Decided on September 20,1960

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



V.B.RAJU - (1.)The Appellant Bai Khatija widow of Karimad Jiva of Hussenpura who was accused No. 1 at the Sessions trial was convicted by the Sessions Judge Banaskantha District under sec. 302 read with secs. 34 and 109 Indian Penal Code for having murdered her husband Karimad. Accused No. 2 was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.
(2.)The learned Sessions Judge held that the death of Karimad Jiva the husband of the appellant was homicidal that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the motive suggested by them that the statement made by the appellant before the committing Magistrate which amounted to a confession of having committed the offence of having abetted Rahim Taju and Nura Amda in the commission of the murder of her husband was admissible in evidence and that although the blood-stained Lungi had not been produced by the appellant it was recovered from the room of the deceased. This fact according to the learned Judge corroborated the statement made by the appellant in her examination that her husband had been murdered by strangulation. The learned Judge also found that the evidence of Nurmad Jiva and Rahim Jiva to whom extra-judicial confession had been made by the appellant was reliable and amounted to sufficient corroboration of the confession made by the appellant in the statement made before the committing Magistrate. Although the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 2 of the charge of the commission or murder he convicted the appellant for having abetted accused No. 2 in the commission of the murder of the deceased. He however also convicted the appellant under sec. 302 with sec. 34 Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of the deceased in furtherance of the common intention of the appellant and accused No. 2 who was acquitted.
(3.)In appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has not; argued the question whether the death was homicidal or not. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Karimad Jiva was murdered as a result of strangulation has not been challenged before us. The points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are; (1) that the motive has not been proved; (2) that Daud Vazir in whose presence the appellant is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession has not been examined; (3) that Karimad Vazir who is said to have accompanied Rahim Jiva to the police Patel does not corroborate Rahim Jiva; (4) that the name of the appellant had not been disclosed to the police Patel: (5) that in the evidence of the police Patel there is no reference to the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant to Rahim Jiva in the presence of others; and (6) that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in admitting the statement made by the appellant in her examination at the committal trial when no evidence was taken.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.