Smt. Raj Kumari vs State Of U.P.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2630 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

										AFR
 
RESERVED
 
									          Court No.44.
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. -1818 of 2005
 
Appellant :- Smt. Raj Kumari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Indever Pandey,Anita Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh,Ashwani Kumar,L.K. Pandey,N.K. Chaurasia,Neel Mani Sharma,P K Singh,P.C. Pandey,Rajeev Sahwney
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.

Hon'ble Shailendra Kumar Agrawal,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan, J.)

1. Present criminal appeal has been filed by appellant Raj Kumari against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.1), Agra in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No.393 of 2003, Police Station (in short P.S.) Saiyan, District Agra whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution Story in brief is that deceased Smt. Shanti Devi wife of informant Jaswant Singh (P.W.-1) was living in her matrimonial home situate in village Jajau with other family members including her children namely 17 years old son Neeraj (P.W.-2) and 13 years old daughter Priti (P.W.-3) etc. Her husband/informant Jaswant Singh, an employee of Indian Railways was posted at Bhadaee Railway Station, he used to live in a railway quarter near the Railway Station, Bhadaee, however, his wife deceased Shanti Devi and his children etc. used to live at his parental home at Jajau.

3. Appellant Raj Kumari wife of his nephew co-accused Biri Singh were also living in the same house. It appears that some domestic quarrel occurred on 26.11.2003 between deceased Shanti Devi and appellant Raj Kumari and her husband co-accused Biri Singh. It is alleged that appellant Raj Kumari and her husband Biri Singh poured kerosene oil on Shanti Devi and burned her.

4. This information was reportedly communicated to informant by village folks. Deceased was sent to Sarojini Naidu (in short S.N.) Medical College, Agra for treatment where her dying declaration (in short D.D.) Ex.Ka.-8 was recorded on 2.12.2003 by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (P.W-5), the then Additional City Magistrate (in short A.C.M.) III, Agra after obtaining a fitness certificate from Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agrawal (P.W.-4) the then resident surgeon II of S.N. Medical College, Agra.

5. Meanwhile, on 27.11.2003 the First Information Report, (in short F.I.R.) Ex.Ka.-1 was lodged by informant Jaswant Singh (P.W.-1) at P.S. Saiyan, District Agra at about 8.25pm narrating the entire sequence of events. Deceased Shanti Devi succumbed to her injuries on 5.12.2003 during treatment. A death certificate Ex.Ka.-6 was prepared. Information of her death, Ex. Ka.-7 was sent to concerned police station. Informant also gave information about death of deceased Shanti Devi (Ex.Ka.-2) to Station House Officer (in short S.H.O), P.S. Saiyan on 8.12.2003. Investigation was entrusted to Sub-Inspector (in short S.I.) Srawan Kumar Singh (P.W.-10) who recorded the statement of constable Ashok Kumar on 27.11.2003. He also recorded the statements of various other witnesses and prepared site-plan (Ex.Ka.-17). On 5.12.2003 the case was initially registered under Section 326 I.P.C. which was subsequently converted into 302 I.P.C.. The investigation was handed-over to Sri Dev Singh Yadav the then S.H.O. of P.S. Saiyan. Inquest proceedings were conducted, report of which is available on record as Ex.Ka.-3.

6. Initial entries were made in General Diary (in short G.D.) of the police station, Saiyan on 27.11.2003 in the wake of recording of F.I.R. However, the case was initially registered under Section 326 I.P.C. which was subsequently converted under Section 302 I.P.C on 8.12.2003. Extract of both entries in relevant G.D.s are available on record as Ex.Ka.-12 and Ex.Ka.-13.

7. On 27.11.2003 the injured was admitted in S.N. Medical College, Agra where she was examined by P.W.-6 Dr. V.N. Dev who found following injuries on the person of deceased;-

"(i) Superficial to deep burn with large area of skin peeled off at at many places with smokey blackening of skin. Parts immolated are scalp, face, neck ant. and post asp. of trunk and both the lower limb up to knee joint. Blisters less skin, dry red wounds."

8. It is pertinent to point out here that this injury report was signed by P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh (informant), constable Siyaram and thumb impression of left hand of deceased Shanti Devi was also taken on this report.

9. After the death of deceased Shanti Devi her body was sent to morgue. Postmortem was conducted by P.W.7 Dr. Alok Kumar Mishra who prepared postmortem report as Ex.Ka.-10. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the corpse of deceased Shanti Devi:-

(i)."Superficial to deep septic burn wound present all over body except both legs and foot, buttocks pinned region puss pockets present at places. About 80% burn. Cut open marks present over mouth ankling skull hair singed."

