandook nal ley jakar fire kar diya jo uski chchati me laga aur fir mainey turant hi dusra kartoos bharkar Naresh chandra ke upar kar diya jo uskey kandhey ke pas lagi wah karwat liye para tha. Fir maine ek ek fire un dono par aur kiya. Us samay mujhey yah hosh nahi tha ki main kyakar rahi hoo. Fir maine ek ek fire un dono par aur kiya. Us samay mujhey yah hosh nahi tha ki main kyakar rahi hoo. Kamrey ke under se jab main bahar aayee thi tab meri maa, guddi wa nani so rahi thi kamrey me andhera tha. Baramdey me light jal rahi thi. Jab chautha fire maine kiya tha tab kamrey se mummy ekdam se nikal kar aayee thi. Fire ka shor par sipahi bhi wahi aa gaye thay. Bandook mere hathse daroga jee ne le li thi isliye mujhe apny ko marney ka mauka nahi mila. Maine bandook ko apni taraf kartos dalkar chalaney ki koshish ki thi kintu wah chala nahi. Fir honey ke bad pita jee duty se aaye thay. Bhai bhi tabhi aaya tha use koyala nahi mila tha. Wah dekhkar chillakar bhaga tha. Q. Apney aisa kyo Kiya? A. Mujhe yah dar tha ki kahi subah we mujhe na mar dey is karan mainey mara. Q. Kya Kuchch aur aap kahana chahti hai? A. Iske bad mainey pitaji se kaha tha ki tum mat aana warna tumhey mar doongi Kyoki tumney meri zindage kharab kar di hai. Mera Dimag sahi nahi tha ki mainey us samay kya kiya. Main aspatal me bharti hona chahti hoo. Main aur kuchch nahi khana chahti. Awdhesh Narain Dwivedi Munsif Hawali Magistrate Pratham Shreni Sunkar Tasdik Kiya Saharanpur Ha. Aspasht. Praman patra. Mainey Abhiyukta Smt. Kiran Devi Mishra ko yah batla diya tha ki wah sanswkrati Karney ke liya badhya nahi hai aur yadi wah eska koi sanswkrati karegi to wah uske virudh sakshya main upyog main lai ja sakti hain. Mujhey yah vishwas hai ki yah sanswkrati swechcha se ki gayee hai. Yah meri upasthathi main ki gayee hai aur mere dwara likhi gayee hai aur yah sanswkrati abhiyukta Smt. Kiran devi ko parhkar suna di gayee hai aur usney uska sahee hona swikar kiya hai uskey dwara kiye gaye kathan ka yah pura aur sahi sahi wratant hai. Awdhesh Narain Dwivedi Munsif Hawali Magistrate Pratham Shreni Samay 3. 45 p. m. Saharanpur 16-4-80 ( 20 ) A perusal of the above statement and the evidence of the Magistrate Shri Dwivedi, P. W. 4 completely rules out that at any stage the accused had expressed her unwillingness to give the statement or that same was not voluntary. Awdhesh Narain Dwivedi Munsif Hawali Magistrate Pratham Shreni Samay 3. 45 p. m. Saharanpur 16-4-80 ( 20 ) A perusal of the above statement and the evidence of the Magistrate Shri Dwivedi, P. W. 4 completely rules out that at any stage the accused had expressed her unwillingness to give the statement or that same was not voluntary. The appellant was initially produced before the Magistrate on 10-4-1980 and despite an application being made by the I. O. , her statement was not recorded by the learned magistrate on that day and she was summoned for the next day. On 11-4-1980 the Magistrate in order to satisfy himself wanted to peruse the case diary in order to examine the statement of the accused recorded by the I. O. and he passed the order that the file be put up with the case diary. The appellant was then again brought in judicial from jail before the Magistrate on 14-4-1980. Even on this date the learned Magistrate thought it better to warn the accused of the consequences of confessional statement and after cautioning her in clear and specific words he postponed the matter for recording the statement to 16-4-1980 for reflection. Then on 16-4-1980 the learned Magistrate again warned the appellant and apprised her of the consequences of the confessional statement. After taking abundant caution and satisfying himself that the appellant was free from the effect of any extraneous influence and was making the statement voluntarily, the learned magistrate proceeded to record her statement under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. It would thus appear that sufficient time was given to the appellant to think over the matter and for reflection over the consequences. The object of giving time for reflection is to ensure that the accused is completely free from any threat, influence or inducement and to decide whether he should make a confession or not even after coming to know of its consequences. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the time to be given to the accused for reflection and it depends upon the circumstances of each case. What is necessary is that the time should be sufficient to arrive at a proper conclusion. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the time to be given to the accused for reflection and it depends upon the circumstances of each case. What is necessary is that the time should be sufficient to arrive at a proper conclusion. In the present case we are fully satisfied that sufficient time was given to the accused appellant for reflection and the learned Magistrate had taken all precaution and steps necessary to satisfy himself that the appellant makes the statement out of her free will and is free from the effect of any influence whatsoever. ( 21 ) THE statement was also read over and explained to her and she affirmed that it had been correctly recorded. