Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The post-mortem notes make it clear that the throats of the children were cut. We have gone through the evidence rather minutely because we felt that the approach of the trial court and the High Court was not right. We shall therefore briefly refer to the evidence.

6. There is no challenge to the prosecution case that at the material time, the appellant was staying in his in-law’s house with his children. PW-1 Kajod stated that on the date of incident at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant sent him to bring Kachodi and Jalebi. Within half an hour, he came back. Since deceased Rakesh had high fever, the appellant told him to bring a tablet from the shop. When he came back with a tablet, he saw a crowd gathered in front of his house. The appellant was holding a blade in his hand and throats of Rakesh and Rajkanta had been cut. Rajkanta was in pain. He lifted her and took her to Dr. R.N. Khan, where she was declared dead. He brought her home. He then gave his statement to the police. In his cross-examination he stated that his sister and mother had gone to the market. He added that his sisters PW-3 Suganya and PW-10 Nati had gone to the market and when he went to purchase the tablet there was no one present at home except the appellant and his children Rakesh and Rajkanta. When his police statement was shown to him, he stated that he could not say why the fact that he had seen a blade in the appellant’s hand was not recorded by the police. He then stated that he did not see the blade in the appellant’s hand. He denied that the police recovered the blade from the almirah. He added that the blade was in possession of the police. He stated that when he came back, the appellant was sleeping and there was blood on his clothes. He stated that blood stained clothes of the appellant were seized and he signed on the panchnama. He changed his version and stated that the police did not seize and seal the blood stained clothes of the appellant before him. He clearly admitted that he had not actually seen the appellant cutting the throats of the deceased but he got to know about it from the people. Therefore, this witness is not an eye witness. While in examination-in-chief, he states that he had seen the appellant holding a blade in his hand, in the cross-examination, he denies having seen a blade in the appellant’s hand. His case that his sisters had gone to the market is not consistent with the evidence of PW-2 Banwari, the eye-witness as we shall soon see. He stated that he had conversation with deceased Rajkanta when he was carrying her to the doctor and she named the appellant as her assailant, but this fact is not noted in his police statement. He has denied that blood stained clothes of the appellant were seized in his presence, thus making the panchnama on which he is stated to have signed a fabricated document.

10. PW-2 Banwari stated that on the date of incident his sisters PW-3 Suganya and PW-10 Nati were at home. PW-1 Kajod was also there. The appellant and his children were in the house. At about 1.00 p.m., Kajod was sent to bring Jalebi. He was sitting outside the house. According to him PW-3 Suganya was also sitting outside the house. At that time, his cousin came there and asked for a matchbox. He went to the house to bring the matchbox. From the hole of the door he saw the appellant cutting the necks of Rakesh and Rajkanta with a blade. He then opened the door by inserting his fingers through the hole. He saw the appellant cutting the neck of deceased Rakesh. He went to call his sister PW-3 Suganya. According to him, the appellant cut the neck of Rajkanta while he had gone to call his sister PW-3 Suganya. Both his sisters rushed to the room. PW-1 Kajod also came there. Upon arrival of PW-1 Kajod, he told him the entire story. In the cross-examination, he again reiterated that PW-3 Suganya and PW-10 Nati were present near the scene of offence. They were sitting with him outside the house. Thus, there is a glaring discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 Kajod and this witness as regards presence of PW-3 Suganya and PW-10 Nati near the scene of offence at the time of incident. His version that he saw the incident through the hole of the door does not inspire confidence. He has changed his version frequently. At one stage, he says that when he went to bring the matchbox, he peeped through the hole of the door and saw necks of Rakesh and Rajkanta being cut. Then he says that he opened the door by inserting his fingers through the hole and saw the appellant cutting the throat of Rakesh and when he went to call his sister, the appellant cut the throat of Rajkanta. A doubt is, therefore, created as to whether he really saw the incident. Moreover, if the throats of two children were cut, it is inconceivable that he would not have heard cries of the children. It is also difficult to accept that at that time, his cousin came there to ask for a matchbox and he went to the house to bring the matchbox. This story appears to have been created to establish that PW-2 Banwari went to the house and saw the incident through the hole of the door. In such a situation, when it is difficult to place reliance on the testimony of a child witness, it is necessary to look for corroboration to his evidence from other witnesses. We find that the other prosecution witnesses do not corroborate the evidence of PW-2 Banwari, at all, as we shall soon see. It is, therefore, very difficult to rely on PW- 2 Banwari’s evidence.