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

PETITIONER: MST.HARKORI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/12/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, G.R. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati,J.      In view  of the  consistent evidence  of PWs 1 and 2 it was not  possible for  the learned counsel for the appellant to  submit  that  the  view  taken  by  the  High  Court  is unreasonable justifying  for  interference  by  this  Court. Moreover, when  leave was  applied  for  by  all  the  three convicted accused  for filing  an appeal, this Court did not grant leave  to two.  The findings recorded against them are now to  be regarded  as final. It would not be proper now to hold that  evidence of  PWs 1  and 2  ought not to have been believed. In  view of this believed, the learned counsel did not seriously  challenge the  findings recorded  by the High Court. Once  the evidence  of PWs  1 and  2 is believed, the conviction of  appellant will  have  to  be  confirmed.  We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.      The  learned   counsel  for   the  appellant   however, submitted that  now there  is no  one in  the family  of the appellant to  look after  the daughter of the deceased, i.e. her own  grand-daughter, as  both  her  sons  are  in  jail, undergoing the  sentence imposed upon them in this case. He, therefore,  submitted   that  the  appellant  may  be  given sufficient time  to surrender so that she can make necessary arrangements for her grand-daughter. In view of the peculiar facts of  this case, though we are dismissing her appeal, we grant six  months time  to her  to surrender  to custody  to serve out the remaining sentence.