RUPA SALLRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated in brief. Sambaru Sallra (p.w. 10) had two wives. Sombari (the deceased) was the first wife and Suki (p.w. 4) is the second wife. On 1 -7 -1966 the deceased and p.w. 4 had been to the Bagada of p.w. 10 for doing certain agricultural operations. The Appellant went to that Bagada with a Kati. He dragged the deceased to have illicit intercourse with her. She refused and ran away. The Appellant cased her and assaulted her with the Kati, as a result of which she died. P.w. 4 protested, but was threatened with (sic) consequences. She returned home. P.w. 10 was working in the Bagada of one Lakia. P.w. 4 narrated the incident to her hasholld in the evening when he returned from the Bagada. Next morning p.w. 10, p.w. 4 and some others went to the spot and found the deceased near a stone. There was another stone by her side also. On 2 -7 -1966 p.w. 10 went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 6).

(3.) THE only question for consideration is whether the Appellant killed the deceased. The only evidence available on this point is that of p.w. 4. She deposed that on the date of occurrence the deceased went to this Bagada to work there and her hushalld p.w. 10 was working in the Bagada of one Lakia Soura. After finishing the bath of her child, p.w. 4 also went to the Bagada. They were uprooting grass. The Appellant came with a Kati there and dragged the hand of the deceased and wanted to have illicit intercourse with her. The deceased refused and ran away. The Appellant assaulted the deceased on the neck and the head. On p.w. 4 protesting the Appellant threatened to kill her and her child. When the hushalld returned to the house in the evening, she narrated to him. She was put to severe cross -examination. Nothing substantial was elicited to discredit her testimony. The only contradiction brought out in her evidence is that she deposed in Court that she saw the incident from a distance of 5 to 10 feet, while before the police she bad stated that it was from a distance of 400 yards. This discrepancy does not in any way affect her credibility. The murder took place in the midday in the month of July, and even if she were at a distance of 400 yards the entire occurrence would be visible.