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the confessional statement did not seem to be tutored and was voluntary one. ( 22 ) THE next question that arises for determination is whether the confessional statement Ex. Ka4 was true and trustworthy. We have minutely examined the facts stated by the appellant in her confessional statement-Ex. Ka4 and after comparing the same carefully with the evidence on record in the light of surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case we have no doubt in our mind that the confessional statement is true and trustworthy and we entirely agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the same is truthful and is corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. The statement contained even minute details of such facts which could be disclosed only by person having personal knowledge of them. The confessional statement given by the appellant finds corroboration from the evidence of two independent, natural and probable witnesses. It was submitted by the appellants counsel that the possibility of the appellant giving the confessional statement in order to save her brother who might have killed the two deceased persons is not ruled out. The confessional statement given by the appellant finds corroboration from the evidence of two independent, natural and probable witnesses. It was submitted by the appellants counsel that the possibility of the appellant giving the confessional statement in order to save her brother who might have killed the two deceased persons is not ruled out. We have already pointed out above that the possibility of the murder having been committed by some other person than the appellant is completely ruled out in the present case inasmuch as when the two eye witnesses living in near vicinity reached the spot they both saw the appellant holding gun in her hand from which she fired one shot on each of the two deceased persons in their presence and then she was overpowered by them along with the gun and used cartridges when she attempted to reload the gun. Further corroboration is also obtainable from the medical evidence and the circumstances appearing in the case inasmuch as the gun which was snatched from the hands of the appellant was found to have been used in the commission of crime in question as per the statement of the ballistic expert P. W. 9. B. Raj. The corroborative evidence has been pointed out in detail by the learned Sessions judge in his judgment for reaching to the conclusion that the confessional statement is fully corroborated in material particulars and we do not want to burden this judgment by repeating those facts again. The confessional statement of the appellant was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate who had no motive or interest for attributing untruthful statement of the accused. Vague plea raised by the accused that the statement was procured from her under police pressure, allurement or threat cannot be accepted in the present case in the absence of any such material. After the close examination of the confessional statement and the evidence on record we have no doubt in our mind that the statement was made by the appellant voluntarily and the same was truthful. To us the same appears to be a probable catalogue of events which fits in with the rest of the evidence brought on record and could be made basis of conviction. To us the same appears to be a probable catalogue of events which fits in with the rest of the evidence brought on record and could be made basis of conviction. ( 23 ) FROM the evidence on record it is established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and none else who had committed the murder of her husband Ramesh Chandra and his younger brother Naresh Chandra in the manner as claimed by the prosecution and the appellant was guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Sec. 302 I. P. C. As far as sentence is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view in awarding lesser sentence of imprisonment for life with the reasoning that the appellant appears to have acted under irresistible impulse without cool deliberation or having given thought to the pros and cons and she was a young lady. ( 24 ) FOR the reasons stated above this appeal must fail and accordingly it is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant to imprisonment for life Sec. 302 I. P. C. as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are upheld. The appellant is on bail and she shall be taken into custody forth with to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. Shri Raghu Raj Kishore, amicus curaie who argued the appeal for a considerable time shall be paid Rs. 2100. 00 as fee. C. J. M. Saharanpur is directed to send to this Court compliance report at the earliest. Appeal dismissed.