G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11/08/1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 8/91 by which the accused-appellants are convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default thereto to undergo for one month's rigorous imprisonment and both have also been awarded two year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C.
(2.) The contents of Ex.P.20 F.I.R. No.328 dated 17.10.1990 reads as under:- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the witnesses of the prosecution except PW.1 Smt. Gulab Kaur have become hostile, so far as testimony of Smt. Gulab Kaur is concerned, it is also not reliable because a real mother cannot keep alleged assassination of her own son concealed for days together, initially morgue against unknown was registered and subsequently a false story was invented through PW.1 Gulab Kaur, it is quite unnatural that a mother, whose own son is allegedly taken away in a suspicious way with some ulterior motive to be harmed or eliminated, would not raise alarm, rescue or resist the killing of her own son, from the clutches of deceased's wife or his son, motive of the offence has also not been established, prosecution has failed to establish as to what was the "reason and motive" behind the alleged murder, which is a paramount consideration for cases relating to murder. A mother, who observed that after untoward body of his son is thrown in water pond, would certainly cry and after witnessing the occurrence, would rush to her own home and convey the crime to rest of the family members, disclosing the names of wrong doers, but nothing of this kind has taken place, which makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful and a mother will never conceal murder of his own son for days together, moreover, all the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the version of the prosecution, attitude of Smt. Gulab Kaur has also remained highly unnatural and doubtful, so her testimony cannot be a reason to convict the accused persons, the findings of learned trial Court are not sustainable, so appeal be allowed and the findings of learned trial Court be quashed. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor has contended that there is no abnormality or unnatural conduct on the part of Smt. Gulab Kaur, she was under shock, when she witnessed killing of her own son by her daughter-in-law and grand son, son of the deceased, she became nervous, so she went to the house of her daughter under psychological trauma and fear hence she could not convey the incident of killing to anybody, but when she gathered information about the same that her son is no more from his son-in-law, then she disclosed everything truthfully and her police statements recorded under Section 161, as well as, statements recorded under Section 164 and statements made during the trial are unaltered and are corroborative, so there is no error in the findings of the learned trial Court. Appeal deserves to be dismissed, so it be dismissed.;