NAWAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Nawal Singh who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that on the evening of the 2nd of July, 1951 the appellant was invited by Amar Singh deceased to a dinner party at the latters house in village Barela. Some five or six other persons also took part in the dinner and all of them including the accused and the deceased drank wine on that occasion. THE dinner was over by about 10 P. M. when all the guests excepting the appellant left the house of the deceased. THE accused however, stayed behind and he aided the wife of the deceased in raising up the cows in her bara close-by. After raising up the cows, the accused come out of the bara and went away towards his house and immediately after came back to the bara while the wife of the deceased was still therein. He told the wife of the deceased that he would drink water and went inside. S|ometime after he was seen rushing out of the house with naked sword. After the accused had left the place, Mst. Sampat, wife of the deceased,went inside and no lighting up a lamp, she found that her husband, whom she had left asleep while going out with the appellant to raise up the cows, was lying in pool of blood. THE throat of the deceased was found cut and he lay dead. Mst Sampat raised an alarm which attracted some neighbours on the spot. Mst. Gambhir, wife of the brother of the deceased who was sleeping inside another kotha, also heard the alarm and asked Mst. Sampat to unbolt the door from outside. THE door being unbolted, Mst. Gambhir came out and, to her as well as other neighbour's who had come to the spot, Mst. Sampat intimated that the appellant Nawalsingh had murdered her husband. A report was lodged at the police station Gangdhar, District Jhalawar at about 8-30 A. M. on the 3rd of July 1951, by Kalusingh son of Hassan Balai of village Barela. THE police station is situated at a distance of about four miles from the village Barela whether the incident took place.

(3.) THE trial court has placed full reliance on her evidence but in view of the circumstances discussed in the judgment of Sharma J. it is not safe to place much reliance on her word alone. It is also doubtful that Mst. Sampat could not hear any sound of the struggle between the assailant and the deceased when she was standing close by just out-side the house or even if it may be taken to be in her enclosure nearby. It is true that Mst. Sampat from the very beginning named the accused as the person who had committed the murder. But the manner in which she has tried to improve upon the story it cannot be said that she is a very reliable witness.