JUDGMENT
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) By this appeal, the appellant Meena is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated the 30th November, 1984 convicting her for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant further challenges the order passed on the same day sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2) At the outset we may notice that the main prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case. As they had resoled from their earlier statements, permission was granted by the trial court to cross-examine those witnesses. According to the prosecution, the only eye witness to the occurrence was Public Witness 8 Munni Devi. In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she had stated that her daughter-in-law, i.e., the appellant herein had murdered her own infant son Ravi, aged 1 1/2 years. The witness in her earlier statement had stated that the crime was committed as she (the witness) had accused her daughter-in-law of having given birth to an illegitimate child. In her testimony, however, the witness denied having seen the occurrence or about having uttered the words imputed immediately before the incident.
(3) The first information report was lodged on the basis of the statement (Ex. Public Witness I/A) made by the husband of the appellant herein. 0m Parkash in that statement stated that he had occupied a portion of House No. 10/138, Dakshin Puri, South Delhi about four days prior to the occurrence. The incident, we may notice is of 31st December, 1982. He was at the relevant time employed as a “torch Man” at Alankar Cinema. He had left his house at about 10-45 A.M. on 31st December, 1982. At about 2-45 P.M. his mother, Munni Devi had come to the Cinema house and informed him that his wife Meena “was causing knife injuries on the person of my son Ravi after making him lie upon the charpai in the room. She further stated that my wife did not stop causing injuries even after she I was forbidden.” In that statement, Om Parkash also referred to an extra judicial confession made by the appellant when he reached the house and found the dead body of the child. He stated “I asked my wife Meena as to who had killed the boy. At the first instance she did not speak but on persistently asking she replied that on morning her mother-in-law, i.e., my mother had taunted her to the effect that Ravi was an illegitimate child and was not born out of the lions of Omi. This hurt her and as a result of it she caused the death of her son with the help of a knife. She felt sorry for it and started weeping,”
(4) Om Parkash was produced as Public Witness 1. In his statement before the Court he did not support the prosecution case regarding the extra judicial confession made by his wife, instead he deposed that “at about 2-45 P.M. my mother Munni Devi came to Alankar Cinema to me. She stated to me and asked me that there was a crowd collected at my house and that I should immediately rush to my house as a new tenant in the house (female) had killed my son Ravi. I informed my superior and rushed to my house. My wife was sitting at the basement of the stair case in the gali at a distance of about one pace. I found her totally speechless (Gum-sum) and her eyes were “chadi hui”. I enquired from her but she did not. reply.”
(5) Thus the most important part of the earlier statement (Ex. Public Witness I/A), on which part the prosecution story revolves, was not deposed to be the husband of the appellant.
(6) With the assistance of Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the State, we have gone through the evidence as well as the relevant portions of the judgment. Mr. Siddiqui frankly concedes that there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. He, however, submits that the circumstantial evidence brought on record conclusively proves the guilt of Meena, the appellant herein. The circumstances relied upon by the learned trial court to convict the appellant herein have been discussed in the judgment at pages 109 to Iii, although not enumerated in the discussion but those can be culled out as follows : (1)”That accused was left Along with the deceased Ravi who was an infant of 1 1/2 years of age and the father of the child had gone to attend his duty at Alankar Cinema”. (2) “It was at the instance of Munni Devi, the mother-in-law of the accused that the information was passed on to Om Parkash, Public Witness I that some new tenant in the building had murdered her own son.” (3) “When Public Witness I reached his house, he found the accused being present sitting outside and on the asking of the witness, the accused kept mum and her eyes were drowsy.” (4) “Thereafter it was revealed that Ravi was murdered and on the repeated asking by Public Witness I the accused made extra judicial confessions which find mention to the extent that the murder was committed by the accused with the help of knife (churri).” (5) That the blood stained knife was concealed in the room itself and was recovered at the instance of the accused. (6) That “not only the blood was found on the sari of the accused but it later on was found on her hand too.” (7) “That blood so found on the sari as well as on the hand of the accused was of the same group which was found on the several articles namely, pillow, bed sheet, razai and so on”. (8) That the blood was also splattered on the wall of the room. (9) That the explanation given by the appellant in her statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code . is false.
(7) As we have noticed above, Om Parkash did not depose to the fact in his testimony that Meena bad made an extra judicial confession. The finding of the trial court that the accused made extra judicial confession to her husband when he reached home from his place of work, is thus not supported by evidence. The other finding that the accused even on persistent questioning kept mum and thus her conduct proves her guilt, is also not supported by any evidence. According to Public Witness I, Om Parkash, his wife was totally speechless and he found her in a dazed condition. In our view the dazed condition cannot be considered to be a circumstance leading to the guilt as in the present case the reaction of the mother was normal, and because of that she kept quiet cannot also be considered a circumstance against her.
(8) There is no doubt that the infant child was murdered in that very room. The injury inflicted was on a vital part and in the ordinary course was sufficient to cause death. The blood splattering on the clothes and on the wall from such an injury which had cut major blood vessels was also normal. The appellant in her statement does not claim that she was never present in the room or had not entered the room after the occurrence. Her case is that her brother-in-law killed the child out of spite. The circumstance of her blood stained clothes by itself cannot from the basis of her conviction.
(9) As we have noticed above, the major two circumstances, i.e., the extra judicial confession and the mother-in-law of the accused having given a taunt about Ravi being illegitimate child, are not supported by the prosecution case at all. The recovery of a blood stained knife from the room where the crime was committed does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the crime; her finger prints were not found thereon.
(10) There is no doubt that a strong suspicion arises in this case against the appellant but it cannot be held that the circumstances giving rise to suspicion are enough proof for convicting the accused.
(11) The result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, as framed against the appellant. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction as well as the order sentencing her to life imprisonment. We are informed that the appellant is on bail. Her bail and surety bonds stand discharged.