CHHINDER KAUR ALIAS CHHIPKALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHHINDER Kaur @ Chhipkali and Roop Narayan @ Roopa, the appellants herein, have impugned the judgment dated November 27, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Roop Narayan @ Roopa: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 120b IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 309 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. CHHINDER Kaur Chhipkali: U/s. 120b IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 309 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on April 20, 2002 Roop Narayan administered poison to child Deepu aged 8 months and thereafter Roop Narayan and Chhinder Kaur both consumed poison with the intention to commit suicide. They were taken to the General Hospital Alwar where Deepu was declared dead. A report about the incident was sent by Medical Officer to the SHO Police Station Shivaji Park Alwar. Case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar. Charges under sections 302, 307 alternatively 309 and 120b IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT is well settled that the testimony of a child witness should only be accepted after the greatest caution and circumspection. The rational for this is that it is common experience that a child witness is most susceptible to tutoring. Both on account of fear and inducement, he can be made to depose about things which he has not seen and once having been tutored, he goes on repeating in a parrot like manner what he has been tutored to state.