Supreme Court affirms conviction under IPC sections 302 & 201, orders appellant to serve sentence. Justified delay in FIR.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for offenses under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, dismissing the appeal and ordering the appellant to serve the remaining part of her sentence. The court found the delay in FIR registration justified, the postmortem report supported the murder charge, the circumstantial evidence was strong even without the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the deceased's body near the appellant's house implicated her in the murder.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in FIR registration.
2. Validity of postmortem report.
3. Reliability of extra-judicial confession.
4. Recovery of the deceased's body.

Summary:

1. Delay in FIR Registration:
The appellant contended that the 52-day delay in registering the FIR rendered the prosecution's story unbelievable. However, the court found that the delay was justified due to the appellant's misleading information to the deceased's family, causing them to wait in hope for his return. The court concluded that the delay did not discredit the prosecution's case.

2. Validity of Postmortem Report:
The appellant argued that the postmortem report did not specify the cause of death, thus questioning the murder charge. The court noted that the body was in a decomposed state, making it difficult for the doctors to determine the exact cause of death. However, the recovery of the body based on the appellant's information and the identification of personal articles worn by the deceased were sufficient to establish the murder charge.

3. Reliability of Extra-Judicial Confession:
The appellant claimed that her extra-judicial confession was made under pressure and thus inadmissible u/s 24 of the Evidence Act. The court, however, found that even without considering the extra-judicial confession, the chain of circumstantial evidence was strong enough to establish the appellant's guilt.

4. Recovery of the Deceased's Body:
The appellant contended that the body was recovered from an adjacent place, not her house. The court held that the recovery of the body from a place adjacent to the appellant's house, based on her information, was sufficient to implicate her in the murder.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of her sentence.

---