VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Manju against the judgment dated 10/04/2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in Sessions Case No.3/2009(1/2009), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Brief facts in the present case are that a report was lodged by Ganga Ram (PW.10) at the Police Station, Rohat to the effect that his son Satish, aged 33 years was married to Manju for last 12-13 years. Manju was having two sons and a daughter. After her marriage, she started harassing him, his wife and his son. Because of her quarrelsome attitude, the informant and his wife took up a separate residence. On 14/12/2008, he and his son Satish went for loading fertilizer in the truck from Gadhhwada and came back at around 11 p.m. Satish went to his house and asked Smt. Manju to serve him food. Since food was not ready, a quarrel ensued between Satish and Manju. The first informant was returning home after having food at his brother Amraram's house and he saw Satish and Manju fighting with each other. Both sons of Satish slept with him in his house and their daughter was not present there on the day of incident since she lives at Mohangarh with the parents of Manju. In the morning at around 7.30 a.m. when he came out, he saw Satish lying dead in his shed (Padwa). He called his brothers Ghevar Ram, Jetha Ram and Amraram who came on the spot and enquired from Manju as to what had happened upon which she replied that she had killed Satish by strangulating him and started crying thereafter.
(2.) On the aforesaid report, a formal FIR No.284/2008 was registered against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC at the Police Station Rohat, District Pali. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C to the accused appellant who denied the charge and sought trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents in support of its case.
(3.) The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and she was confronted with the evidence adduced against her during the course of trial to which she denied and stated that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. There was no fight between her husband and herself. Their relations were cordial. Her father-in-law Ganga Ram was not on talking terms with her husband and for this reason, Ganga Ram was keeping enmity with her and her husband. Her husband committed suicide by hanging for this reason only. She further stated that at the time of incident, she was sleeping with her kids in the pakka constructed house. She came to know in the morning that her husband had committed suicide during the night. Ganga Ram and his brothers Jetha Ram and Amraram etc. hatched a conspiracy and changed the place of incident and created a false story thereby falsely implicating her. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 10/04/2009. Hence this appeal. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully and threadbare perused the entire evidence available on record. ;