SARDARA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story in brief is that Kanhaiyalal Periwal, P. W. 17, a resident of Nohar, had a son Naresh and daughter Sarita. Naresh was about 5-1/2 years' old and Sarita was nearly 4 years of age. Naresh was studying in the first standard in Pooranmal Middle School, Nohar. On July 15, 1971, Naresh returned from his School at about noon. THEreafter both Naresh and his sister Sarita went out of their house to play in the lane. That very day at about 3 p. m. Kanhaiyalal's another son Ghanshyam went to his father's shop and informed him that both Naresh and Sarita, who had been playing in the lane at 2. 30 p. m. were missing. On receving that information Kanhaiyalal went to his house. THEre his wife Mst. Godawari, P. W. 1, told him that Naresh and Sarita had been missing. Kanhaiyalal made a search of his two children in the town of Nohar, but when he could not get their clue, he made a report (Ex. P. 34) to A. S. I. Nohar, Gaja Nand, P. W. 23, on July 15, 1971, at 8. 30 p. m. On receipt of the above report the police also strove to trace the whereabouts of the two children. Next day, i. e. , on July 16, 1971, at 5 p. m. Kanhaiyalal lodged another report (Ex. P. 35) with the police station, Nohar. Gajanand, P. W. 23, A. S. I. Incharge of the police station, Nohar, registered the case u/secs. 363 and 367, I. P. C. Soon after the police made a thorough search for the two children at the railway station and various other places. But all their endeavours met with a failure. In the meantime, S. H. O. Khushalchand, P. W. 27, returned to the Police Station. On August 3, 1971, Gaja Nand informed Khushalchand that some foul smell was emitting from the 'tehsil well and that the dead bodies were seen floating therein. THEreupon Khushalchand went to the well. He peeped into it and saw that two dead bodies were resting on the surface of water. Jetharam, P. W. 26, got down into the well. He took two headless dead bodies out of it. One of the corpses was of Naresh and the other one was of Sarita. Memos Exs. P. 36 and P. 37 were prepared in resect of these recoveries. Naresh was putting on a white bush-shirt Ex. 12 and a blue underwear Ex. 13. Sarita was wearing a black frock Ex. 14 and a blue underwear Ex. 15. Four Chhappals of the two children were also recovered. All theses articles were seized by the Police under Ex. P. 41. On August 4, 1971, Jetharam, P. W. 26 and Modu Khan, P. W. 5, again got into the well and brought out joints of bones and small pieces. THEy were seized by the police under memo Ex. P. 42. THE same day one Chhappal and one bag belonging to Sarita were further recovered under memo Ex. P. 44. On August 5, 1971, two skulls and jaws with teath were taken out of the well : vide memo Ex. P. 45. THErafter the investigation was conducted under the guidance of Manphoolsingh, Circle Officer, P. W. 25. In the course of the investigation Sardararam, Mst. Tulsi and her husband Bhikharam were arrested on August 22, 1971 : vide memos Exs. P. 48, P. 49 and P. 50. After his arrest Sardararam furnished information regarding the discovery of the weapon of offence to the police : vide Ex. P. 51 dated August 26, 1971. Pursuant to that intelligence the police recovered the dagger Ex. 11 from the house of Sardararam under memo Ex. P. 26. On August 28, 1971, accused Bhikharam gave information Ex. P. 2, to the police regarding the availability of a quilt used by the accused in the course of the crime. Consequent on that information the police recovered the quilt, Ex. 6 at the instance of Bhikharam accused under memo Ex. P. 2. Tulsi told the police under memo Ex. P. 54, dated August 29, 1971, that she had obtained an iron pan from Dr. Mohanlal. In consequence to that information the police recovered an iron pan from the house of Dr. Mohanlal Narula P. W. 3. Its seizure memo is marked Ex. P. 13. On September 5, 1971, accused Bhikharam was produced before the Musiff-Magistrate, Hanumangarh, for getting his confessional statement recorded. Learned Munsiff-Magistrate sent Bhikharam that day to the judicial lock-up. Next day, i. e. , on September 6, 1971, he was again produced before the Munsiff-Magistrate. He recorded his statement Ex. P. 7 under sec. 164, Cr. P. C. THErafter Bhikharam accused submitted an application Ex. P. 5, dated September 25, 3971, to the District Magistrate, Ganga-nagar, under sec. 337, Cr. P. C. , stating therein that he should be tendered pardon on the condition of his making a true and correct statement relating to the offence. THE District Magistrate, Ganganagar, recorded the statement of Bhikharam (Ex. D. 2) on October 7, 1971. THE