EMPEROR Vs. PARAM SUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Government has appealed against the acquittal of one Param Sukh, son of Dwarka, caste Brahman, resident of Balhaura in the district of Banda. The charge was one under Section 302, I.P. C, and was in regard to the death of Sub-Inspector Jhamman Singh on whose head the accused was alleged to have struck two blows when he was engaged in making, or attempting, to make a search in the house of a cousin of the accused.

(2.) On 7 November 1924, a report was made at the Police-station by one Bal Govind against Mahadeo, relative of the chaukidar of the village, Jeorakhan. Bal Govind charged Mahadeo with having stolen three ornaments from the person of his (Bal Govind s) son. Jeorakhan apparently arrived at the thana either with Bal Govind or at any rate, at just about the same time and he informed the Sub- Inspector that as a matter of fact the report made by Bal Govind was false as regards two out of the three ornaments, which, as a matter of fact, he (Jeorakhan) had seen on the person of the boy after the alleged theft had taken place. Two constables wore deputed to investigate the matter at the village. We are not particularly concerned any further with their movements.

(3.) On the next day the Sub-Inspector Jhamman Singh, the deceased, went himself to the village accompanied by Ajodhya Prasad, a constable, and arrived there at 11 o clock in the morning. He is said to have first enquired from Mt. Gilli, a daughter of Bal Govind, about 15-16 years of age, and to have been informed by her that, as a matter of fact, only one ornament had been stolen from the person of her brother and the other two ornaments had been placed by Bal Govind in the house of one Parmeshur who was a cousin of the present accused. I may say that there is reason to doubt whether Mt. Gilli ever gave the Sub Inspector any information at all. He had already got this information from Jeorakhan and it is very difficult to believe that Mt. Gilli would make a statement so prejudicial to her own father of her own accord to the Sub-Inspector. It seems much more probable that the Sub-Inspector proceeded to search Parmeshur's house on the information of Jeorakhan or even more probably the Mukhia Sital Prasad. If this be the fact the reason no doubt for putting the words into the mouth of Mt. Gilli would be to give a greater colour of bona fide to the search of Parmeshur's house, and it has this, but only this, indirect bearing on the matter which we have now to decide. It is common ground then that upon information received, be it from whatever source, the Sub. Inspector went accompanied by Ajodhya Prasad, constable to the house of Parmeshur in order to recover if possible the ornaments. One of the ornaments said to have been stolen was an earring that has never been traced. It was apparently indubitably stolen because the boy's ear bore signs of an earring having been wrenched out. The other two ornaments which were supposed to be in the house of Parmeshur were a tawiz (amulet) and a pair of silver bangles.