Taro and Satpal vs State of Haryana

S D Bajaj, J.

Pala Ram cousin of Laxmi Chand (now deceased) reported to Barwala police of Hissar District in Haryana State on 20th November, 1988, "1 am a resident of Karmgarh. I do labour. Laxmi Chand S/o Sadhu Ram Chowkidar was my cousin brother (father''s eider brother''s son). Lakhmi got married thrice. First two wives did not produce any child and both of them died issueless. He got married third time with Taro daughter of Hari Chand, Balmiki r/o village Badia Patti, 25 years ago. She produced 7 Children in all i. e. four sons and three daughters. The eldest son namely Phul Kumar is 20 years of age. Lakhmi is blind due to illness for the last about 10 years. Taro, is my Chachi (father''s younger brother''s wife) in relation, who is a bad character lady from the very beginning. She has illicit relation with so many persons About 6/7 months back Taro developed illicit relations with Sat Pal alias Ramesh son of Raunaq Chamar, resident of Kanari and Chatru son of Bhag Singh Chamar resident of village Kot Kalan who had been working at the tubewell etc. at our village. Taro often used to go with them for doing labour. Both the persons aforesaid used to come to Taro at the house of Lakhmi due to which their names and addresses are known to me Lakhmi and Taro had a quarrel with each other so often due to their visit at their house. Due to it, Taro had left her house once or twice. About 13/4 months back Lakhmi, Taro and Ajmer Singh younger son of Lakhmi went out saying that they were going to Jagmail Singh r/o Bugana who is (Pali) grazer there for obtaining their share for the sale of goats. After about 15/16 days when Taro and Ajmer Singh, both mother and the son came back to village, I asked about him. She replied that Lakhmi has stayed with his son Jagmail at Bugana and would come back after 10/12 days. When Lakhmi did not turn up even after 15/16 days, I got suspicious. Thereupon I went to Bugana and enquired about him where I came to know that Lakhmi had not gone to Jagnail however, Taro and Ajmar had only gone there. I made a search for Lakhmi in my relations but he was not traceable. Today I along with Raj Kumar son of Jeet Ram, Balmiki resident of the village and Vijay Kumar son of Mohan Lal Balmiki reached village Bapo Patti in search of Lakhmi. We came to know that about 13/4 months ago, the police of Barwala had recovered a dead body with the same appearance of Lakhmi from a pit filled with water near the passage known as Rajliwala. I along with Raj Kumar and Vijay Kumar have come to you at the Police Station and you have shown us a photograph of the dead body, one pair of Desi shoe (Jutti) and clothes whom I identified. The photograph Jutti (Desi shoe) and the clothes are that of my brother Lakhmi Chand. I fully suspect that Taro, Sat Pal alias Ramesh and Chatru have killed Lakhmi to get him removed from their way because Lakhmi used to create hinderance in the illicit relations among Taro, Sat Pal and Chatru. Action may be taken " Formal FIR No 139 was recorded in Police Station, Barwala on its basis at 3.15 p.m. on the same day viz. November 20, 1988.

On being charged with the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for intentional murder of Lakhmi Chand on 20th September, 1988 (two months, prior to 20th November, 1988) in village Bado Patti with Chatru (a proclaimed offender not since apprehended, the two accused in Sat Pal and Taro, both pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 5th June, 1989 learned trial court convicted the two accused of the commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo individually imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 1000/ each as fine. In default of payment of fine each one of the two accused was ordered to under go individually rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Feeling aggrieved therefrom both the convicted accused have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 253DB of 1989 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate, with Shri Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the appellants, Shri J. C. Sethi, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, with Shri D. S. Bishnoi Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the State and have gone through the relevant material on record very carefully.

Prosecution version in nutshell is that Taro accused is a woman of loose morals and easy virtue. Lakhmi Chand (now deceased) married her as his third wife because neither of his earlier two wives had given birth to a child from his loins Lakhmi lost his eyesight nearly ten years before the occurrence. Taro who was working as a labourer at the tubewell with the other two coaccused named Satpal and Chatru developed intimacy with them and started bringing them home for sexual pleasure. Lakhmi Chand took it ill and there was a quarrel between the two spouses on this score on various occasions.

In the month of Kartik, Lakhmi Chand (now deceased), Taro (accused) and their son Ajmer alias Rajesh went from Karamgarh, their native village to village Bugana for collecting sale proceeds of their goats from Jagmail. Initially they went to Tohana, stayed there for the night with Zile Singh cousin of Lakhmi Chand. On the following day, when they were to board the train the remaining two accused i.e. Sat Pal alias Ramesh and Chatru met them at the railway station. Both of them talked to third accused Taro in seclusion. Instead of catching the train all of them boarded a bus bound for Uklana. From Uklana they came to Barwala again by bus. From Barwala to Bado Patti they travelled in a three wheeler. From Bado Patti towards Rajli they started travelling on foot through a kacha path. On the way, they came across a pit full of water and threw Lakhmi Chand therein. While doing so Sat Pal alais Ramesh had caught hold of Lakhmi by neck. Taro from his feet and third coaccused Chatru had put his feet on the chest of Lakhmi Chand and thereby drowned him in the pit. The occurrence was seen by Ajmer Singh alias Rajesh accompanying his parents from Karamgarh enoute to village Bugana.

