DROPADIBAI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2738 of 1998 took a plea of juvenility. An inquiry was ordered on 19.12.2014. The report dated 3.3.2015 received from the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, confirms that on the date of occurrence, the Appellant was 17 years and 8 months of age, hence a juvenile. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2584 of 1998 is the mother of the former. The former has been convicted under Section 302 IPC to rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in the event of failure to pay which he was required to undergo one year's further rigorous imprisonment. The latter has been convicted under Section 201 IPC to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in the event of failure to pay which she was required to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment, as ordered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 1995, dated 14.10.1998. The deceased Kumari Annapurna Sinha, aged approximately 16 years, was a school going girl. Appellant Tanmaypal, also a school going boy is stated to have been a friend of the deceased. Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P-17, was lodged by Shyam Sunder Sharma stating that he was informed at about 11:45 am by the shop keeper across the road that a girl had been murdered in the lane opposite Gayatri Mandir by a boy, who had assaulted himself also. Both were lying on the road bleeding. He took the boy to the hospital while the girl was taken home by her mother. FIR, Exhibit P-18, was lodged at 14:45 pm by Shyam Sunder Sharma naming Appellant Tanmaypal as the assailant. Postmortem report, Exhibit P-15, was conducted by PW-23 Dr. Rajesh Awasthi who found the following injuries on the deceased:--

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that PW-4, Gulabo Dewangan was not an eye witness as claimed by her. The witness has deposed that the deceased was assaulted in the stomach. The injuries revealed in the post-mortem report are on the back. It would not be safe to convict on the basis of a solitary alleged eye witness, especially if she was a minor and the evidence is belied by the medical report. The occurrence has taken place in a public lane, but there is no independent eye-witness account available and Shyam Sunder Sharma has also not been examined for which the prosecution has offered no explanation. With regard to the other eyewitness, PW-6 Harishchand, it is submitted that he has stated being accompanied by PW-10 Shekhar. But the latter has denied having seen anything. It was lastly submitted that the father of the deceased was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Ik-did not approve the friendship between the Appellant Tanmaypal and the deceased. The Appellant has therefore been falsely implicated. With regard to the Appellant Dropadibai, it. was submitted that the ingredients of Section 201 IPC do not stand satisfied to sustain her conviction. She did not cause disappearance of the weapon of assault with any intention to screen her son and neither did she give any false evidence. On the contrary, she voluntarily produced the weapon of assault when the police came to her house. Her conviction is therefore also not sustainable.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the occurrence was in broad light. Even if the occurrence was in a public place, mere absence of independent witness cannot discredit the reliable eye-witness account given by PW-4, Gulabo Dewangan a class mate of the deceased. Independent witnesses may not be forthcoming for a variety of reasons. Criminal jurisprudence does not prohibit conviction on basis of a single witness account if otherwise the Court is satisfied. PW-6 Harishchand has also given an eye-witness account and no question was asked to him in cross-examination or to PW-10 Shekhar that the place of occurrence could not be seen from the urinal. Appellant Dropadibai picked up the knife used for assault by the Appellant Tanmaypal from the place of occurrence and took it home obviously with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence to save her son. Her conviction also calls for no interference.