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

2011 Supreme(UK) 644

2012 (1) N.C.C. 101
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2001
RAEEES & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 21.12.2011

Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.S. Panwar, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. H.C. Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Government Advocate

Headnote:Child Witness — Testimony of — Reliability of — Held that even though legally there is no bar in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness — Yet prudence requires that courts should not act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child whether sworn or unsworn — Also the evidence of a child witness should be accepted with great caution — A Child witness is always a notoriously dangerous witness capable of being tutored — And therefore, unless the possibility of coaching is eliminated and independent corroboration is available, the courts shall be very slow in accepting the solitary testimony of a child witness — And an independent evidence should be available to corroborate a child witness and this corroboration should not be only about the factum of crime but should also reasonably connect the accused with the offence. (Para 22)

        cPps lk{kh dk lk{; vkSj mldh fo'oluh;rk dk iz'u & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k & ;|fi cPps lk{kh ds lk{; dks fcuk laiqf"V ds Lohdkj fd;s tkus esa dksbZ dkuwuh ck/kk ugha gS rks Hkh nwjnf'kZrk dh vis{kk gksrh gS fd U;k;ky; dks cPps ds vlaiq"V lk{; ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djuh pkfg, pkgs 'kiFk yh xbZ gks vFkok ugha vkSj cPps dk lk{; cgqr lko/kkuhiwoZd gh Lohdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, & cPps dk lk{; lnSo mn~n.Mrk ds lkFk [krjukd gksrk gS tks fl[kk;s i<+k;s tkus ;ksX; gksrk gS & blfy, tc rd fl[kkus i<+kus dh laHkkouk lekIr ugha gks tkrh vkSj Lora= laiqf"V miyC/k uk gks rks U;k;ky;] cPps ds ,d ek= lk{; dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus esa cgqr f'kfFky gks tk,xk & vkSj ,d Lora= lk{kh cPps ds lk{; dh laiqf"V gsrq miyC/k djk;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj ;g laiqf"V dsoy ek= vijk/k ds rF; ds fo"k; esa gh ugha gksuh pkfg, cfYd mfpr :i ls vfHk;qDr dks vijk/k ls Hkh tksM+us okyh gksuh pkfg,A ¼izLrj 22½

JUDGMENT

[Per : Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.]

Allegedly, it is a case of killing of wife by the husband and three others. P.W.1 Gulshana, who is the daughter of accused Zarif, was a child witness when she deposed before the learned trial court. The allegation against Zarif and appellants Raees, Khairati and Karamat is that they have killed Haseena, who was the mother of P.W.1 Gulshana. Accused Zarif has died during the pendency of the trial and therefore, the case against him stands abated. The trial court found the appellants/accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and awarded them imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by Jameel Ahmad s/o Hanif Barber, who was brother of Haseena (victim). According to the complainant his sister Haseena was married to Zarif 12 years ago. One daughter was begotten from their wedlock. At the time of filing the complaint, the daughter was aged 10 years. Zarif used to commit marpeet and harassed Haseena on the pretext that they have got no son. The same was disclosed by Haseena to Jameel Ahmad. She also told that Zarif wants to marry again after granting divorce to Haseena or else, would kill her. On 16.07.1992 when Jameel Ahmad's brother met Haseena, she aired the same grievance to him. On 17.07.1992 Jameel Ahmad received the sad news of killing of his sister by strangulation. An FIR to this effect was lodged by Jameel Ahmad on 18.07.1992 at 6:40 a.m. in Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. He could not disclose the name of co-accused at the time of lodging FIR, because he was not aware whether some other persons were also involved in the crime or not.

3. The then child witness P.W.1 Gulshana stated on oath on 27.04.1994 that about 2 years ago, when she was sleeping on cot at her residence, she got up hearing the shrieks of her mother. Her mother was not found sleeping besides her. She came down stairs. When she reached the last stair, she found that accused persons viz., Zarif (father), Raees (uncle), Akram @ Karamat and Khairati were killing her mother. Raees caught hold of legs of her mother, Akram @ Karamat pressed her mouth, Khairati and Zarif were pressing her neck by pulling dupatta. When this child witness, who happens to be the only offspring of the couple, enquired about the same from her father, he asked her to go to her room otherwise she will also meet the same fate. He also counseled her to say that her mother died of vomiting, if enquired by anybody. She was frightened and therefore, she did not disclose the same to anybody. When her maternal uncle Nazra and Asgari came to her, only then she disclosed the same to them. She also said that her parents used to quarrel, as her father was interested in marrying the daughter of his mausi named Afsana and wanted to beget a son through her.

4. PW2 Asgari has said that her sister's name was Lateefan. Deceased Haseena was the daughter of Lateefan. Haseena was married to Zarif. Khairati is the brother of Zarif. Raees is also his brother. Akram @ Karamat is the relative. Gulshnana is Haseena's daughter. Haseena was murdered about two years ago (of her deposition). PW2 Asgari used to reside with her son Nazra who was Barber by profession and had a shop in village Sultanpur. Asgari used to visit Haseena, who disclosed that her husband Zarif committed marpeet with her. Zarif wanted to marry Afsana who was living separately from her husband. When her son Nazra informed her that Haseena has died, Asgari and Nazra went to the house of Zarif, who told that she died of Cholera. When she enquired about the incident from Gulshana in the presence of Nazra, Gulshana narrated the whole incident to her.

5. Had that been so, it was desirable on the part of PW2 Asgari to have reported the matter to the police. But she did not do that. It means that Gulshana never tol

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top