STATE Vs. MURLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case I have had the advantage of reading the carefully prepared judgment of my learned brother James. I am in agreement with him that the State appeal should be allowed as against two of the respondents, namely Nathu and Murli.

(2.) I consider it unnecessary to go into the facts of this case in any detail, inasmuch as, all the facts have been set out in my learned brother's judgment. I shall, therefore, only briefly indicate the reasons that have impelled me to agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother.

(3.) A young girl Ram Kali was done to death and the respondents were charged with her murder. The prosecution were able to call at the trial Imirti, the wife of Misri, to give direct testimony of the murder. The position of Imirti was more or less that of an accomplice in the case, so that her testimony could not be relied upon without adequate corroboration. There was a further difficulty in accepting Imirti's testimony without corroboration, because the defence case was that she deposed to in the manner, she did in order to get rid of her male relations so that she could be free to carry on with her intrigues, unhampered, with Kanchan Singh. Although I have been unable to accept the defence suggestion that Imirti had any such intentions or that Imirti deliberately perjured herself with the nefarious object of putting her husband and his male relations out of her way, yet I have taken this factor into account in order to caution myself further in accepting the testimony of Imirti without adequate corroboration. The corroboration which is available on the record to the testimony of Imirti is of a circumstantial character. I shall, therefore, refer to the circumstances which, in my judgment, lent adequate and ample corroboration to Imirti's testimony.