10. On conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-25) was submitted against appellant Raj Kumari and her husband co-accused Biri Singh.

11. The Trial Judge framed the charges against both the appellants namely Raj Kumari and co-accused Biri Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on 6.8.2004 both of them have denied the charge and preferred trial.

12. Prosecution has produced the evidence of as many as 10 witnesses in support of their allegations namely P.W.1 Jaswant Singh (informant), P.W.-2 Neeraj (hostile eye witness), P.W.-3 Priti (hostile eye witness), P.W.-4 Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agrawal of S.N. Medical College (issued fitness certificate), P.W.-5 Sri Ashok Kumar Agrawal, A.C.M.III, Agra (recorded dying declaration), P.W.-6 Dr. V.N. Dev (provided initial treatment), P.W.-7 Dr. Alok Kumar Mishra (conducted postmortem), P.W.-8 Manju (hostile eye witness), P.W.-9 Madhu (hostile eye witness) and P.W.-10 S.I. Sravan Kumar Singh (first investigating officer).

13. Statements of both accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied all allegations and claimed false implication due to some property dispute.

14. Defence produced D.W.-1 Omvati sister-in-law of deceased Shanti Devi in defence.

15. On conclusion of trial the then Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.1), Agra held appellant Raj Kumari guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation by impugned judgment dated 8.4.2005. However, co-accused Biri Singh the husband of appellant Raj Kumari was acquitted by the same judgment. This judgment is under challenge before this Court on behalf of appellant Raj Kumari.

16. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate for appellant Raj Kumari and Sri Ajit Ray, learned AGA for State.

17. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that not a single prosecution witness has supported the allegation of murder against appellant. The main argument is that there is no evidence on record of whereabouts of deceased Shanti Devi between 26.11.2003 to 27.11.2003. It is alleged that genesis of case is shrouded in mystery. Record reveals that deceased Shanti Devi was taken out of the room after breaking upon the door. Dying declaration (D.D.) of deceased is not reliable.

18. Per contra, learned AGA has pointed out that dying declaration recorded by A.C.M. III, Agra is consistent with the rules laid down for recording of such statements. His submission is that a trustworthy dying declaration alone is sufficient to base conviction upon.

19. We have carefully examined all the material on record. It is apparent that no evidence of actual commission of murder is available on record barring stated dying declaration of deceased Shanti Devi. F.I.R. Ex.Ka.-1 Says that incident occurred in the presence of children of deceased Shanti Devi as well as her younger daughter Priti and other village folks, still no one has supported the prosecution allegation.

20. Prosecution has adduced the evidence of fact by providing as many as 5 witnesses namely P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh (informant), P.W.-2 Neeraj (son of deceased), P.W.-3 Priti (daughter of deceased), P.W.-8 Smt. Manju (neighbour of deceased) and P.W.-9 Madhu (neighbour of deceased). Unfortunately, not a single witness has supported the prosecution case. P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh was admittedly not present at the time of incident as he was posted at Bhadaee Railway Station at the time of incident. F.I.R. itself says that he received information of burning of his wife at Bhadaee Railway Station. His evidence as P.W.-1 has reinforced the same contention in para 3rd of his testimony.

21. Jaswant Singh has stated that one Vaymal informed him on telephone at Bhadaee Railway Station on 26.11.2003 at about 5:00pm. Vaymal his cousin gave this information to Station Master who in turn communicated this information to informant. Jaswant Singh reportedly reached his village Jajau on same day at about 6-7:00pm but his wife was not present at his resident but his four children were present. P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh says that his 17 years old son P.W.-2 Neeraj and his younger daughter P.W.-3 Priti informed him that appellant Raj Kumari and her husband Biri Singh (co-accused) first gave beating to Shanti Devi and then poured Kerosene Oil on her body and burned her. Further, information was given by his cousin at about 2:30am in the night of 26.11.2003/27.11.2003 that Shanti Devi had been first taken to Police Station and subsequently admitted in S.N. Medical College, Agra but Jaswant Singh remained rooted to his residence.

22. On next day i.e. on 27.11.2003 Jaswant Singh went to S.N. Medical College, Agra where injured Shanti Devi was receiving treatment. Informant lodged a report under Section 326 I.P.C. at P.S. Saiyan in the evening of 27.11.2003 at about 6-7:00pm. Police has shown the time of lodging of F.I.R. at 8:25pm but this minor variation of more than 90 minutes can be ignored at this stage but one thing is clear that P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh was not present at the time of incident and that he did not meet his injured wife prior to 9:00am on 27.11.2003.

23. The testimony of P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh reveals following things:-

(I) That Jaswant was not present at the time of incident.

(II) That he was present at Bhadaee Railway Station and information of this incident was received by him through Station Master who was informed by one Vaymal.

(III) That Jaswant Singh rushed to his resident on the same day and arrived at 6-7:00pm on 26.11.2003 at village Jajau, P.S. Saiyan.

(IV) That information of the entire incident was communicated to him by his son Neeraj (P.W.-2) and his younger daughter Priti (P.W.-3)

(V) That Vaymal informed him about the status of his wife at about 2:30am in the night on 26.11.2003/27.11.2003.

(VI) That Jaswant Singh went to S.N. Medical Callege, Agra next day on 27.11.2003 at about 9:00pm.

24. Now, we need to examine the aforesaid assertions of P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh in the light of other evidence. Vaymal who reportedly communicated this information to Station Master, Bhadaee has not been produced. Vaymal is the same person who also communicated information of admission of injured Shanti Devi in S.N. Medical College, Agra to Jaswant Singh between the night of 26.11.2003/27.11.2003 at about 2:30am. The absence of Vaymal to that extent is detrimental to the prosecution case but that is not significant flaw in the prosecution case but each assertion of P.W.1 Jaswant Singh is belied by the other evidence available on record.

25. His 17 years old son P.W.-2 Neeraj has denied his presence on the spot. This witness has stated that he was not present in his parental home at village Jajau, District Agra on 26.11.2003. He has clearly stated that he had gone to meet her aunty at village Bhawanpura, District Muraina, Madhya Pradesh. He has also clearly stated that he returned only on 30.11.2003. The interesting thing is that on his return this witness was informed by his sister P.W.-3 Priti that her mother had been burned accidentally. This witness also said that the stove got accidentally exploded resulting in burn injuries to her mother. Her mother was admitted to S.N. Medical College, Agra. Even, if we ignore the communication of Priti to Neeraj, it is evident that Neeraj was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Infact he was not even present in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This witness has also denied that he has communicated any information to his father between the night of 26.11.2003/27.11.2003.

26. Significantly, P.W.-3 Priti daughter of informant Jaswant Singh has also denied her presence at the time of the incident. She has clearly stated that incident did not occur in her presence. She has stated that she had gone to agricultural field and on her return she did not find her mother in the house. This witness further, says that she had left for agricultural field with her uncle Lakhan Singh at about 12:00pm and came back about 4:00pm. Both the children of informant Jaswant Singh, P.W.-2 Neeraj and P.W.-3 Priti have been declared hostile at the instance of prosecution itself. But the fact remains that three witnesses of fact have not indicated any culpability of appellant Raj Kumari in the stated crime.

27. Two more witnesses of fact namely P.W.-8 Manju and P.W.-9 Madhu, both neighbours and witnesses of vicinity, have also been produced by prosecution and both of them have been declared hostile on the request of prosecution itself. Both these witnesses have not disclosed anything to demonstrate the involvement of appellant Raj Kumari in the stated crime. Both witnesses have merely said that they found deceased Shanti Devi in burned condition in her house but they did not see the actual incident. It is true that P.W.-9 Madhu has referred to the domestic quarrels which used to take place between women of the family but there is nothing in their evidence to demonstrate the involvement of appellant Raj Kumari in the stated crime. Five witnesses of facts have failed to show any involvement of appellant Raj Kumari in the stated crime.

28. There is only one evidence against appellant Raj Kumari, i.e. the stated dying declaration of deceased Shanti Devi, recorded on 2.12.2003. Prosecution has said that on 2.12.2003 P.W.-5 Sri Ashok Kumar Agrawal the then A.C.M. III, Agra went to S.N. Medical College and recorded D.D. of injured Shanti Devi. This D.D. (Ex.Ka.-8) is the only evidence against appellant Raj Kumari.

29. It is true that a trustworthy D.D. alone can be used for conviction. It is settled law that a trustworthy D.D. can be made the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration but the Court must be satisfied that such D.D. is truthful. Reliability of the D.D. must be subjected to the close scrutiny considering that it was made in the absence of accused who had no opportunity to test its veracity by cross-examination.

30.	  "In the case of Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1958 Cri. 	     L.J. 106: A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 22., the Apex Court held:
 
(a)	"That it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated;
 
(b)	That each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made;
 
(c)	That it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence;
 
(d) That a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence:
 

(e) That a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character; and

(f) That in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control, that the statement had been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from official record of it, and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties."

31. It is now, apparent that if D.D. is the sole evidence available and that too without any corroboration then it is imperative that its trustfulness and reliability must be established completely. Any blemish in D.D. or the surrounding circumstances will be fatal to the credibility of such D.D.