When Taro and Ajmer came back to Karamgarh and Lakhmi Chand did not return thereto, author of the F. R. asked his Chachi (aunt) Taro accused as to why Lakhmi Chand had not returned with them. She told him that her husband had stayed behind with their son Jagmail alias Maila and would get back after a few days. Pala Ram made enquiries from Jagmail at Bugana and learnt that Lakhmi Chand had not come thereto at all and that only Ajmer and Taro had come. Enquiries made at village Bado Patti on 20th November, 1998 revealed that nearly two months before dead body of an old man was found in a pit Police in Police Station, Barwala showed to author of the FIR and the persons accompanying him, photographs of the dead body which were identified by Pala Ram to be of the deceased. Clothes as also the pair of Juttis worn by the deceased at the relevant time available at the police station, Barwala were also identified by them to be of the deceased.

Eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by Ajmer Singh PW10 reads, "About 67 months back water had come in village Karamgarh due to heavy rain. Myself along with my father Lakhmi and mother Taro, accused present in the Court, had started from village Karamgarh for village Bugana and for that purpose we had gone to Railway Station, Dharodi. We had reached at Railway Station, Dharodi at about 11.00 A. M. The train had come late but I cannot tell at what time it had come. When the train. had not come, my father had asked that we should return home but my mother had insisted that they should wait for the train and go to village Bugana. A railway station official had told us that the train would come late. When the train came, we boarded the train and alighted from it at Tohana. From railway station, we went to the house of my uncle Zile. On the next day morning after taking tea etc. we came back to railway station, Tohana. At the railway station accused Ramesh present in the court and Chatru had met us. Myself and my father were ahead and my mother had talked to accused Ramesh and Chatru. Thereafter, we went to the Bus Stand and boarded the bus for Uklana. From Uklana we had boarded a Matador for Barwala. From Barwala we had boarded a three wheeler for village Bado Patti. We had alighted from the three wheeler at village Bado Patti. Thereafter, we went to the village and reached a canal bridge. There accused Ramesh had folded up his Chadar upto his thighs. Thereafter accused Ramesh had caught hold of my father Lakhmi by the neck and threw him into the water in a Toba. My mother had caught hold my father from his feet and accused Chatru had put his foot on his chest," Assertions made therein are perfectly in harmony with his statement Ex. PN/1 made by the child witness before the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class Hissar under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code on 21st December, 1988 and, therefore, his deposition in Court sounds wholly truthful. Dealing with appreciation of the deposition of child witness their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Suresh v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1122 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, 1990(3) RCR(Crl.) 585 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 1998 .

"Where the case tests only on the uncorroborated testimony of a young boy of five years. it is difficult to sustain conviction. But where there are unimpeachable and the most eloquent matters on the record which lend an unfailing assurance that Sunil is a witness of truth, not a witness of imagination as most children of that age generally are, the conviction can be held up.

Note : In this case the sole testimony of the child was relied upon.

The Investigating Officer has deposed that when be started interrogating witnesses at the spot, he came across Raju who said that he had seen the incident. His statement was immediately recorded. In the Court, Raju has been crossexamined at great length. But nothing substantial has been elicited to shake his credibility,

Note : This witness was only eight years old and his father appeared as defence witness and stated that he and his son were in the house at the time of occurrence. The defence evidence was disbelieved.

Child was relied upon."

In the present case also the eyewitness account of the occurrence narrated by child witness Ajmer Singh sounds all truthful. Relying upon it, we affirm the finding of guilty'' returned by the learned trial court against the two convicted accused appellants.

Furthermore, child witness Ajmer alias Rajesh is the youngest son of Taro accused who in she was taking along with herself all the time. Speaking of relation witness like him in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 S.C. 394 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "Ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person and hence the mere fact of relationship far from being the foundation for criticism of the evidence is often a sure guarantee of truth."

Referring to the observations made by various High Courts in Sonepal and others v. State, 1984(3) Crimes 149; The State of M. P. V. Deoki Nandan, 1982(2) Crimes 317 and Sina Gochhayat v. State, 1987(3) Crimes 66, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence of child witness should be considered with much caution and the court must be satisfied about his truthfulness especially when he remained silent for more than a month. In the present case the child being under the care and protection of Taro accused did not divulge this information earlier under threat from his mother and came out therewith immediately on finding an opportunity to do so failing in his way. Even otherwise also recovery of dead body from the Toba, photograph Ex. P 6 of Taro accused ''with coaccused Satpal taken in village Kalayat, assertain made by Dr. Abha Kulshreshtha PW2 of the death of the deceased being the result of asphyxia due to drowning and the making of an extrajudicial confession of her guilt by Taro accused to Rangi Ram PW 9; all lend unstinted corroboration to the eye witness account of the occurrence narrated by child witness Ajmer alias Rajesh PW10.

Exclusive talk between the three accused at Railway Station Tohana speaks of their preconcert and meeting of minds and persuades us to sustain the conviction of the two accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for intentional murder of Lakhmi Chand on 20th September, 1988. Sentence awarded to the two accused by the learned trial Court is also commensurate to their guilt and we see no ground to tinker with it in the present appeal. Dismissed.