RANI SARDAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A child of tender age lost his life on 21-10-1990. Rani Sardar, the accusedappellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is alleged to be the perpetrator of the heinous crime of taking away his life and. thereafter throwing the dead body into the river.

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution version which led to her trial is as follows: On 21-10-1990 Repa alias Kalidas (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was playing with three other young children. Two of them, Kinki Sardar and Sakarmani Sardar (P.Ws. 2 and 3) were claimed to be the playmates. The accused came to the place where they were playing and persuaded them to go with her towards a river by holding out an assurance to give them some fruits. In this deceitful manner she took the deceased and the other children to the place of occurrence near river Khadakhai. Sending out the others on some pretext she caught-hold of the child forcibly made him lie down on the ground pressed his neck with her left foot which led ultimately to his death. After being sure that the child had breathed his last the accused threw the dead body inside the river. These acts were witnessed by P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were standing at a short distance. On being threatened by the accused of dire consequences in case of disclosure about the incident they chose to remain, silent. However when the father of the deceased, Banal Soren (P.W. 5) searched for the child, they could not hold the secret any longer and disclosed the ghastly acts to him. Information was promptly lodged in the police station investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was placed.

(3.) Seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case and as indicated above. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were claimed to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Placing reliance on the version of the two child witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge. Mayurbhanj, Baripada found the accused guilty convicted her for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for life. The learned trial Judge with a view to ascertain whether they were able to understand the implications of their evidence in Court had put a few questions to each one of them, as required under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the Evidence Act) and- being satisfied about their competence to testify in the case, oath was administered to each one of them. He found the witnesses to be truthful and placed reliance on their evidence. The judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal from jail.