SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Bom) 594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
J.A. Patil B.B. Vagyani, JJ.
Sadashiv Tukaram Dipake .... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1994, decided on 11/12-8-1999.
Advocates appeared :
P.S. Deshmukh for S.B. Talekar, for appellant.
P.B. Varale, A.P.P., for State.

Headnote:Section 115-Child witness Testimony to be cautiously accepted.-It is well settled that the testimony of a child witness has to be cautiously accepted since children are amenable to the influence of elderly persons in whose custody they remain. Besides, they are likely to be tutored. Where child witness was a boy of 9 years who was taking education in a school and the ocular version of the child witness found sufficient corroboration and did not suffer from any infirmity his testimony was absoluter unimpeachable. 1988 Cri LJ 1301; AIR 1993 SC 65 and 1997 (3) Mh LJ 452 Relied.

       Section 118 and Oaths Act, 1969, Section 4(1)-Child witness Giving oath to child witness-He/she must understand sanctity of oath. Competency of a person to be a witness is one thing and his eligibility to testify on oath is another. Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act all persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. It is therefore obvious that a child who can understand the questions put to him or her and who can give rational answers to the same, is a competent witness. Giving oath to such a child witness, before recording his evidence, however, depends upon the question whether he/she understands the sanctity of oath.

JUDGMENT - J.A. PATIL, J.:---This appeal by the original accused is directed against the order dated 15th of April, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Sessions Case No. 3/1994. Learned Judge convicted the accused of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code but sentenced him only on the first count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence was passed on the second count of the charge.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 6 Laxman is a resident of village Santuk-Pimpri, Taluka Hingoli, District Parbhani. P.W. No. 10 Yamunabai is his wife and P.W. No. 1 Munja, who is the complainant, is his son. Laxman had two daughters, namely, Padmabai and Shobha. Padmabai is already married while marriage of Shobha was settled and it was scheduled to take place in a month or two after the incident. Shobha is the deceased in this case and at the time of her death she was around 13 years of age. She was studying in VIIth Standard.

3. The accused is also a resident of the same village. He happens to be the son-in-law of Laxman's sister. The name of the wife of the accused was Pushpa. According to the prosecution, about three or four months prior to the incident in question, there was a quarrel between Pushpa and Yamunabai, P.W. No. 10. Thereafter Pushpa committed suicide in about a week. The accused nourished a grudge that because of the quarrel made by Yamunabai, his wife Pushpa committed suicide. On one occasion, it is alleged, the accused had even threatened to kill Yamunabai. It appears that, apprehending danger to the life of his wife, Laxman arranged to send Yamunabai to the house of her parents at village Pardi. On the date of the incident in question, Yamunabai was residing at Pardi.

4. The incident in question took place on 2-7-1993, at about 8.30 a.m. On that day, deceased Shobha and her younger brother Munja, P.W. No. 1, both had gone to their land which is at a distance of one or two kms. from the village. There is a cattle-shed in the land. Shobha was cleaning the cattle-shed. At that time, the accused, armed with an axe, was found present. On seeing Shobha, he asked her as to who had killed his wife. Shobha is said to have replied that Pushpa was not killed by them. It appears that the accused got enraged at the reply given by Shobha and immediately he gave a blow of axe on the head of Shobha, who fell down. Thereafter, the accused lifted Shobha and threw her upon a heap of sticks of cotton plants, near the cattle-shed.

5. On seeing this, Munja got scared and he ran towards the village. He disclosed the incident to the persons in the village. It appears that time his father Laxman was not present in the village. Therefore, Munja was taken to the local Police Patil Datta Dipake, P.W. No. 9, to whom also he narrated the incident. The Police Patil, along with other villagers, came on the spot but did not find the accused. It was, however, noticed that the heap of sticks of cotton plants was on fire. It was also found that blood was lying under the Babool tree, near the cattle-shed. It appears that there was no water to put out the fire and the flames had leapt high.

6. The Police Patil Datta Dipake, P.W. No. 9, thereafter took Munja with him to Hingoli Rural Police Station which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from the village. Head Constable Shinde, P.W. 12, who was in charge of the Police Station at that time, recorded complaint Exh. 7 of Munja and registered Crime No. 130/1993 for the offences under sections 302 and 201 of India Penal Code. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.S.I. Dhere, P.W. 13, who immediately rushed to the spot. However, by that time, the body of Shobha was found completely burnt. It was taken out of the remnants of







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top