State of Rajasthan v. Vimla Bai

Judgment

1. This criminal jail appeal under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been registered on the letter petition sent by the accused-appellant - Vimla Bai through Deputy Jailor, Women's Prison Reformatory Centre, Kota aggrieved by impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi in Sessions Case No.33/2016 (C.I.S. No. 31/2015) titled as “State of Rajasthan vs. Vimla Bai”, vide which accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:34374-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLAD-198/2021]

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that on 18.10.2014, complainant Mukesh Meena (P.W. 2) submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Dablana, District Bundi at Village Durgapura to the effect that his daughter Monika Meena, aged 8 years, was residing with her maternal grandfather Madan Lal and maternal grandmother in Village Durgapura. She was sleeping outside in the courtyard (Guwad), who was killed by her aunt Vimla by inflicting axe blow at around

5.00 a.m. while she was sleeping. Nandkishore told him this on mobile. He came to Village Durgapura from Village Gumanpura. This incident was committed by her aunt Vimla Bai by inflicting her with an axe with the intention of killing his daughter etc.

On the basis of said report, FIR No. 285/2014 was registered at Police Station Dablana, District Bundi for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused- appellant before the court of Judicial Magistrate Hindoli, District Bundi, who took cognizance of aforesaid offence against accused- appellant and committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi (for short ‘learned trial court’ hereinafter).

4. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, trial court framed charge against accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/16 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused- [2025:RJ-JP:34374-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLAD-198/2021] appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case, which she denied and stated that prosecution witnesses gave false evidence; she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. She also stated that her 9 months' old baby died in the womb itself that is why witnesses were telling lie that she had no children. Her in-laws did not like her so they tried to frame her in a false manner. The accused-appellant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in her defence. However, the statement of C.W. 1 - Dr. Rajendra Singh Rathore was recorded by the trial court as a court witness.

5. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered impugned judgment dated 12.12.2019 convicting and sentencing accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that he was innocent and falsely enroped in this case. He has also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There are contradictions in the testimony deposed by sole eye-witness Badam Bai (P.W. 3), which do not inspire confidence. He has also submitted that information regarding incident was stated to be given to the complainant by Nandkishore (P.W. 6) but [2025:RJ-JP:34374-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLAD-198/2021] Nandkishore has not supported the prosecution story. He has also submitted that in-laws of accused-appellant did not like her so they wanted to get rid of her, therefore, they hatched the conspiracy. He has also submitted that recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused-appellant has not been established. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion of guilt against accused-appellant then, from the statement of C.W. 1 - Dr. Rajendra Singh Rathore, it has been established that accused- appellant was a patient of schizophrenia and was not capable to understand, therefore, there cannot be said to be any intention on the part of the accused-appellant to commit the offence. He has therefore prayed that this appeal may be allowed and accused- appellant may be acquitted of offence alleged against her in this case.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the appeal and submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of murder of deceased Monika, a minor girl of aged 8 years, by the accused-appellant. The trial Court after appreciating entire evidence on record has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence which does not warrant any interference. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal filed by the accused-appellant may be dismissed.

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and have minutely sifted through the evidence available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:34374-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLAD-198/2021]

10. In the case in hand, as per prosecution story, accused- appellant who was maternal aunt of deceased Monika, a minor girl of 8 years old, has caused her murder by inflicting axe blow while she was sleeping. This incident was witnessed by grandmother of the deceased i.e. P.W. 3 - Badam Bai, who being sole eye-witness is a star prosecution witness. If we examine the evidence on record, P.W. 3 - Badam Bai has stated in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, she was feeding the cattle and Monika was sleeping on the cot; Vimla, the wife of her son Mahadev, hit Monika with an axe; Monika sustained injuries on her neck and face, due to which she died; Vimla ran away from the spot. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the defence but testimony deposed by her remained unshakened. Further, a suggestion was also put to this witness in cross-examination by the defence that accused was sweeping at that time and she attacked her with an axe, which hit the girl but she denied from it and stated that she saw accused attacking the girl and she fainted after seeing it. She did not know why accused killed the girl and what sin was in her mind.

11. It is noteworthy to mention here that P.W. 3 - Badam Bai in her examination-in-chief has stated that after the incident, accused-appellant ran away from the spot. This fact will be corroborated from the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. more particularly her answer to Question No. 4, wherein she admitted that she ran away from the spot. The explanation given by her for running from the spot that she was afraid that everyone would name her [2025:RJ-JP:34374-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLAD-198/2021] does not appear to be plausible because in our considered opinion, if this would have been the reason for her running from the spot, then accused-appellant herself must have appeared in the witness box and established this fact, which has not been done in the case in hand.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that prosecution story has been corroborated by postmortem report (Ex.P/9), wherein reason for death of the deceased Monika has been opined as asphyxia resulted from cutting of trachea by incised wound. Further, the weapon of offence i.e. axe was also recovered by the police at the instance of accused-appellant. As per F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/15), human blood was detected on the clothes of deceased, carpet (Dari) and weapon of offence i.e. axe.

13. So far as argument of learned counsel for the accused- appellant that accused-appellant being a patient of schizophrenia was not capable to understand is concerned, it will be pertinent to note that a perusal of the statement of C.W. 1 - Dr. Rajendra Singh Rathore reveals that he in his statement has stated that accused-appellant was hospitalized in Department of Psychiatry from 07.04.2015 to 11.04.2015. She was suffering from schizophrenia and was not capable to understand court proceedings. But incident in the present case took place on

18.10.2014 and there is no evidence on record to establish that accused-appellant was a patient of schizophrenia and was not capable of understanding consequence of her act on the date of incident. Thus, from the above evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able [2025:RJ-JP:34374-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLAD-198/2021] to establish its case against accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, no error was committed by the trial court in passing the judgment and order of sentence.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present criminal appeal is dismissed. The Judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the trial court is affirmed.

15. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J INDER/35