M.C. Jain, J.
1. The appellant Mst. Hangami was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, for having murdered her husband Heera on the night intervening 1-11-1976 and 2-11 1976 at his house situated at village Gogunda with grinding stone and Halwani. Bhera, the elder brother of the deceased lodged a verbal report (Ex. P/22) at the police station, Gogunda, on the next day, that is, on 2 11-1976 at 12.00 noon to the effect that Heera's mother in law Mst. Kanku and his wife Mst.Hangami came to his house in the night and awoke him up Mst. Kanku told that his brother Heera has died. Thereupon he required as to how died. Then Mst. Kanku asked him to accompany. Thereafter, Bhera along with Narulal vistited the house of Heera, where they found Heera lying dead near the oven bleeding from head & mouth and by the side of his deadbody, broken pieces of the grinding stones were lying Mst. Hangami was asked. Thereupon she stated that her husband himself threw the grinding stone on his head in the night, whereby he died. On this report, the proceedings under Section 174, Cr. PC were initiated, Bherulal (PW. 14), Incharge Publice Station, Gogunda, had received an oral information at about 4.14, p.m. which was recorded by him in the Rojnamcha Thereafter he visited the spot and prepared the t anchanama Ex. P.10. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Shri Surendra Singh (PW. 9), who had found 21 injuries on the person of the deceased and according to him the deceased died due to head injury, as there was fracture of frontal bone. PW. 14 also prepared the site plan (Ex P/12) and site notes - (Ex. P/11). Investigation was conducted by Shri Udai Singh, Dy. S.P., a id, he also associated with him in the conduct of investigation. He found four stones of the grinding stone, two blood stained gunny bags, two blood stained Pagris, one blood staintd brass Chari, Some other articles Were also found al the spot, which had been taken into custody, reference thereof has been given in Ex. P/11. A blood stained left foot print was also found at the spot, was preserved and a photographs thereof was taken after calling the photogarpher from Jaipur. Thereafter the blood on that foot-print was soaked in a wet blotting paper, which is Ex. 15. The blood stained shirt of the deceased was also seized by memo Ex. P/16. On 2-11-1975 Mst. Hangami was arrested vide memo Ex. P/13. Her Blouse (Art. 16), Lehanga Art 17) and Sari (Ex. 18) Were found stained with blood, so they were also seized The blood stained clothes of the accused and the blood stained clothes of the deceased found at I the spot were all packed and sealed and were sent for chemical examination. Blood stained earth recovered from the spot and blotting paper were also sent for chemical examination. The chemical examination report revealed that blood was positive on the clothes of the accused, as well as the clothes of the deceased and also on the blood stained earth recovered from the spot and in the blotting paper, on Serologist examination it was found that all the three clothes of the accused were stained with human blood, but the human blood found on them, was not sufficient for test. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was committed for trial to the I Court of Sessions Udaipur. 1 he charge under Section 302, IPC was read over I to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At I, the trial the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. In his statement 1. the accused detied the entire prosecution case. No evidence was led in deference. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC, in Convicted her for the said offence and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. The learned sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of the solitary eye witness Mst. Sbanti (PW. 4) aged 9 years (daughter HI of the deceased) and also on the evidence relating to extra judicial confession consisting of the parents of the accused, namely Lalu (PW. 2) father of the accused and Mst. Kanku (PW. 3) mother of the accused and corroboration Was further sought from the statements of Gordhan Lal(PW. 7) Reliance has further been placed on the circumstances that the blood stained left foot-print found on the spot, was that of the accused. Her three clothes were also found stained with human blood. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appellant was found guilty of the offence of murder.
2. We have heared Shri S.D Vyas, learned Amicus Curiae, for the accused-appellants, and Shri Niyazuddin Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State, and we have perused of the record the case.
3. Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, pointed out certain infirmities in the statement of Mst. 'Shanti (PW. 4). He submitted that Bhera, the elder brother of the deceased (PW. 5) does not support the version of Mst. Shanti. According to Shanti, she narrated the entire occurrence to Bhera. but it does not find mention is the report lodged by Bhera. Nor Bhera mentioned this fact in this statement that any occurrence was divulged by Mst. Shanti to him On the contrary hehas stated that Shanti did not tell any thing to him. Another infirmity, which was pointed out in her statement, is that in cross-examination first she stated that her mother lighted the lamp and it is in the light of the lamp that she could observe the occurrence. Immediately following she stated that the lamp was lighted after the death of her father. If the lamp was lighted after the death of her father it was not possible for her to have observed the occurrence in the darkness as according to her it was only in the light that she Could witness the occurrence and a farther infirmity has been pointed out that what ever she stated, she has stated on being asked so by the Police.
