SANWARMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts as noted by this Court are that on 24/2/2022 at about 9 PM, it is reported by the neighbours that Geeta Devi (mother of the deceased child) complained that her son was being hurt by her brother-in-law. It has also been reported that on the next day, Vikas (elder son of Geeta Devi) and Pooja (daughter of Geeta Devi) came and told that their uncle (Chacha) along with their mother had killed their younger brother and the blood stained premises was apparent. The information was given to the police, upon which, police began searching Geeta Devi and her brother-in-law Sanwarmal (present appellant).

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that upon receiving information under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, dead body of the child was recovered from the cremation ground during investigation and postmortem was also conducted. He submits that information under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant because the cremation was at a demarcated place and thus, it cannot be said to be an information exclusively within the domain of the accused. He further submits that there were several prosecution witnesses but all the eye-witnesses turned hostile except for PW-14, who is an eight years old child and son of Geeta Devi and elder brother of the deceased. He submits that prosecution has neither examined the mother of the deceased child (Geeta Devi) and nor found her to be involved in the crime, which creates grave doubt in the story of the prosecution. It is an admitted fact that Geeta Devi was living with her brother-in-law-Sanwarmal (present appellant) after death of her husband and no rift or any kind of awkward relationship was reported, which could create a support system to the prosecution story in the shape of any kind of mens rea.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for suspension of sentence and submits that information under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act was exclusive and sufficient to drive the story of the prosecution. He further submits that motive is not required in every case. He also submits that there is an eye- witness, which is PW-14 though he is a child witness but he has clearly deposed that his younger brother was killed by the accused-appellant.