32. Coming back to the facts of the present case. It is evident that D.D. does not describe the role of co-accused Biri Singh at all and Biri Singh was infact acquitted on account of lack of any attribution. The D.D. merely talks of presence of Biri Singh. It says that kerosene oil was poured upon deceased by one Omkumari. Name of Raj Kumari has not been mentioned at all. F.I.R. says that both Biri Singh and Raj Kumari poured kerosene oil upon deceased Shanti Devi and burned her. It further, says that this fact was conveyed to informant by P.W.-2 Neeraj and P.W.-3 Priti. Both have denied it but in this D.D. the name of appellant Raj Kumari is missing. Learned Trial Judge has tried to wriggle out of this conundrum by concluding that D.D. talks of Omkumari wife of Biri Singh and that there is no other wife of Biri Singh. Therefore, apparently, the learned A.C.M. III, Agra had wrongly recorded the name of Raj Kumari as of Omkumari.

33. Surprisingly there is no evidence available on record to demonstrate that names was wrongly recorded by P.W.-5 Ashok Kumar Agrawal A.C.M. III, Agra. P.W.-5 has vividly described the manner in which the D.D. was recorded. First he took the fitness certificate from P.W.-4 Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agrawal then questions were asked and he wrote down answers to his questions in narrative form.

34. Interestingly magistrate claims to have read-over the entire D.D. to injured Shanti Devi and then obtained the thumb impression of her right leg on the ground that both hands of injured Shanti Devi were completely scorched and her skin was peeling. Now the testimony of P.W.-4 Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agrawal says that injured Shanti Devi was in lucid condition. A fitness certificate in this regard was also given by P.W.-4 Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agrawal. P.W.-4 Dr. Jitendra Kumar Agrawal himself has said that when injured was brought to the hospital, she was in semi-conscious condition but at the time of her statement she was fully conscious. He has further, testified that at the time of recording of her statement, P.W.-5 Ashok Kumar Agrawal, A.C.M. III, Agra and some police personnel were present. No family member was present. However, Doctor has specifically said that he did not invite the A.C.M. III, Agra for recording of the statement of victim. Now if victim was fully conscious as certified and stated by Doctor then the alleged mistake committed in recording the name of appellant Raj Kumari could have rectified. A.C.M. III, Agra might have recorded the name wrongly but this mistake could have been rectified when the entire D.D. was read-over to deceased Shanti Devi but she did not correct it. This discrepancy is very significant and we believe fatal to the credibility of D.D. itself.

35. Another interesting thing is that thumb impression of right leg of injured Shanti Devi was taken on the D.D. on the pretext that it was not possible to take the thumb impression of hand because of burning of her skin of both thumbs but this conclusion of A.C.M. III, does not find support from the observation of another Doctor P.W.-6 Dr. V.N. Dev, who has testified that when injured Shanti Devi was brought to S.N. Medical College, Agra on 27.11.2003 at about 11:30pm in the night she was first examined by him and his medical report available on record as Ex.Ka.-9 was signed not only by Jaswant Singh (P.W.-1) and constable Siyaram but thumb impression of left hand of deceased Shanti Devi was also obtained on this report.

36. P.W.-6 Dr. V.N. Dev has specifically asserted that skin of left hand thumb was not burned. The question is if the thumbs of deceased Shanti Devi were alright in the night of 27.11.2003 then how come A.C.M. III, Agra found her both thumbs completely burned on 2.12.2003? This discrepancy has not been explained by prosecution. We believe that this discrepancy is absolutely fatal to the prosecution case for the simple reason that no other corroborative evidence is available.

37. There is another reason for not believing the prosecution case. The genesis of prosecution case is shrouded in mystery. If prosecution case is taken at its face value then it would reveal that injured Shanti Devi was burned at about 1:00pm on 26.11.2003 and that time Jaswant Singh (P.W.-1) was at Bhadaee Railway Station. The testimony of P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh says that injured was admitted in the hospital between the night of 26.11.2003/27.11.2003 as he was informed by his cousin Vaymal at about 2:30am in the same night. Jaswant Singh himself says that he went to S.N. Medical College, Agra at about 9:00am on 27.11.2003 and met his wife for the first time since incident who had already been admitted in the hospital. This fact is contradictory to the documentary evidence available on record.

