LexGANGA BAI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 343 GANGA BAI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1245 of2009) SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 (T.S. THAKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 r/w s. 34 and 201 - Prosecution under- Of appellant-accused - Alongwith two other accused- Conviction of all three accused by trial court C - High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant-accused, while acquitting the other two accused giving them benefit of . doubt - Appeal by convicted accused - Held: The circumstantial evidence against the appellant-accused 0 formed an unbroken chain which led to only one hypothesis i.e. her involvement in the offences ulss. 302 and 201 - Non- explanation in s. 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the appellant regarding presence of human blood on her clothes also goes against the appellant - The appellant cannot be acquitted E on parity with other accused, because there is clinching evidence against her proving her involvement in the crime - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The evidence against the appellant- accused formed an unbroken chain which led only to one hypothesis, viz., the involvement of the appellant in the offences ulss. 302 and 201 IPC. Even uls. 313 G Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant did not have any explanation on the presence of human blood stains on her clothes which were duly recovered on her disclosure. 343 H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. ' A [Para 11) [348-0,E] Nana Keshav Lagad v. State of Maharashtra 2013 (12) SCC 721: 2013 (10) SCR 606 - relied on. 8 1.2 Merely because one or more of those charged with the substantial offences and also charged u/s. 34 IPC have been acquitted, the one in the group who shared the common intention, in whose case there is conclusive evidence of direct involvement, cannot claim c parity. In the present case, in view of the clinching evidence as regards the involvement of the appellant in the offences of murder and destruction of evidence charged against her, she is not entitled for a similar treatment as that of co-accused 'U', only because he o was acquitted by the High Court. [Para 13) [350-F-H; 351- A] 1.3 The High Court has granted permanent parole to the accused. It is clarified that dismissal of the present E appeal shall not, in any way, affect either the permanent parole or commutation of the sentence of the appellant- accused. [Para 15] [351-D] 2. The co-accused 'U', whose clothes were duly F recovered, also contained stains of human blood, for which also, there was no explanation and he had also given disclosure on the recovery of weapon of offence. Though the acquittal made by the High Court in his case, could require a revisit, in view of the fact that there G is no appeal by the State against his acquittal and that the incident is of the year 1999, the Court does not propose to pursue the matter as against accused 'U'. [Para 13] [350-E-F] Case Law Rererence H 2013 (10) SCR 606 relied on. Para 12 GANGA BAI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 345 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A No. 1245 of2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2006 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCRL No. 7 4 7 of 2003. B Rohit Minocha, Vishwanath Pratap Singh for the Appellant. Milind Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. The appellant-Ganga Bai was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, Rajasthan along with one Udai Lal and Oaulat Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (45 c of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for the murder of her. o daughter-in-law and her two minor children. All the three were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. There was also a sentence of fine with default clause. 2. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Udai Lal and Dau lat Ram holding that the offences against them were not proved beyond doubt. However, in the case of the appellant, the conviction was confirmed with no modification in sentence. 3. The incident is of the year 1999. First Information Report E F was registered on the complaint given by PW-29. It was stated that while he was in the field gazing cattle, he heard PW-3 crying loudly of having seen a dead body of a lady lying in a trench. Along with PW-4, they also found the dead
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.