PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. PARAMANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in this case was convicted of the murder of a boy of 8 years of age for the sake of the latter's jewels and sentenced to transportation for life. There is evidence to show that the boy left his village shortly before sunset on Thursday, April 22nd, in the company of accused; that his body was found two days later in a well near the village with a stone tied to it and all the jewels missing; that death was the result of strangulation; and that accused on the day after the disappearance sold articles similar to or identical with the missing jewels in a village 3 or 4 miles away. It is also in evidence that when questioned by the boy's mother accused denied that he had taken the boy--denial which is certainly false if the evidence of prosecution witnesses 2 to 5 is true.

(2.) We can find no ground for discrediting any of this evidence. The medical and other evidence leaves no doubt that the child was murdered by some one for the sake of his jewels; and although the evidence of prosecution witnesses 2 to 5 as to seeing him depart in company with accused is inconclusive, on the other hand the evidence of prosecution witnesses 7 to 10, as to the disposal of the jewels seems to place his guilt beyond doubt. Two bangles and a waist cord M. Orders IV, IV (a) and IV (b) are actually identified both as among the jewels worn by the child and as part of the property sold by accused, and although the other articles were melted down before the arrival of the police, yet the fact that accused offered for sale five different articles corresponding with the five articles worn by the boy, even although some of them may now be unidentifiable, is sufficient. These witnesses identified accused at a parade held only three days later, and we see no reason to distrust their identification and truthfulness.

(3.) Accused's only defence is a blank denial and he cites no witnesses.