RATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th October, 1988, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No. 24/88, thereby holding the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION case stated in brief was that the appellant lived along with his wife deceased Shakuntla and son Lokendra P.W. 7, in the house of P.W. 2 Shivnarain in village Kalukheda. He has a field outside the village, but the same was sold to one Ramesh Soni. The standing crop in this field in the year 1987 was to be harvested by him. His wife and son used to work together in the field. On 20th of Nov. 1987, the appellant left Kalukheda in a bus along with his son and returned next day. It is alleged that the accused appellant had suspected his wife's character and for this reason he was in search of an opportunity to do away with her. On the fateful day i.e. 30th November 1987, the deceased Shakuntla had gone to the field along with her son to wash clothes on the well. Some time in the after -noon the accused also reached there. He picked up a Mogri (thick wooden log used in washing of clothes) and having dealt a few blows, left the place in a bus along with his son Lokendra. His house was closed even on the next day which arose some anxiety on the part of Shivnarain, who went to the field only found Shakuntla lying dead. He informed appellant's brother Kishorsingh who was living in Ujjain. Kishorsingh came in the evening and lodged a report at police out post Pan Bihar. An inquest was prepared, and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On return of the accused he was arrested and on completion of the investigation he was charge sheeted and tried for the above offence. His defense was that he had left for Onkareshwar along with his son and before leaving to Onkareshwar he had gone to the field when his wife was hale hearty. Some one with a view to robe her of her ornaments which she had on her person, might have killed her. He was being falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of U.P.1 has pointed out that where the prosecution case is based solely on the testimony of a child witness, who by reason of his immaturity to understand and amenable to tutoring, it would not be safe to base conviction for such serious offence like murder. Admittedly, Lokendrasingh was with his maternal grand father who had brought him to the court and ever since the death of his mother he was living with them. He has also admitted that his maternal grandfather and mother had explained to him as to what he was to state before the court. His statement was got recorded by the I.O. under section 164, Cr. P.C. He was handed over in custody of his maternal grand father on 15.12.1987. He was twice called to the court for recording of his statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. His statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P .C. Ex. D/2, was quite belated. No explanation is given by the I.O. for this belated examination. The Statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. has not been placed on record by the prosecution.