Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The nature of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the statement of the eye witness P.W. 1 Sukho Bai - the daughter of the accused which is sought to be corroborated from the statement of P.W. 2 Smt, Bakho Bai, P.W. 3 Tota Singh and P.W. 6 Rulia Singh, to whom P.W. 1 Sukho Bai narrated the incident and before whom the accused, also, made extra- Judicial confession. This evidence is further sought to be corroborated from the statement of P.W. 4 Govind Ram, P.W. 5 Pritam Ram and P.W. 11 Diwan Singh, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. P.W. 8 Har Chand and P.W. 10 Het Ram are the, two Motbir witnesses, in whose presence the deadbody and the clothes were recovered. P.W. 7 Megh Singh Constable was posted at Police Station, Suratgarh, who took the articles for FSL examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. P.W. 9 Modi Ram was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at the relevant time at Police Station, Suratgarh, who, in pursuance to the report Ex.P, 14 registered under Section 174 Cr.PC, recovered the skeleton from the escape in the Rohi of village Sidhuwala Khileriya, recorded the statements of the witnesses, got the post mortem on the skeleton performed by Dr. Sahi Ram the Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Suratgarh. P.W. 12 Mr. Mange Ram was the Tehsildar (Revenue), Suratgarh, who held the identification of the clothes and P.W. 1 Sukho Bai and P.W. 2 Smt. Bakho Bai identified the clothes of the deceased. P.W. 13 Mohan Singh was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Suratgarh, who conducted the investigation and presented the challan.

4. The first question which requires consideration in the present case, is: whether the skeleton, which was recovered from the escape of Rajasthan Canal in the Rohi of village Sidhuwala Khilerlya was that of deceased Smt. Mehro Bai ? To prove this, the prosecution has placed reliance over the statement of P.W. 1 Sukho Bai, in whose presence the alleged murder was committed by the accused and the recovery of the clothes of the deceased from that place. As per the post mortem report Ex.P. 13, an incomplete and decomposed deadbody of a female was found there. Most of the parts of the deadbody were missing. Lower jaw was absent, the teeth were absent in the upper jaw, right leg bone near the knee were absent, left leg bones were absent, right upper arm bone (humerus) and radius and ulna were present, rest was absent and the left humerus bone was present but other parts of the bones of left upper arm were absent. The Medical Officer opined that the deadbody was highly decomposed and incomplete and, therefore, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The post mortem report further shows that the mouth, pharynx and Oesophagus, stomach and its contents, small intestines and large intestines alongwith their contents were, also, not present. As per the post mortem report, the age of the female skeleton was between fifty to sixty years. Though the name of Dr. Sahi Ram, who conducted the post mortem was given in the Calendar of Witnesses but he was not produced and was left over by the prosecution. The age of the female skeleton, which was recovered, has been given by the doctor in the post-mortem report as fifty to sixty years while as per the written report given by P.W. 2 Smt. Bakhb Bai, the age of her mother was sixty-five years and her own age was given as forty-five years. Later on, P.W. 2 Smt. Bakho Bai tried to bring down her own age from 45 to 40 years and that of her deceased mother from 65 to 60 years during her examination in chief in order to bring it in the line with the age given in the Post Mortem Report. The deadbody was neither complete nor fit for identification. No clothes were found on the deadbody. Even the skin was not present on the skeleton. It is not the case of the prosecution that the clothes were taken away from the deadbody and were put at a place. According to P.W. 9 Modi Ram. the clothes were recovered from a place at a distance of fifteen feet from the place where the skeleton was lying. These clothes appear to have been planted by the investigating officer Modi Ram ASI with the connivance of Smt. Bakho Bai and Tota Singh because when the deadbody was in such a decomposed and incomplete position then the clothes would have been found, in a turn condition if at all possible, on the corpse it self and not lying at a place. P.W. 2 Bakho Bai and P.W. 3 Tota Singh have admitted in their statement that they came to know regarding recovery of the deadbody from the escape as their village is situated only at distance of two to three kilometers from the place where the skeleton was found, but as per the statement of Tota Singh they did not go to the place wherefrom the skeleton was recovered but instead they went to village Dhandiya while P.W. 2 Smt. Bakho Bai has stated that they went to see the deadbody and at the time the clothes were found on the corpse. At page 28 of the Paper Book, it has been stated by her that:

^^yk'k ds ml le; diM+s ifgus gq, Fks] pqUuh flj ij iM+h FkhA^^ The incomplete deadbody of a lady, aged about 50 to 60 years, was recovered from the escape where as per the admission of the prosecution witnesses, viz., P.W. 8 Har Chand and P.W. 10 Het Ram, casualty the deadbodies used to come in the escape through the Rajasthan Canal. The age of Mehro Bai (the deceased) was about 65 years as per P.W. 2 Smt. Bakho Bai, as disclosed in the FIR. The deadbody was not identifiable and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the skeleton was that of deceased Smt. Mehro Bai.

6. The investigating agency, in the present case, has tried to make the case that the dead body recovered was that of deceased Smt. Mehro Bai by planting the clothes near the skeleton. It appears that the dead body was of some woman which might have come in the escape through the Rqjasthan Canal or it might be of some other lady, but it cannot be said with certainity that the dead body was of Smt. Mehro Bai.

7. The next question, which requires consideration, is: whether the evidence of P.W. 1 Sukho Bai connecting the accused appellant with the crime, inspires confidence ? It is true that P.W. 1 Sukho Bai is the daughter of the accused and, therefore, normally she should not implicate her father falsely in the case. But looking to the age of this witness, which was about nine years at the time of the incident, her immature judgment, untrained power of observation and likelihood of her being easily influenced and tutored, the evidence of this witness requires close scrutiny. Though as per Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, she is a competent witness, but the possibility of her being tutored or influenced by the person in whose company she was living cannot be ruled out. As per the statement of P.W. 1 Sukho Bai as well as the statement of P.W. 2 Bakho Bai, this witness is living with Smt. Bakho Bai and was with her before lodging the report. She is under the influence of her maternal aunt (Mausi) and uncle (Mausa) and the possibility of coaching and tutoring her by these witnesses can not be ruled out. As the children are highly immaginating and can be easily coached, tutored and influenced, therefore, the prudence requires that their evidence should be closely scrutinized. P.W. 1 Sukho Bai has stated that she was living with her maternal grand mother deceased Mehro Bai, mother Smt. Jito Bai and father (the accused) in village Dhandiya and her Mausi Smt. Bakho Bai used to live in village 4 SHPS. Near about Rakhi Festival, on Sunday, in the morning, she, her father Sher Singh and maternal grand-mother Mehro Bai, left village Dhandhiya for Jalalabad, boarded the bus from Jalalabad and reached the Bus Stand of Rajasthan Canal and came down from the bus there. After coming down from the bus, they proceeded towards village Khilerlya by the bank of the canal. In village Khileriya, they took water in the house of one Bagri. That man requested her father to stay at his house as it had become dark but her father told that they would reach the village and after saying so, they proceeded on their way. Her father was proceeding ahead while her maternal grand mother was following her father and she was following her maternal grand mother. In the way, her father suddenly turned behind, took-out the knife and inflicted three four injuries by the knife on the neck of her maternal grand mother Mehro Bai. She started weeping, whereupon she was threatened by her father of dire consequences. Her maternal grand- mother, also, cried but as nobody was present nearby so none could come there. Thereafter her father concealed the deadbody in the bushes and they came to the village of her grand mother (Daadi) at 3 ND by boarding the train from Sardargarh on the same day. At the time of death, her maternal grand mother was wearing white Dupatta, plain Shirt and printed Salwar. She was, also, wearing red-coloured Jooti (Shoes). In village 3 ND, her father and grand mother were talking together and her grand mother asked her father that Jito Bai and Bakho Bai should, also, be done to death otherwise they would implicate them. Some days thereafter, her maternal aunt (Mausi) Smt. Bakho Bai, Mausa Tota Singh and Sarpanch Rulia Singh came there and enquired about the whereabouts of her maternal grand mother Mehro Bai and the disclosed them that her father (accused Sher Singh), after killing Mehro Bai, had thrown her deadbody in the bushes. Thereafter Tota Singh, Bakho Bai and Sarpanch Rulia Singh met her father and her father (accused Sher Singh) admitted his guilt before them by saying that he had committed the murder of Mehro Bai and he be excused. In cross examination, this witness,has admitted that the clothes, which have been producec in the Court, are of back colour while her maternal grand mother was wearing the Salwar which had yellow prints and the Jootis were of black colour but the clothes and the shoes have not been identified by this witness though she has stated that she identified the clothes at the Police Station. She has, also, admitted that these very clothes were these in the Police Station and no other clothes were mixed with these clothes. In the cross examination, she had, also, admitted that from her paternal grand mother's house, she was taken by Sarpanch Rulia Singh. She has, also, admitted that she was taken to Police Station by Rulia Singh. She has, also, admitted that the relations between her father and Mausa Tota Singh were not cordial, rather they were strained. In cross examination, she has admitted that she narrated the incident in village 3ND to all those persons who vised to come to her house as well as to her fellow girls, with whom she used to play. She has, also, admitted that she has come to the Court four-five times prior to that day. Though she has denied that she has been tutored by her Advocate, Mausa and Mausi, but she has admitted that she has been brought to the Court by her Mausa and Mausi. She has admitted that throwing of the deadbody of Mehro Bai in the bushes by her father, has not been mentioned in Ex.D.4 She has, also, admitted that Rulia Singh took her to the house of Tota Singh and not the Police. She has, also, admitted that the clothes of the deceased were shown to her at the Police Station. She has, also, admitted that when she identified the clothes and the shoes of the deceased at the Police Station no other shoes or the clothes were mixed with them. This witness has stated that they left the village on Sunday near about Rakhi festival. In the year 1985, Rakhi festival fell on 30.8.85 and the Sunday near about the Rakhi festival fell on 25.8.85 and 1.8.85 while the incomplete and decomposed skeleton of a lady was recovered on 26.7.85, i.e., one month before this date. Moreover, this witness has stated that her father inflicted three/four injuries by the knife on the neck of her maternal grand mother Mehro Bai but no bony injury was found on the deadbody recovered. Certain improvements have, also, been made by this witness in her statement before the Court. A reading of the statement of this witness clearly shows that she was under the influence of her maternal aunt P.W. 2 Smt. Bakho Bai and Mausa P.W. 3 Tota Singh and her statement appears to be the result of coaching and tutoring by these witnesses.