accused was later on tendered pardon by him and was made an approver. THE seized articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Chemical Examiner in his report Ex. P. 62 opined that the quilt and the four garments were positive for blood. He could not detect any blood on the iron blade of the dagger, nor from its wooden handle. THE other articles were found negative for blood. THE Chemical Examiner and Serologist to the Government of India, in his report Ex. P. 63, opined that the blood stains on the quilt and their articles sent to him were disintegrated and their origin could not be determined. Post mortem examinations of the two dead bodies were conducted by Dr. Sahiram, P. W. 16, Incharge Government Dispensary, Nohar, on August 3, 197. As the dead bodies were highly decomposed and incomplete, he could not ascertain the cause of death. THE remains were identified by the father of the two children after having seen their clothes. In the opinion of the Doctor death of Naresh and Sarita took place between two to three weeks prior to the post-mortem examinations. Possibly the death, according to the Medical Officer, occurred but to severance of necks and heads from the dead bodies. THE severance could not have been caused only because of decomposition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case Sardara Ram Dakot used to prepare amulets and talismans. He also propitiated human sacrifices for promoting the birth of children. He generally induced ladies having no children to have an irrational belief in super-natural agency to be propitiated with the blood of human beings. Accused Mst. Tulsi had been married to Bhikha Ram some 15 or 16 years back. First, she gave birth to a male child 10 years after her marriage in Ganganagar Hospital. That child did not survive. Subsequently she started visiting accused Sardara Ram. Once Sardara Ram told her to give him Rs. 4/-, in lieu of preparing a talisman. As no money was given to him, that could not be done. Mst. Tulsi was again impregnated. She in connection with delivery want to her parents' house at Suratgarh, There she gave birth to a child. The child, however, could live only for 10 minutes. After a couple of days Mst. Tulsi returned from Suratgarh to her home at Nohar. Accused Saradara Ram told Mst. Tulsi that without amulet or talisman she could not remain happy and that it was not possible that a child would remain alive without it. Sardara Ram also suggested to her that human sacrifice was equally necessary to appease 'kali Devi' and without it her child would not remain alive. In the afternoon of July 15, 1971, Mst. Tulsi took away to her house her neighbour Kanhaiya Lal's two children Naresh and Sarita, who were playing in the lane, and concealed them. Her husband Bhikha Ram, a peon in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar, returned home in the evening. She asked her husband to call Sardara Ram so that human sacrifice of the two children might be duly carried out in fulfilment of his suggestion. Bhikha Ram went to Sardara Ram. Both Bhikha Ram and Sardara Ram bought wine worth Rs. 10/-, from the shop of the wine merchant Sattar Khan, P. W. 18. Both of them took that wine but that much of its quantity was not sufficient to excite them to enthusiasm. They, therefore, purchased additional 500 grams of liquor for Rs. 7/-, from Sattar Khan and took it. Thereafter Sardara Ram having taken a dagger and a patched quilt accompanied Bhikha Ram at about 11 or 11-30 in the night. Both Sardara Ram and Bhikha Ram reached the latter's residence after a short time. Bhikha Ram called out his wife and got the door of his house opened. Both Bhikha Ram and Sardara Ram entered the house. Thereafter Tulsi bolted the door from inside and then she went upstairs for keeping a watch. Sardara Ram went inside the room. Bhikha Ram kept standing on its entrance. Naresh and Sarita were found sleeping in that room on a gunny bag. A lamp was also seen burning therein. Sardara Ram then placed an iron pan having been obtained by Mst. Tulsi from Dr. Mohanlal Narula, P. W. 3, on the quilt which he had brought. He first put Naresh's head on the pan and struck a dagger blow on the boy's throat. Half the throat was cut. Then Sardara Ram pressed the boy's mouth with his hand and he also pressed his legs with his own legs. The victim died. His blood was collected in the vessel. Thereafter Sardara Ram put an end to the life of Sarita repeating the same modus operandi. He then called Mst. Tulsi. He offered handful of blood to 'kali Devi's statue installed on the wall. A handful of blood was also rubbed on the abdomen of Mst. Tulsi. Sardara