The State Of Rajasthan vs Madan @ Madaniya

2. Brief   facts   according   to   the   prosecution   case   necessary   for   the disposal of this case are as follows. On receiving an anonymous telephonic   information,   regarding   the   killing   of   one   Smt. Santosh,   daughter   of   Devki   Devi   Mali,   the   Police   reached   the spot of occurrence and recorded the statement of P.W.10­Smt. Devki Devi, mother of the deceased. Therein, P.W.10­Smt. Devki Devi,   alleged   that,   the   accused­Respondent,   used   to   reside   in vicinity   and   was   harboring   vengeance   against   the   deceased Santosh as he believed that, few days earlier he was assaulted by   7­8   men,   at  the   instance  of  the deceased  Santosh.  On the date   of   the   incident,   while  the   P.W.10  was  at  her  agricultural farm,   at   about   6:00   A.M,   P.W.5­Seema,   her   minor   daughter came up to her and informed that, in the preceding night, the accused­Respondent along with one person entered their home at   around   02:00   A.M.   and   gave   lathi   blows   to   the   deceased, consequent   to   which   she   died.   P.W.10­Devki   Devi,   thereafter immediately   rushed   to   the   house   and   found   the   body   of   the deceased lying on the roof.

3. On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid   statement   made   by   P.W.10   (Smt. Devki   Devi),   a   case   was   registered   against   the   accused­ Respondent  and   another   person,  thereafter  they   were  arrested and   subsequent   recoveries   were   made   in   this   regard.   After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed charging the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 302, 460 and 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the accused persons were put on trial as they did not plead guilty to the charges leveled against them.

5. On   the   other   hand,   the   co­accused   Sheokar   @   Sheokumar   was 3 acquitted by the trial Court after being given the benefit of doubt for the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 and 460 IPC.

6. Aggrieved   by   the   above   order   of   conviction,   the   accused­ respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge. The benefit of doubt   was   extended   in   favor   of   the   accused   and   he   was acquitted from all the charges.

12. P.W.5   (Seema)   aged   14,   is   the   sister   of   the   deceased   and   the accused respondent was her maternal cousin, claimed to be an eye­witness to the said incident. She has stated that, on the date of occurrence while she, P.W.4 (Kaptan), deceased Santosh and 5 her   two   sons   were   fast   asleep   on   the   roof,   the   accused­ Respondent had come to their house and had started quarrelling with   the   deceased.   The  accused  respondent,  thereafter   hit  the deceased on her head with a lathi due to which she fell down. After the incident, she deposed that she went to the fields in the following morning and informed P.W.10 (Smt. Devki Devi) about the   aforesaid   incident.   She   also   stated   that,   when   the   Police came at around 9:00 A.M, her mother (Smt. Devki Devi) came with the police, although she admitted that none of the family members had informed the police about the incident.

17. It is equally pertinent to note the statements made by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and other defense witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C has stated that, he has wrongfully been roped in as accused, due to existing prior enmity between the parties. The accused has also stated that, the deceased did not maintain a cordial relationship with her husband. The husband of the deceased had threatened to kill her pursuant to their disagreements.

20. Firstly,   the   case   of   the   prosecution   strongly   relied   upon   on   the testimony rendered by the two child­witnesses, P.W.4 (Kaptan) and P.W.5 (Seema).  It is an established rule of practical wisdom, that evidence rendered by the child­witness must be evaluated carefully   and   it   must   find   adequate   corroboration   before   it   is relied   on.   (See  Panchhi   v.   State   of   U.P.  (1998)   7   SCC   177). Although, both P.W.4 (Kaptan) and P.W.5 (Seema) claimed to be the eye witnesses to the entire incident, they have given different versions  as to the position of the victim, while P.W.4 (Kaptan) clearly stated that accused gave blows to the deceased while she was sitting, P.W.5 (Seema) on the contrary has stated that the victim was standing and after receiving the blow she fell down. 9 Moreover,   both   the   witnesses   have   failed   to   state   the   specific timing at which the incident occurred.

26. In the present case, the evidence relied by the prosecution is full of contradictions.  We   cannot ignore the fact that although P.W.4 (Kaptan),   clearly   admitted   that,   their   house   is   situated   in   a populated   neighborhood,   it   is   quite   surprising   that,   when   the 12 incident occurred on the terrace no one interfered or came to the place of occurrence until morning.  The prosecution has failed to provide any independent witness to bring home, the guilt of the accused.

30. In our opinion, there exists no perversity in the judgment of the High Court. Further, in the absence of compelling reasons, this 14 court is not keen to entertain this appeal challenging the order of acquittal.

31. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.