D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 214/2015. Case: Mohani Devi Vs State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 214/2015
CounselFor Appellant: Kuldeep Vaishnav, Amicus Curiae and Kalu Ram Bhati, Adv. and For Respondents: J.P.S. Choudhary, PP
JudgesGopal Krishan Vyas and Kailash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 302, 304, 307, 324
Judgement DateFebruary 07, 2017
CourtRajasthan High Court


Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

  1. In this cr. jail appeal filed by Smt. Mohani Devi W/o. Sohan Ram from Central Jail, Jodhpur, the judgment dated 26.9.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 13/2011 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu is under challenge whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence for life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed against her.

  2. As per brief facts of the case, a written complaint (Ex. P/1) was filed by PW-1 Sukha Ram (PW-1) before the SHO Police Station, Sujangarh in which following allegations were leveled against the accused appellant Smt. Mohani Devi, which reads as under:

  3. The aforesaid complaint was filed before the SHO Police Station Sujangarh in the Government Hospital, Sujangarh where the injured Sohan Ram was under treatment. The aforesaid complaint was submitted to the SHO at 6.05 am on 22.5.2011 at Government Hospital, Sujangarh. Upon the aforesaid report, the SHO Police Station Sujangarh registered formal FIR No. 107 (Ex. P/1A) on 22.5.2011 under Section 307 and 324 IPC. The medial officer Government Bagadiya Hospital, Sujangarh prepared the report after medical examination of the injured Sohan Lal which is on record as Ex. P/11. In the said injury report, 7 injuries are mentioned and as per medical officer all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were simple in nature and opinion was obtained for injury Nos. 1 and 4 after x-ray.

  4. During treatment, at 8.10 am on 25.5.2011 in the morning the injured Sohan Ram died, therefore after adding offence under Section 302 IPC, the details of the dead body was recorded after examination of the dead body by the SHO in the presence of two witnesses Suja Ram and Pema Ram. Thereafter, the post mortem was conducted by the medical jurist vide Ex. P/15 at 2.30 pm on 25.5.2011 and as per opinion of doctor, the cause of death was comma due to head injury mentioned in the post mortem report. The doctor further gave opinion that the said injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. After registration of the FIR on 22.5.2011, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared in the presence of two witnesses Akha Ram and Chhotu Devi. The details of place of occurrence was recorded vide Ex. P/3A. The blood stained soil and simple soil was taken in possession from the place of occurrence vide Ex. P/4 and P/5. The shirt of the injured Sohan Lal was taken in presence of two witnesses Akha Ram and Chhotu Devi. One towel and while pillow were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/7. The accused appellant was arrested on 22.5.2011 at 4.15 pm vide Ex. P/8. The weapon Gandasi was also recovered vide Ex. P/9 as per information given by the accused appellant on 22.5.2011 in the presence of two witnesses Akha Ram and Chhotu Devi.

  5. The investigating officer after recording statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. sent all the articles for chemical examination to the FSL, Jodhpur and in return, the report (Ex. P/16) was received in which opinion was given that upon all the articles including Gandasi recovered at the instance of the accused appellant the blood 'A' group was found.

  6. On conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Moahni Devi under Section 302 IPC in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh for trial.

  7. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant Mohani Devi on the basis of evidence on record, but the accused appellant denied the charge and prayed for trial.

  8. During trial, statements of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded including three eye witnesses PW-3 Nauratan, PW-4 Durga and PW-5 Hanshu, all...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT