PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 9 February last the deceased a young boy had climbed a fruit tree to get some berries or some other fruits which had grown on that tree. Beneath the tree was a little girl, the daughter of the accused, the respondent here. The little boy threw the fruits down on the ground from the tree above and the little girl picked up those fruits, whereupon the little boy climbed down from the tree and beat the little girl with a cholam stick. She went off to her home and complained to her mother (the respondent) about the beating. The mother then came up and pursued the little boy. Up to this point both the prosecution case and the defence case agree. The little boy sustained very serious injuries. He had three ribs broken on the one side and four on the other penetrating the pleural cavity and causing his death some two days later. The respondent was charged at the Sessions Court with murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The defence put forward by the respondent was that it was true that she pursued the little boy and that he was running away but in the course of his flight he tripped up and fell upon a stone or a boulder well imbedded in the ground and that was how he came by his injuries. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the evidence agreed with the opinion of the four assessors in finding that the respondent was not guilty of the offence; and she was accordingly acquitted.

(3.) This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal. The case for the prosecution was that the respondent fisted, struck and kneed the little boy and was the cause of his broken ribs. The evidence for the prosecution was that after he sustained his injuries, however they were caused, the respondent led the little boy to his home. He was quite conscious then and afterwards for a little time and his mother, P.W. 2, does not appear to have thought that his injuries were of a serious nature. It was not until his death and the post mortem examination that the real nature of his injuries became apparent. But she questioned the little boy and, according to her evidence, he told her that he had been fisted, struck and kneed by the respondent. There are two witnesses in addition to herself who are supposed to have heard the statement of the little boy and they are P.Ws. 3 and 4. The learned Sessions Judge does not believe their evidence and we certainly think that it is open to suspicion. It seems to us very unlikely that they would have overheard this little boy's statement and the evidence is particularly suspicious when it is taken in conjunction with the evidence of P.W. 2 who says that they were not present and did not overhear the little boy's statement. We, therefore, think that the evidence of these two witnesses can quite properly be rejected. Then there is an eye-witness to this occurrence, P.W. 7, who says that he was picking groundnuts in a field and saw the flight of the little boy and his being beaten by the respondent. A good deal of criticism was levelled against this evidence because it was said that his evidence was obviously untrue as there were no groundnuts to be picked at that time. But P.W. 9 says that there was a groundnut crop upon the land. The remainder of the evidence is that of witnesses who give evidence on the part of the case in which there is an agreement between the defence and the prosecution, namely, about the little boy being up the tree and the respondent coming up and chasing him. The medical evidence is certainly far more consistent with these injuries having been caused to the boy in the manner described by the prosecution witnesses and by the little boy himself though it is quite true that the medical witness stated that these injuries might possibly have been caused by the little boy falling down and his chest coming into contact with a stone. But reading the evidence, the plain understanding of it, we think, is that it is unlikely that in the opinion of the medical witness, the injuries were caused by falling on a stone. The reason the witness gives for saying that it is far more consistent with these injuries being caused by blows is that no marks or bruises in the hands or the body were found by him and from this he deduces that" the little boy did not fall. But as against this, there is the criticism to be made that the body was in a decomposed state when the medical witness saw it and there is the statement of P.W. 2 in Ex. B that there was an abrasion on the leg of the little boy. The conclusion we have come to in this case is that upon the evidence the prosecution case was sufficiently strong to justify a conviction for an offence and that it establishes the fact that the injuries were caused to the little boy by this woman.