Ram invoked 'kali Devi' imploring it to carry into effect the desire of Panditani (Mst. Tulsi ). The iron vessel, containing the two dead bodies and the blood, was tied in the quilt. The pan was then lifted by Sardara Ram to be taken to the 'tehsil-well. For half the distance it was taken by Sardara Ram. For the remaining half it was carried by Bhikha Ram. The moment Bhikha Ram and Sardara Ram reached the 'tehsil' well, the bundle was untied and the vessel was separated from the quilt. The dead bodies, along with the blood, were thrown into the well. After accomplishing the object both Sardara Ram and Bhikha Ram returned home. The dagger was taken by Sardara Ram at his house and the quilt and the iron pan were carried by Bhikha Ram to his house. The vessel was washed and after sometime it was returned to Dr. Mohanlal Narula by Mst. Tulsi. The quilt was thrown into dirty water-pit, situate behind Bhikha Ram's house. In the course of investigation Bhikha Ram's sister Mst. Jana and her paramour Mukand Singh were also arrested by the police. After necessary investigation the police presented a challan against accused Sardara Ram, Mst. Tulsi, Bhikha Ram, Mst. Jana and Mukand Singh to the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Bhadra. Whereafter Bhikha Ram was made an approver by the orders of the District Magistrate, Ganganagar. Learned Munsiff Magistrate, Bhadra, conducted preliminary inquiry in accordance with the provisions of sec. 207-A, Cr. P. C. and committed accused Sardara Ram and Tulsi for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. He, however, discharged Mukand Singh and Mst. Jana. Sardara Ram was charged by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, under secs. 302 and 201, I. P. C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Mst. Tulsi was charged under secs. 302/34, I. P. C. and the same was denied by her. In support of its case the prosecution examined 27 witnesses, including P. W. 8 Bhikha Ram approver In his statement recorded under sec. 342 Cr. P. C. Sardara Ram refuted the prosecution story. He admitted that he was an astrologer, but he knew nothing about the insidious propaganda regarding amulets or talisman. He also disowned the fact that he had given information to the police for the discovery of the dagger. He further stated that A. S. I. Prakash Singh had in the past falsely implicated him in connection with the theft of an idol in the year 1968-69, and it is on account of his contrivance and device that this false case has been foisted on him. He further stated that Bhikha Ram became an approver at the instance of the police. Mst. Tulsi also denied the prosecution version. She stated that the prosecution witnesses gave evidence against her because of the police pressure. The accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. Mr. M. C. Jain, Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, found the prosecution story, as unfolded by the approver, worthy of credence and convicted Sardara Ram for the offence under sec. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death. He also found Sardara Ram guilty under sec. 201, I. P. C. for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offences and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were made concurrent. He convicted Mst. Tulsi under sec. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced her to imprisonment for life.

(3.) THE approver says that he and Sardararam took wine worth Rs. 17/- prior to the occurrence. This fact gets confirmation from the evidence of P. W. 18 Sattar Khan. He says in his statement that he knew Bhikharam. On the day when Kanhaiya Lal's sons were missing, Bhikharam came to his shop to buy wine. He first bought liquor worth Rs 10/ -. Subsequently he purchased 500 grams of wine worth Rs. 7/ -. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a large number of people visited the shop of the witness and the witness does not maintain accounts relating to the sale of wine, his evidence should not be held reliable. It is no doubt true that a large number of persons did visit the shop of Sattar, but as an important occurrence had taken place in respect of the missing of the two children in the town of Nohar, the witness could have remembered how Bhikharam had come to his shop to buy liquor during the night. Besides, Bhikharam visited his shop at about the dead of the night, and it is for this reason that the witness could have well remembered the visitant. THEre is no antagonism or animus between Sattar Khan and the accused or the accomplice. THEre is, therefore, no reason why he should make a false statement.