SADASHIVA DAULAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sadashiva has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Nimar, under Sections 302 and 892, Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life and a fine of Rs. 25 and 8 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 respectively. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge he has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 1st December 1948, in the village Khetia, Maha -roo and his brother Sakharam took their cattle for grazing in the morning. Their wives also went out to work as labourers, leaving in the house their mother -in -law Radhibai an old woman of 70. and Janki daughter of Sakharam, a girl of about 10 years and Pandurang son of Maharoo a boy aged 2 1/2 years. Radhibai who went out to sell fish a little after midday returned home at about 5 P.M. and found that Pandurang was missing. Janki was preparing meals in the house. Soon after the brothers Mabaroo and Sakharam returned home. They searched for the child but in vain They made a report at the police station Khetia at 6 P.M. The police proclaimed by beat of drum that Pandurang son of Maharoo was missing. Pandurang's dead body was noticed the next morning in a rivulet running close to the locality by Gangabai who informed Maharoo about it The post mortem report revealed that death of Pandureng was caused by throttling The accused Sadashiva was arrested on 2nd December 1948, at 2 P.M. Sadashiva showed the place where the Articles were hidden and recovered them from the Gawan (manger) of Fakira at 9 P.M. on 2nd December 1948. He was challenged in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Khetia who committed the accused to the Sessions Court, at Barwani for trial.

(3.) THE statement of the accused recorded in the Panchanama that the silver Articles are hid -den in the Gawan of the Kotha of Pakira which he would recover is admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act. This is a statement which the accused made in the custody of the police and it led to the discovery of the ornaments. Hence, it is clearly admissible in evidence, vide Neharoo Mangtu v. Emperor : A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 220 : 38 Cr. L.J. 642. This statement is also admissible under Section 8, Evidence Act, as it is indicative of the conduct of the accused (vide Section 8, Evidence Act Mt. Jamunia v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1936 Nag 200 :, 37 Cr. L.J. 1047.