THAKUR PRASAD Vs. GODAVARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order of a Mag. made under Section 488, Cr. P. C., directing Thakur Prasad to pay a sum of Rs. 10 per month to Ramnarain who is alleged to be his illegitimate son conceived through Mustt. Godavari. On behalf of the appct. learned Advocate submitted that the trying Mag. committed an error of law in accepting the evidence of Mustt. Godavari without it being sufficiently corroborated.

(2.) In a case of this type it has been held that as a matter of prudence, if not of law, the Ct. should not accept the evidence of the woman unless it is corroborated in material particulars (vide for instance Vedantachari v. Marie, A.I.R. (13) 1926 Mad. 1130 : (27 Cr. L. J. 1095). In that case Wallace J. observed that where the question at issue was whether a certain man was the father of a certain child, it was prima facie improper to accept without corroboration, the mere statement on oath of the mother who asserted the paternity. Her evidence in such a ease could not but be highly interested, & it would be unreasonable & improper for any Court to act merely on her own statement without some independent corroboration thereof. In the present case it is necessary, therefore, to examine whether there is sufficient corroboration of the evidence of Mustt. Godavari that Ramnarain was the child of Thakur Prasad. It is agreed that the child was born about the year 1941. A. W. 3 Musahroo Mandal stated that Thakur Prasad had kept Mustt. Godavari as his concubine for the last four or five years. The nest witness A. W. 4 Kamleshri Jha stated that he found the woman in the house of Thakur Babu about two or three years back. A. W. 2 Muhadi Hussain, tamtam driver, deposed that he had taken the woman with Thakur Babu to cinema on several occasions. He admitted that he did not know what was the relationship between them. "When cross-examined, he stated that he knew the woman for the last eight years. But he has not specifically deposed that he had seen the woman improperly associating with Thakur Prasad for the entire period. It is true that corroborative evidence may be circumstantial but it must be such a3 to corroborate the evidence of the woman that the child was born of Thakur Prasad. The fact of improper association after the child was born would not be sufficient to corroborate her evidence. There must be evidence to suggest that at or previous to the time when the child could have been begotten there were acts of familiarity between the parties. In Cole v. Manning, (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 611 : (46 L. J. M. C. 176) it was held that evidence of acts of familiarity between the woman & defendant before a time at which the child could have been begotten would be corroborative evidence under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872. In Thomas v. Jones, (1920) 2 K. B. 399 Lord Beading observed that corroborative evidence was required in such cases in order to protect men against wicked or unfounded charges which might be so easily made if the evidence of the woman without corroborative testimony was sufficient. But it would be in a high degree dangerous to attempt to formulate the kind of evidence which would be regarded as corroboration, except to say that corroborative evidence was evidence which shews or tends to shew that the woman's story was true. In Prasad Gareri v. Mt. Kesari, A. I. R. (28) 1941 Pat. 444 : (42 Cr. L. J. 347) Dhavle J. held that the burden was upon the woman to establish the paternity of the child & to show that the person from whom she claimed maintenance for the child was the father of the child; that it was prima facie improper to accept without corroboration the mere statement on oath by the mother who asserted that the opposite party was father of the child.

(3.) In the present case even assuming that A. Ws. 2, 3 & 4 have given true evidence, they do not corroborate to any appreciable extent the statement of Mustt. Godavari that Thakur Prasad was the father of the illegitimate child Ramnarain. It follows that the learned Mag. ought not to have passed an order of maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C.