YADAV, J. - (1.) IN the intervening night of 29th and 30th May, 1994 at about 12. 30 A. M. Mani Lal son of Bhera Ji resident of village Otiya PW 1 gave a verbal information at police station Dhambola and on the basis of said oral information, FIR Ex. P. 1 was registered at the aforesaid police station. According to the allegations made in the FIR Ex. P. 1 Smt. Meera accused-appellant always used to quarrel with her father-in-law and mother-in-law deceased Smt. Kuri for partition of joint land and animals. On 27th May, 1994 also accused-appellant Smt. Meera quarrelled with her mother-in-law deceased Smt. Kuri and during the course of her quarrel she was alleging that deceased Smt. Kuri was creating obstacles in partition of land, bullocks and animals. It is alleged that on 29. 5. 94 at 10 AM on the date of occurrence first- informant had gone to village Ganji to buy grain i. e. maize. His father and mother were at their house. His brother Rama, wife of Rama and his sister had gone to Sagwada Nursing Home to work as as labourers. He returned back to his house at abut 12 noon with maize grain i. e. Makka. After his arrival at his house, his mother Smt. Kuri went to Jungle to collect fire woods. His mother Smt. Kuri deceased was carrying an axe with her while she was going to Jungle to collect fire woods. After some time his brother's wife accused-appellant Smt. Meera also proceeded towards Jungle to collect fire woods. His father had gone to Jungle with animals for grazing. His father returned with animals in the mid-day and asked from him whereabouts of his mother. The first-informant told him that she had gone to Jungle to collect fire woods. On the date of occurrence at about 2. 30 PM he heard shouting from Jungle to the effect that a woman was murdered. Meantime Ranchore son of Soma resident of village Otiya PW 4 came running from Jungle and told him that his mother Kuri and his brother's wife Smt. Meera accused appellant were quarrelling with each other. His brother's wife smt. Meera accused-appellant had assaul- ted his mother Smt. Kuri with stone who was lying unconscious in the valley of Umariyawali. Ranchore and first-informant went to the valley of Umariyawali with water in a `lota' where they saw Kamla son of Kana resident of Galandar PW 3 and Laxman son of Hakra resident of village Otiya PW 12 were standing. It is further alleged that Laxman PW 12 had caught hold of the accused- appellant Meera whereas his mother deceased Smt. Kuri was lying injured in the valley. It is also alleged in the FIR that blood was oozing out from the wounds of the deceased Kuri. When first- informant saw his mother Kuri he found her dead. Kamla PW 3 told him that while he was going to his village Galandar from village Anpura he saw accus- ed-appellant Smt. Meera assaulting with stone on the head of Mst. Kuri deceased with intention to commit her murder. When Kamla saw the aforesaid incident in the valley of Umariyawali he ran towards the hillock and started shouting upon which Ranchore and Laxman came running. When accused-appellant Smt. Meera saw them she started to run away but on his exhortation she was apprehended by Laxman PW 12. According to the FIR Ex. P. 1, after some time many people of the village Otiya assembled there who sent first informant and Bakhatram to lodge FIR at Police Station.
(2.) ON the basis of First Information Report Ex. P. 1 lodged at Police Station Dhambola, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation a charge- sheet u/s. 302 IPC was submitted by Investigating Officer against accused-appellant Meera in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Shimalwara who committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur for trial. The learned Sessions Judge gave sufficient opportunity to the prosecuting agency to adduce its evidence in support of prosecution story. Prosecuting agency has examined PW 1 Manilal, PW 2 Bakhatram, PW 3 Kamla, PW 4 Ranchore, PW 5 Manohar Singh, PW 6 Mohandas, PW 7 Kuber, PW 8 Lalu, PW 9 Bansilal, PW 10 Dr. Daljit Yadav, PW 11 Gopal Singh and PW 12 Laxman and also produced Ex. P. 1 to P. 18 prove its case. Statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded and she was given opportunity to adduce evidence in her defence. Accused-appellant has not examined any witness in her defence except bringing on record the statement of sole alleged eye-witness Kamla PW 3 recorded by Investigating Officer under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. as Ex. D. 1. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused- appellant convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Sec. 302 IPC for imprisonment to life by his impugned judgment dated 31. 8. 95, against which the instant Jail Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. The accused-appellant is an indigent person. She is not in a position to engage a lawyer of her choice to defend herself before this court. In such a situation, Shri T. R. Singh was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court on 20. 4. 98 to defend her on State expenses.
(3.) IT is urged by learned Amicus curiae at the first instance that the prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to establish at what stage of the occu- rrence accused-appellant Smt. Meera received two injuries on her forehead mentioned in the injury report Ex. P. 14 and also deposed by Medical Jurist PW 10 Dr. Daljit Yadav before trial court. Learned Amicus curiae invited our attention to arest and personal search memo Ex. P. 15 of accused-appellant Meera prepared by Investigating Officer wherein the injuries received by accused-appellant are mentioned which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. According to learned Amicus curiae probability of accused-appellant to have caused injuries to deceased in her self-defence cannot be ruled out simply because she has not pleaded her right of self-defence in her statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. or simply because she did not adduce any evidence to establish her right of self- defence. In support of his aforesaid submissions the learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance on decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Singh and another vs. State of Bihar (1), another decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Ram Singh and others vs. State of Haryana (2) He also placed reliance on decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Laxman Singh and three others (3) The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of learned Amicus curiae and supported the judgment given by learned Sessions Judge. According to learned Public Prosecutor since accused-appellant has not pleaded right of her private defence in her statement u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. nor she had adduced any evidence in support of her self-defence therefore she is not entitled to claim her right of self-defence in this appeal before this court. ;