38. Medical report Ex.Ka.-9 clearly shows that deceased Shanti Devi was admitted to S.N. Medical College, Agra on 27.11.2003 at about 11:50pm in the night. Interestingly, this report further, indicates that deceased Shanti Devi was admitted to the hospital not by village folks or cousins of Jaswant Singh but by constable Siyaram and informant Jaswant Singh (P.W.-1) himself. Signatures of Jaswant Singh and constable Siyaram are available on medical report Ex.Ka.-9. Testimony of P.W.-6 Dr. V.N. Dev has reinforced this contention. He has testified that injured Shanti Devi was brought to hospital by constable Siyaram and her husband Jaswant Singh. We have already noticed the discrepancies regrading the story of burning of thumbs of deceased but the question is that if, P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh (informant) was present at the time of admission of injured Shanti Devi in the hospital then why has he not disclosed it?

39. It certainly has eroded the credibility of P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh and creates doubt about the genesis of prosecution case. It raises another question. If deceased Shanti Devi was burned on 26.11.2003 and admitted to S.N. Medical College at about 11.50pm on 27.11.2003 then where was injured for almost 35-36 hours? It appears that a badly burned women was not given any medical attention for almost 35-36 hours and still no explanation has been given by prosecution in this regard.

40. The medical report Ex.Ka.-9 raises question about the presence of constable Siyaram as well. If we take the testimony of P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh into account, it would mean that he had lodged report on 27.11.2003 at about 8:25pm. The F.I.R. says that by that time injured Shanti Devi had already been admitted in Agra Hospital. Same thing has been reported by P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh in his testimony. If that is true then presence of constable Siyaram cannot be accounted for. In this connection, in para number 10 and 11 of the testimony of P.W.-9 Madhu is reproduced as below:-

Þ10. 'kkUrh nsoh dks vLirky dkSu ys x;k Fkk mldk uke eq>s ugh ekyqeA 1-16djhc nks rhu ?kaVs ckn ys x;s FksA bykt djkus ds ckn nwljs fnu ;kfu 27 rjh[k dks 'kke ds djhc ,d nks cts eSaus ns[kk Fkk fd 'kkUrh nsoh ds iM++kslh vkSj nsoj vLirky ls ?kj okil ys vk;s FksA fofHkUu iM+ksfl;ksa us 'kkUrh nsoh dks ?kj okil vkrs gq, ns[kk FkkA

11. mlds ckn njksxk th rFkk iqfyl okys xkao esa vk;s Fks rc 'kkUrh nsoh dks ?kj ls iqu% vLirky MkDVjh tkap o bykt ds fy;s ys tk;k x;k Fkk ml le; 'kkUrh nsoh dk ifr ?kj ij FkkA tc njksxk th ?kj ij vk;s Fks vkSj fQj 'kkUrh nsoh dk ifr 'kkUrh nsoh ds lkFk vLirky x;k FkkAß

41. The aforesaid evidence indicates that deceased Shanti Devi was first taken to some hospital on 26.11.2003 and then she was brought back on 27.11.2003 to her residence. Thereafter, the police personnel came and deceased Shanti devi was again taken for medical treatment in the company of her husband Jaswant Singh. This testimony of P.W.-9 Madhu is more consistent and proximate with the prosecution story. It would explain the presence of both constable Siyaram and P.W.-1 Jaswant at the time of admission of injured Shanti Devi and it will also be in consonance with the medical report Ex.Ka.-9 wherein the admission of injured Shanti Devi in S.N. Medical College, Agra has been shown on 27.11.2003 at about 11:50pm.

42. We believe that the entire prosecution case is contaminated with suspicious circumstances and manufactured evidence. We believe that some evidence and events have been invented or manufactured. In this scenario to convict the appellant merely on uncorroborated and tainted D.D. alone is not safe.

43. The learned counsel for appellant has also drawn our attention towards medical documents showing that day after day infusion of fresh blood was demanded by Doctors but P.W.-1 Jaswant Singh refused to make any arrangement for blood. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that failure to provide blood as indicated by medical records infact led to the unfortunate death of deceased. He has further, argued that the first wife of informant also died on account of burn injuries. Appellant Raj Kumari has been implicated on account of family disputes. We do not have sufficient evidence on record to make any observation in this regard but we are convinced that there is absolutely no evidence against appellant Raj Kumari. We also believe that uncorroborated D.D. of deceased Shanti Devi is tainted and not trustworthy at all. We further believe that genesis of this case is shrouded in suspicious circumstances. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that attempt to manufacture and invent the evidence is palpable.

44. Under these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Raj Kumari vide judgment dated 8.4.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.1), Agra is set-aside. Appellant is in jail. She is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

45. Office is directed to certify this judgment to the concerned Court within 10 days. The concerned Court shall send the compliance report within a month thereafter.

 
Order Date :- 24.7.2017
 
Neeraj
 
		          (Justice Shailendra Kumar Agrawal)        (Justice Bharat Bhushan)