4. We have considered over the aforesaid infirmities pointed by Shri Vyas. We are evaluating the evidence of a witness aged about 9 years and hailing-from a village. With what we are impressed and which factor cannot be ignored, is that her presence at the spot is natural. She was sleeping hardly at a distance 5' to 7' in the Ora. When such an event had happened in the house, in which Mst. Shanti was sleeping, then it was natural for her to have got up and observed the occurrence. It is not a case of single blow. The deceased had as many as 21 injuries on his person. The deceased must have screamed after having sustained one or two blows and his screaming must have awakened Mst. Shanti appears to be natural and a true statement, when Mst. Shanti states that the police wanted her to speak so. But on that basis it cannot be said that the entire statement she had given is a tutored one. The manner, in which she had narrated the occurrence, inspires confidence aid it carries the convincing impression that she has deposed on the basis of the what she had actually observed. As regards the sequence of burning of lamp is concerned, it may be that she might have faultered. Besides that, it cannot be taken that there was such a darkness, in which it was not possible for her to have observed the giving of blows by her mother to her father. In cross-examination it has not been put to her that there was such a darkness, in which without light it was not possible for her to have seen the occurrence. As regards Bhera's version in not supporting Mst. Shanti is concerned, it may be mentioned that Bhera being the elder brother of the deceased might have concealed the truth and so did not mention the name of Mst. Shanti in the report, lodged by him, and, did not corroborate her in his statement with the statement of Mst, Shanti. Tnus, the above infirmities, as we have considered above, do not appear to be such, on the basis of which the statement of Mst. Shanti can be rendered incredible pr worth rejection. Rather the circumstances corroborate her ocular testimony in as mueh as the stones of the grinder were found at The spot and the Halwani was also found at the spot, which according to the Investigating Officer, were stained with blood. But so far as the presence of the blood on them is concerned, that circumstance cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that it appear that the same have not been sent for chemical examination. The presence of the four pieces of grinding stone and Halwani, lends assurance in the truthful nature of the statement of Mst. Shanti.
5. The next most material evidence in the case is the evidence relating to extra judicial confession. We may emphasize that even when the ocular testimony of Mst. Shanti is excluded from consideration, still the evidence relating to extra judicial confession in the present case is so convincing that that can be made the sole basis for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. The witnesses deposing the extra judicial confession, are none else, Other than the father and the mother of the accused appellant. The accused-appellant after the occurrence went to her parents' house in the same village Gogunda and blurted out that she had killed her husband. Lalu, the father of the appellant, has deposed that when the appellant came to this house, he asked her as to how she had come. In reply to this question the appellant told that she has killed her husband. There upon he told her not to show her face and to go away Mst. Kanku (PW. 3), the mother of the appellant, has also deposed that Hangarni gave a call. Thereupon, she opened the door. She and her husband woke up. Hangami entered into the house and told her that she had killed her husband. There upon her husband told Mst. Hangami to go away and that she is not of any use to him and he also asked Mst. Kanku not to accompany her. Outside the house Gocdhan Lal (PW. 7), was standing. Hangami told him to accompany her to bury the dead body of Heera in a pit. Thereupon, Mst. Kanku told her first to go to Bhera, her Jeth. Thereupon they went to Bhera, Nothing has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses, which may in any way affect their testimony. On the contrary their cross-examination further strengihens what they have stated in their examination-in-chief. Mst. Kanku in her cross-examination stated that Hangami told her that she had killed her husband and it is a truth. Some corroboration can also be sought from the statement of Cordban Lal (PW. 7), though he has not stated categorically that confession was made before him. According to him, Hangami told that her husband had died, He inquired from him as to how he died. Thereupon, she first told that he 'came drunk and thereafter he flied a stone on his head, whereby he died, Thereupon, he expressed that it is not possible and she should state the truth. Then she expressed that whatever has taken place. Now he should help her, and she wanted that the dead body of her husband may be thrown in the pit, but he refused. The manner, in which she expressed before Gordhan Lal (PW. 7), is also a pointer to the truthful version given by her patents, else she would not have asked Gordhan Lal (PW. 7) to have thrown the dead body in the pit. As already stated PW. 7 Gordhan Lal statement has only a little concborative value. However, it shows the conduct of the appellant, but so far as the statements of Lalu and Mst. Kanku are concerned we find them quite convincing and implicit reliance, in our opinion, can be placed en them.
6. Besides the above evidence, there are some cirucmstances as well which are proved beyond doubt by the prosecution, which further lend assurance regarding the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the offence. All the clothes, which the appellant was wearing, namely, Blouse. Lebanga and Sari were found stained with human blood, of which no explanation has been offered. On the contrary, she has simply pleaded ignorance, when a question was put to her that her clothes were found stained with blood.
7. As regards the circumstance of blood stained foot print we are of the opinion that that circumstance is not a circumstance, which should be employed against the accused. The appellant being the wife of the deceased, could be near to the deceased and on the blood, it is possible that she might have walked over. But as to how her clothes got stains of human blood it was necessary for her to have explained the same. Her silence on that question is certainly the circumstance, which can be employed against her. This circumstance is certainly a corroborative piece of circumstance, if read along with the ocular evidence and the evidence relating to the extra judicial confession. In view of the ocular evidence and the evidence relating to extra judicial confession and the circumstance of the recovery of blood stained clothes of the occused from her person, it is amply proved that the appellant caused the murder of her husband Heera.
8. Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that according to the Doctor the deceased died on account of the head injury and the Doctor has not stated that the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The genesis of the occurrence has not come on record Some thing must have taken place before the occurrence, which ultimately culminated in inflicting of blows. No intention should be attributed to the appellant to cause the death of the deceased, so the appellant may not be held guilty of the offence of murder. She can be at the most found guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part I, IPC and she had remained in custody for about seven years.
9. We do not find any force in the above submission of Mr. Vyas. The deceased sustained 21 injuries. There was a fracture of frontal bone and there were, however, fractures of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs. The frontal bone was fractured over the right eye brow and was of comminuted type. There were lacerated wounds not only on the frontal bone, but also on the right side of the occipital bone, left temporal bone and right cheek. There were, as many as eight bruises covering the entire front portion of the chest. There were two incised wounds, besides six lacerated wounds. Looking to the number and nature of the injuries and the weapon of the offence, that is, grinding stone, the intention of the appellant is manifest and it can be found that inflicting blows the intention of the appellant was to cause the death of the deceased. In our opinion, the appellant has been rightly convicted of the offence under Section 302, IPC.
10. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal, so it is hereby dismissed.