SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5. 12. 92 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Merta, by which the learned Sessions Judge Merta, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) APPELLANT Satya Narain was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Kamla on 31-7-89 at 9. 00 a. m. in the Nohra of Ram Lal Jat situated in village Arniyala. The facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Sukhdeo Ram, the father of the deceased, at police Station, Padu Kallan on 31-7-89 at 11. 45 a. m. , which led to the prosecution and conviction of the accused-appellant in the present case, are that his daughter Kamla was married to accused-appellant Satya Narain. The relations between the accused- appellant and the deceased were strained and litigations were going on between them but ultimately the matter was compromised between the accused and the deceased. At about 9. 00 a. m. on the day of the incident,his daughter Smt. Kamla went to fetch water from the water-pond in village Arniyala and was returning from the water- pond. When she was returning from the water-pond,the accused- appellant inflicted injuries to Smt. Kamla by a Kulhari in the Nohra of Ram Lal and she was lying injured in the Nohra of Ram Lal. The information of the inci- dent was given to him by Arjun Ram Jat of village Arniyala. The police registered the report and thereafter went to the place of the incident. The accused, by that time, had run away.

(3.) THE evidence of this witness has been challenged on the ground that she is a child-witness and is not a reliable witness as she is interested in the prosecution case and has been made an eye witness to save her father. THE evidence of a child witness can be accepted provided the witness is intelligent enough to give evidence and is nature of intellects. THE trial Court, in the present case, has put certain questions to this witness to ascertain her competence to give evidence. THE ques- tions put to this witness and the reply given by her clearly shows that the witness was competent to testify and is intelligent enough to give evidence and only after that, the learned trial Court recorded her statement. After going through her evidence, we are, also, of the view that the witness is intelligent enough to give evidence. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the evidence of PW. 6 Yasoda can be relied- upon and cannot be thrown-away merely because she is a child -witness.