SURESH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case in which a young housewife has been done to death by a trusted servant of the family. Her three-year old son was murdered along with her and her five-year old son was seriously injured. The incident occurred on May 6, 1971 at about 2.00 p. m. in House No. F4/3, Kanoria Colony Quarters, Renukoot, where one Mohan Lal Khetan used to live with his wife Geeta. and two sons Anil and Sunil aged three and five years respectively. Mohan Lal left for Allahabad for some work on the morning of the 6th. His wife and children took their food at about 1.00 p.m. and while they were resting, with a cooler on, they were assaulted as a result of which Geeta and Anil died and Sunil received serious injuries. The only other person who was then present in the house was the appellant, who was working as a household servant for a few years before the incident. His presence in the house at the material time is beyond the pale of controversy and indeed his very defence is that some intruders entered the house and caused injuries to Geeta, her two sons. and to he himself. The appellant received quite some injuries in the incident which led to the death of Geeta and Anil.

(2.) Sunil, the five-year old son of Geeta, was examined by the prosecution as the sole eye-witness in the case and his evidence has been accepted by the Sessions Court and the High Court. Shri L. N. Gupta, who has argued the case on behalf of the appellant with admirable precision and brevity, contends that to reliance should be placed on Sunil's evidence because he is a young child of immature understanding, that no oath was administered to him by reason of his lack of understanding of the sanctity of oath, that he did not implicate the appellant for two days or so at least and that his statement was recorded by the police about 20 days after the incident. Counsel further argues that in the very nature of things, it would be impossible for a young lad of 13 like the appellant to overpower, gag, assault and slay a well-built woman of 30 that Geeta was. The motive of the offence, according the Courts below, was to outrage the modesty of Geeta. It is urged that a boy of 13 could not possibly have entertained any such lewd thoughts. According to medical evidence, the injuries on the person of Geeta and the appellant were partly caused by a blunt weapon and partly by a sharp-edged weapon. That means that two different kinds of weapons were used against both of them and, what is more important, the same two weapons. According to counsel, that is more consistent with a stranger or strangers attacking Geeta and the appellant than with the appellant attacking Geeta. The appellant could not have attacked Geeta with two different weapons and even if Geeta were to retaliate, she could not have caused injuries to the appellant with the same two weapons. The final submission is that the prosecution case is rendered suspicious because the evidence of discovery of the iron rod, the knife, two gold bangles and the cash at the instance of the appellant has been disbelieved by the Sessions Court and the High Court.

(3.) We have given our anxious consideration to these weighty considerations but on a close scrutiny of the evidence and the circumstances of the case we find ourselves unable to differ from the Courts below in regard to the assessment of the evidence in the case. Counsel is not right in saying that the appellant was only thirteen years of age in May, 1971. It appears that the appellant gave his age is 13 during the committal proceedings but the age so given cannot be accepted as correct merely because, as counsel contends, the prosecution did not dispute the correctness of the assertion made by the appellant. There was no assertion in regard to the appellant's age and indeed it was not put in issue at any stage of the proceedings. The point regarding the appellant's age is being raised for the first time in this Court in the form and context in which it is raised by Shri Gupta. The reference to the "tender age" of the appellant was made in the Sessions Court on the question of sentence and not that of guilt, nor indeed in the context that the nature of the offence is such that the appellant could not have committed it, being just a boy of 13 or so. It is not a matter of uncommon experience that the age of an accused is mentioned in the committal proceedings without proper inquiry or scrutiny since, in most cases, nothing turns on it. In fact if the appellant was only 13 years of age at the time of the offence, the Sessions Court would not have failed to notice that fact and it would be amazing that the appellant's advocates in the Courts below should not advert to it, though the minutest contentions were raised in arguments and subtle suggestions were made to prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination.