Vs. State of Rajasthan  INSC 911 (9 December 1997)
NANAVATI, G.R. PATTANAIK
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.
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.
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.