STATE Vs. ROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, dated the 4th January, 1964, acquitting the three accused respondents Roop Singh, Mst. Dhapu and Naingir in connection with the murder of one Jugtidan. The first accused was charged under Sec. 302 I. P. C. while the second one Mst. Dhapu was charged under sec. 302 read with sec. 109 I. P. C. and the third accused Naingir was charged under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 118 I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution story as disclosed by the eye witnesses P. W. I Mst. Chhagani, and P. W. 8 Asia is briefly as follows. Chhagani is a daughter of the deceased and was ten years of age while Asia is also a minor of the same age but was a complete stranger and was admittedly engaged as a labourer by the accused Naingir for working at his well on the day of the incident, that is the 24th January, 1963. Mst. Dhapu was the wife of the deceased Jugtidan while the accused Roopsingh was carrying on illicit intimacy with Mst. Dhapu. THE remaining accused Naingir appears to have a well near the house of the deceased in village Kundli, police station Gudaondla. It is alleged that on the 24th Jan. , 1963, at about sunset time. Roopsingh and Naingir accused alongwith P. W. 8 Asia aged about ten years came to the house of the deceased. It was meal time. Naingir asked Mst. Dhapu to make a few 'roties' for them with the flour which he had brought with him. Dhapu was already making breads for the family at the time. Dhapu immediately started doing so. Naingir sat by her side near the kitchen while Asia was sitting outside the door on the Chabutara. Naingir had his food while sitting near Dhapu. A bread or two was also served to Asia. It is then said that after having had his meal, Naingir and Dhapu came out for a little while Asia who was sitting at the door saw them, but according to Asia they had no talk between themselves. THEreafter both Naingir and Dhapu accompanied by Roopsingh went into the house. At that time Jugtidan deceased was sitting near the fire place. Dhapu had in the meantime served food to her husband before she had gone out with Naingir. Roop Singh accused then is alleged to have caught hold of the neck of the deceased with one of his hands and to have pressed his other hand against his (deceased's) mouth. THE deceased was thus felled down. THEn Naingir held both of his hands while Dhapu sat on his legs. THE deceased is said to have struggled for some time but in vain and he was thus strangulated to death. THE version of Chhagni further is that on seeing all this she raised a loud outcry but her mother Dhapu slapped her and threatened that she would be severely beaten if she cried further. According to her, her mother then enquired from the accused Roopsingh whether Jugtidan deceased had been killed to which Roopsingh replied that he had been. THEreafter all these three persons, that is, Roopsingh, Naingir and Dhapu lifted the dead body of Jugtidan from the room and placed it outside the house where a camel was sitting. THEreafter Dhapu asked Roopsingh and Naingir to leave the place, it having been arranged between them that she would then raise an alarm. When Roopsingh and Naingir had left the place, Dhapu did raise an alarm for her son Bhanwaria P. W. 13 asking him to come and see what had happened to his father. Bhanwaria then came from the house of Murardan P. W. 12 which is situate to the north of the deceased's house and where it is said he had been sent by Mt. Dhapu after the two accused Roopsingh and Naingir had come to his house that evening for taking his lesson from one of the sons of Murardan. After the outcry had been raised by Dhapu, P. W. 11 Zordan, P. W. 12 Murardan and certain other persons of their family reached the spot and found that Jugtidan had died. THEy lifted the corpse from the place where it was laying and took it into the house. According to the evidence of Zordan, Murardan's son Devidan had immediately told them that he had seen the accused Roopsingh coming out of the house of the deceased and that thereby a doubt had been raised in their minds that Roopsingh had killed Jugtidan. We further have it from the prosecution witnesses including Zordan that the accused Naingir and P. W. 8 Asia had been sitting at his house while they had heard the outcry from Dhapu and having heard the same, they rushed to Jugtidan's house and Naingir and Asia were also with them. This is in brief the prosecution story as related by the eye-witnesses.

(3.) THERE are certain observations to be found on this subject in the decision of the Privy Council in Mohammed Sugal Esa vs. The King (4) which may be reproduced here with advantage "in England where provision has been made for the reception of unsworn evidence from a child it has always been provided that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particular implicating the accused. But in the Indian Act there is no such provision and the evidence is made admissible whether corroborated or not. Once there is admissible evidence a Court can act upon it; corroboration, unless required by statute, goes only to the weight and value of the evidence. It is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a rule of prudence and not of law. " It is in the light of the law that has been so laid down and with which we respectfully agree, if we may say so, that we are called upon to scrutinise the evidence of the child witnesses in this case.