Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1784 (RAJ)

Chandrakala v. State of Rajasthan

2022-05-26

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Smt. Chandrakala W/o Late Shankar Lal, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 05.03.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 1/2017 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 15 days. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentence, as per which, the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. She has suffered custodial period of six years and three months as on date. 3. Mr. Tarun Dhaka, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant has been convicted for poisoning and killing her husband Shri Shankar Lal. The deceased fell ill on 08.11.2015 and was admitted in the R.K. Hospital, Rajsamand, from where he was referred to MBH Hospital, Udaipur and expired while being under treatment. The report under Section 174 CrPC bearing No. 23/2015 (Ex. P/2) was lodged by Ratan Lal Suthar, wherein he stated that his brother suddenly fell ill and expired. Nearly after one year of the incident, the FIR (Ex.P/9) came to be filed, wherein an allegation was levelled that the appellant herein was embroiled in a marital discord with her husband Shri Shankar Lal and that she administered poison to her husband, as a result whereof, he expired. 4. Mr. Dhaka submitted that the prosecution relied upon the flimsy evidence of extrajudicial confession as deposed by witness Bali Bai (P.W. 1) who stated that the appellant made the alleged extrajudicial confession of having given poison mixed in tea to Shri Shankar Lal within 12 days of his death. However, the witness did not divulge to anyone uptill 29.11.2016 that Chandrakala had made the said extrajudicial confession. He further pointed out that the other witness of extrajudicial confession, namely, Manju (P.W. 19), did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Mst. However, the witness did not divulge to anyone uptill 29.11.2016 that Chandrakala had made the said extrajudicial confession. He further pointed out that the other witness of extrajudicial confession, namely, Manju (P.W. 19), did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Mst. Pooja (P.W. 18), aged 18 years, daughter of the appellant and the deceased Shri Shankar Lal, categorically stated that her father was making a complaint of stomach ache and he went to sleep in his room instructing that as the other family members were going out, the room be locked from outside. The witness stated that her mother was forced to make the confession by use of force. He, thus, urged that ex facie, the story as portrayed in the prosecution case regarding the appellant having murdered her husband by administering poison is false and fabricated. The appellant has suffered incarceration for more than six years and hence, she deserves indulgence of bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that the witness Bali Bai (P.W. 1) has categorically given evidence of extrajudicial confession against the appellant and hence, she does not deserve indulgence of bail. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the appellant-applicant and learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the material available on record. 7. On the face of the record, we are of the view that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The alleged incident wherein Shri Shankar Lal expired owing to poisoning occurred on 08.11.2015. Shankar Lal's brother Ratan Lal lodged the Report (Ex.P/2) under Section 174 CrPC on the same day, wherein he categorically stated that his brother had suddenly fallen ill and died. Bali Bai (P.W. 1), the sole prosecution witness, who deposed about the alleged extrajudicial confession made by the accused-appellant, is the maternal aunt of Shri Shankar Lal. If at all there had been an iota of truth in the allegation of Bali Bai that the appellant made extrajudicial confession in her presence within 12 days of the death of Shri Shankar Lal, then there was no reason for her not to have informed the other family members and in that event, the FIR would have been lodged immediately after the extrajudicial confession was allegedly made. The FIR (Ex.P/9) came to be lodged by the enquiry officer Shri Mohan Singh on 29.11.2016 and not by any of the family members of the deceased. Even in this report, there is no allegation that the appellant had made an extrajudicial confession before Smt. Bali Bai. The second witness of alleged extrajudicial confession, namely, Manju (P.W. 19), did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The deceased expired as a result of consumption of Organophosphorus compound, which has a very pungent, prominent and foul smell. Thus, it is impossible to believe that Organophosphorus compound could be unknowingly administered by mixing the same in tea. 8. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant has available to her strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment and hence, she deserves indulgence of bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 05.03.2022 in Sessions Case No. 1/2017 against the appellant-applicant Smt. Chandrakala W/o Late Shankar Lal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance in this court on 27.06.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That she will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, she will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 10. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. 10. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.