Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 670 (RAJ)

Reema Yadav v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-24

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 10/2017 (C.I.S. No. 52/2017):- Offence under Section Sentences Fine 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC 3 times Life Imprisonment 3 times Rs. 20,000/- 2. She has moved this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentences awarded by the trial court and for release on bail during pendency of the appeal. 3. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit, Advocate, representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is absolutely illegal and founded on no evidence whatsoever. The prosecution has come out with the theory that the appellant was involved in an extramarital affair with the co-accused Sunil Yadav and that both conspired together to murder the appellant's husband Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and their two children in the house where the family used to reside. Learned counsel Shri Kharlia submitted that it is an admitted case of prosecution that no incriminating material whatsoever was recovered at the instance of the appellant. The prosecution has not led any evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant was present in the house when the alleged murders took place. As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the appellant had gone to the house of Sunil Yadav four days prior to the incident for attending to his ailing wife. Shri Kharlia thus urged that the appellant who is a woman and is in custody for the last nearly six years, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced at bar and urged that the appellant is the main accused of the case. The case involves serious allegations of murders of Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav, husband of the appellant, and her two children in the house where the family resided together. The FIR was lodged by Om Prakash, alleging that he had given his house No. 2/133, Housing Board, Hanumangarh Junction on rent to Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav where he resided with his wife Reema and the two children. The FIR was lodged by Om Prakash, alleging that he had given his house No. 2/133, Housing Board, Hanumangarh Junction on rent to Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav where he resided with his wife Reema and the two children. Foul smell started emanating from the house on which, the informant went their and saw that the door of the house was locked which was broken and on going inside, the dead bodies of Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and the two children were found lying therein with marks of violence. The appellant was missing from the house. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the fact that the appellant was missing from her house for the last four days before the incident corroborates the prosecution case because the deceased persons were murdered 4-5 days before lodging of the FIR. He urges that the appellant has offered no explanation whatsoever as to how the brutal fatal injuries were inflicted to her husband and the two children inside the house where the family lived together. He thus urged that the appellant does not deserves indulgence of bail in this case. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The fact regarding the appellant and the three deceased persons i.e. her husband Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and two children residing together in the house No. 2/133, Housing Board, Hanumangarh Junction of the complainant is well established and virtually admitted. The appellant claims to have gone away from her house about four days before lodging of the FIR. However, the fact remains that the victims were murdered a few days before lodging of the FIR because the suspicion arose when foul smell started emanating from the house which was locked from outside. Evidently, thus, the appellant had gone away from her house after committing murders and locking the door from outside. The prosecution would definitely have available to it the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to seek affirmation of guilt of the accused appellant in this case. In any event, the evidence as against the co-accused Sunil Yadav and the appellant who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2022 is different. The case of the prosecution as against the appellant is based on strong material and legal presumptions. 7. In any event, the evidence as against the co-accused Sunil Yadav and the appellant who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2022 is different. The case of the prosecution as against the appellant is based on strong material and legal presumptions. 7. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences which is dismissed being devoid of merit.