MT. YASHODI Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one Yashodi convicted of murdering her full-grown new-born illegitimate child and sentenced to transportation for life. She is a widow for the last 10 years. On the night of the 29th April 1926 she gave birth to that child after the completion of the full period of nine months. The child was born alive as the medical evidence shows. "While it lay in the compound of her house it was seen alive and crying by P. W.1, P. W. 2. The medical evidence given by P. W. 6 also shows that the mouth, esophagus and pharynx were stuffed with earth, and come earth was also found in the stomach. In the opinion of the Assistant to the Civil Surgeon (P. W. 6) the death was in all probabilities due to suffocation with earth in mouth and back of throat. The sole question is who murdered the child.

(2.) IT must be mentioned here that the appellant had during her husband's time-borne him two legitimate children, and since his death she has had 3 illegitimate off springs. The eldest illegitimate offspring is in the Pandharpur asylum. The 2nd was entrusted to one woman but died later on, and the third is the one with whose murder she stands charged. It is argued by the appellant's advocate that Yashodi was accustomed to the disgrace which was likely to attach to her in the eyes of the public for having given birth to illegitimate progeny so that it does not furnish a motive for her to commit the crime. She was already outcasted by the community. She had no cause to be afraid of it now. Then again the evidence on record shows that one Yadorao who is behind the scene has been planning with the help of his other relations like Rambhaoo and. Balkrishna and partisans like the Patwari, to oust Yashodi from her position as the natural guardian of her legitimate son, and that in fact proceedings are still pending. The Patwari has evinced a very great personal interest in this affair. He went out of his way to make the report personally in the company of Yadaorao (see P. W. 10's deposition). To my mind the evidence of Nathu (as also of his wife Radhi) is highly tainted by his being in league with these people. His over-anxiety from the morning of the 28th to leave the premises and the so-called attitude of an innocent onlooker, at what occurred, which he assumes, and the feigned silence he maintained or his refusal to make any disclosure to his own friends regarding whatever he saw in the night until a new lodging was secured for him and hot haste with which he caused his own furniture to be removed to safer quarters, and above all the trembling state of mind which he and his wife have displayed in order to escape from the blame of being concerned in the murder of the child and the damaging admissions they thus made, clearly point to the hand of Nathu in the murder of the child, rather than that of Yashodi. The Sessions Judge has not given clear finding as to the part this man had played in the affairs. Nathu's omission to accost the Mahars at the very time : when he saw the child crying in the compound and to ask them to take charge of and keep a watch over it until the persons who, in their anxiety to get the earliest news of the birth of the child with a view to prevent it being killed as soon as it was born, had posted the Mahars to keep a watch on Yashodi, came to the scene, clearly shows that trying to depose in the manner he is now deposing as P. W. 1, he is trying to screen his own complacency in the matter. The various explanations he gave for not informing others immediately are on the face of them clear inventions. ,

(3.) THE Sessions Judge has himself disbelieved the prosecution evidence tendered to show that Yashodi pointed out the burial place to the Panchas or to the Police Sub-Inspector. Then again the Sessions Judge does not seem to attach any importance to the unsigned statement (Exhibit P-1) of Yashodi recorded by the Patwari. The evidence of the Patwari and of Rambhaoo discloses circumstances which clearly detract from the value to be attached to it. I ignore it as inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as in the admitted exhortation to speak the truth there is inducement that the deponent will escape the penalties of law and it was made virtually in the presence of Balkrishna (P. W. 10).