http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. CHANDRAWATI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati               Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal Arvind Kumar,  I.P. Singh  and A.S.  Pundit, Advs.  for  the appellant Dharam Bir Vohra, Adv. for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: NANAVATI, J.      In these  two appeals  the  State  is  challenging  the acquittal of  Chandrawati who  was convicted  by  the  trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC but acquitted by the High Court.      The trial  court had  convicted her  on  the  basis  of evidence of  two eye  witnesses P.W.2, Ram Lalit, aged about 11 years  and P.W.3,  Jagdei, aged  about 7 years.  The High Court on  reappreciation of  their evidence  found that  the witnesses had  made an  improvement in  their evidence  over their initial  version before  the  police  as  regards  the manner in  which P.W.3  Jagdei received the injury which was alleged to have been caused by Chandrawati.  In view of this infirmity in their evidence and also because Chandrawati had taken no  part in  beating deceased  Ranjana the  High Court held that  it was  not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that  Chandrawati entertained a common intention with her  husband to  kill Ranjana.  She was convicted under Section 307  for causing  injury to  P.W. 3  Jagdei  but  as pointed out  by the  High  Court  both  the  witnesses  were contradicted on  these points.   We  are, therefore,  of the view that  the High Court was not wrong in giving benefit of doubt to  Chandrawati as  regards the said injury alleged to have been  caused by  her.   The High  Court has  given good reasons for  acquitting her  of both the offences and we see no reason  to interfere  with the  view taken  by  the  High Court.  These appeals are therefore dismissed.