MT RAM SAKHIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a married girl of thirteen or fourteen, was serving the Court Sub-Inspector of Police one Sudhir Kumar Sinha, (P.W. 1), as a maid- servant. Sudhir Kumar used to sleep in a hut after the earthquake and used to carry the valuables from the house to the hut and from the hut to the house as he himself moved from one place to the other. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 8 February 1934, when Sudhir Kumar was absent from hut on account of Lachmi puja which was being performed inside the quarters, a cash-box containing ornaments was removed. The removal was discovered at 9-30 p. m. and Ramsakhia, the petitioner, her father and mother were summoned, but they denied any knowledge of the box. Information was then sent to the thana on the strength of which a search was made in the house of Jangli the father of the petitioner, and from underneath the ground of that house the cash-box was recovered.

(2.) It was mentioned here that Jangli gave up residing in his house which was affected by the earthquake and kept its door looked up. After recovery the box was found unopened and nothing was missing therefrom. The defence was that the Court Sub-Inspector of the Police was annoyed with Ramsakhia and her mother because they had left his service as desired by Jangli who had forbidden his wife and his daughter Ramsakhia to work at Sudhir Babu's place. The rokhsati of Ramsakhia was to be performed, but the complainant, the Court Sub-Inspector did not like the idea of Ramsakhia going away on rokhsati and so withheld the pay for which the petitioner and her mother left his service one day before the occurrence. It is pleaded that the Court Sub-Inspector being displeased implicated the petitioner and her parents falsely in this case.

(3.) Jangli's defence need not be repeated here because it is not necessary--Jangli not being a petitioner before this Court. The Sub-divisional Officer of Barh, on 10th February 1934, recorded the statement of the petitioner Ramsakhia. The trial Court has referred to this statement as the confession of the petitioner.