CHIMA MAHARIYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Barwani in a criminal case in which the two appellants husband and wife were sent up under a charge respectively of murder and under Section 201, I. P. C. of giving false information with the intention of saving the offender from punishment. The former for murdering, by gunshot, one Khandiya Bhilala of the same village; and the latter for falsely informing the authorities that she has killed the said Khandiya Bhilala in self-defense when he tried to abduct her so that he could make her his wife. The husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 3o2, I. P. C. , while the wife has been sentenced to two year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 201, I. P. C.

(2.) THE conviction is based almost wholly on what may be called circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confessions or the statements of one or other of the accused persons before different villagers. The common ground in this case is that the two appellants were living together in their village Mohariya. They do not seem to have children of their own but they were bringing up two nephews, that is, Chema Bhilala's sister's sons? Tarsingh (P. W. 1) and Narsingh P. W. 2, the former about 13 years of age and the latter about 8. On the 6th March, 1964 which was the season of Holi there was. the usual spate of boisterousnesa among these villagers. One of the events of that day was a feast given by the patel. The deceased Khandiya Bhilala had attended the feast: but Chema did not, having given out earlier that he was to go to some place in the Khandesh - an area contiguous to this district; either he had really intended to go away or this was only an excuse so as not to appear impolite in refusing the invitation. On that night Khan diya Bhilala was killed by somebody shooting at him with a gun, a muzzle loader, from the nature of the shot and its spread and the find of wadding in some of the wounds. The corpse was found on the next morning and the villagers informed the police without putting the suspicion on anybody in particular. The place where the corpse was found was about 40 paces from the house of the appellants so that suspicion fell upon inmates of that house though the earliest information before the police was against unknown. In the morning both husband and wife were away: but the elder of the nephews, that is, Tar. singh, gave a story which has been treated as the main piece of evidence in this case. Later on Chema went to his father-in-law's place where already Pasubai had reached. Chema is said to have made a conlession to different people including the father-in-law. Later still, he was found in a jungle near another Tillage and it is said that he told people that he was wandering about there because he had killed a man. The gun itself was found outside the house concealed in a dungheap; on later examination it was found to have signs of having been used sometime before.

(3.) TERSINGH's story was that while he was Bleeping on that night he was suddenly awaken ed by a gunshot. Opening has eyes he saw the two appellants in the house neat the door and talking. Tersingh heard has uncle Chema telling has wife of his having killed Khandiya and requesting her all the same to take the blame upon herself. The boy slept again and when in the morning there was a sensation in the village after the discovery of Khandiya's corpse he told the villagers what he had beard of the conversation between is uncle and his aunt.