- (1.) This jail appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no.2, Firozabad in S.T. no. 106 of 2010 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 304(II) IPC for 10 years R.I, with fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of 6 months. Brief facts are as under: - A written report dated 27.6.2010 (Exbt-Ka-1) lodged by Pappu (PW-1) alleged that there was an illicit relationship between his sister-in-law, the appellant, with co-accused Satish Yadav, that they often used to meet each other in the absence of his brother Mahesh, who knew of the relationship between the two, despite a request made by him and his brother, the appellant did not mend her conduct, on the intervening night of 26/27.6.2010 around 2:00 to 2:30 A.M, while PW-1 was sleeping along with his brother Mahesh Chand in separate cots in the verandah of the house of the deceased and the appellant sleeping inside a room, co-accused Satish Yadav entered the house, woke up the appellant and was taking her, when his brother Mahesh woke up, who desisted the appellant not to go out with the co-accused Satish, followed by a scuffle between them, the appellant and the co-accused Satish picked up a lathi/ saria, assaulted his brother Mahesh who fell down, upon cries for help, neighbours gathered, but the appellant and the co-accused Satish manage good their escape. PW-1 with the help of neighbours, took his injured brother, on a cart to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. On the aforesaid report, an FIR (Exbt-Ka-6) came to be lodged as Case Crime no. 106/2010 under Section 304 IPC at the P.S. concerned at 8:15 A.M. After conducting the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 304 IPC and the co-accused Satish Yadav was reported to be absconding. The case was committed, charges framed and the case put on trial. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
(2.) The prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of which, PW-1 (Pappu), the brother of the deceased, is the informant, an eye-witness, PW-2 Harish Chandra and PW-3 Dinesh Kumar are witnesses of recovery of memo of blood-stained clothes (Exbt-Ka-2) of the deceased, PW-4 Dr. R.B. Singh, conducted the autopsy of the deceased, PW-5 Rakesh, brother of the deceased, a panch witness, PW-6 is the third I.O, who filed the charge sheet, PW-7 Awadhesh the constable of the P.S, concerned, who registered the FIR (Exbt-Ka-6), PW-8 S.I. Shatrunjan Kumar Singh, the second I.O, and PW-9 H.P. Gautam, the first I.O, who recorded the statement of the informant, prepared the site-plan and the inquest of the deceased. The appellant claimed false implication on account of previous enmity over property dispute with her brother-in-law, but did not lead any defence evidence.
(3.) The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence found the charge under Section 304(II) IPC established and convicted the appellant under the impugned judgment/ order.;