- (1.) The learned Sessions Judge of Mathura convicted Charan Singh appellant herein, of killing Sarjiti, a girl aged 10 or 12, in her house in village Anta-ki-Garhi, police station Sadabad, in the district of Mathura, on November 20, 1957 in the morning, and sentenced him to death. There was another charge under S. 380, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant for committing theft of certain ornaments, but of this charge the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him. There was the usual reference to the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of the sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal. These two were heard together and by its judgment dated July 29, 1958 the High Court dismissed the appeal, accepted the reference and affirmed the conviction and sentence. From this judgment the appellant moved by way of special leave and on December 15, 1958 this Court granted special leave to the appellant. The present appeal has been filed in pursuance of such leave.
(2.) Sarjiti was the daughter of one Atar Singh by his first wife. Atar Singh lived in village Anta-ki-Garhi, police station Sadabad. After the death of his first wife, he married Ram Siri, sister of his first wife. Atar Singh has two children by his second wife, one of the children being three years old and the other one year old only. The appellant is a resident of the same village and lived close to Atar Singh. The prosecution case was that the appellant was employed by Atar Singh for some time, when the latter was carrying on the business of manufacturing "ghungras" (small bell-like jingling, trinkets worn round the ankles), Atar Singh, however, discontinued that business and the appellant lost his employment. The prosecution case further was that a day before the murder of Sarjiti, the appellant went to the house of Atar Singh in the 1atter's absence and cut jokes with Ramsiri : this was resented by Ramsiri as well as Sarjiti, and both of them said that they would complain to Atar Singh about the appellant's conduct. On this it was said that the appellant threatened Sarjiti that she would be killed if she made a complaint of his conduct to her father. When Atar Singh came back, a complaint was made. Atar Singh went to the house of the appellant and enquired about his conduct. The latter, however, denied having been guilty of any improper conduct and nothing further happened that day. On November 20, 1957 Atar Singh went to his fields early in the morning and Ram Siri with her two small children went out of the house for preparing cow-dung cakes. Sarjiti was left alone in the house. At about 8 or 9 a. m. on that day, the prosecution case stated, the appellant went into the house of Atar Singh. He was then wearing a dhoti and a shirt and carried something under his arm covered in a piece of cloth. Soon after he was seen coming out of the house, and at that time he was wearing a dhoti and a vest only but no shirt. Ram Siri came back at about 9 or 9-30 a.m. and shouted for Sarjiti. Getting no response she went to the house of one Chandan Singh, brother of her husband, and told Chandan's wife that Sarjiti had gone away and she was going to look for her in the village. Atar Singh himself and his brother came back to the house at about 11-30 a. m. Atar Singh saw that a box was lying open in one of the rooms from which he found some ornaments missing. Their was some 'bhoosa' (husk of grain) in one of the rooms and near the 'bhoosa' were blood stains. On removing the 'bhoosa' Atar Singh discovered the dead body of his child Sarjiti. Near the dead body was also found the shirt which, it was stated, belonged to the appellant and which the appellant was seen wearing when he entered into the house of Atar Singh earlier in the day. A 'gandasa' (a chopper for cutting fodder) was also found near the dead body. Both the shirt and the chopper were stained with human blood and the chopper was also said to belong to the appellant. On an alarm raised by Atar Singh, many other villagers came, and some of them also identified the shirt and the chopper. Some also said, and they were later examined as prosecution witnesses, that they had seen the appellant enter the house of Atar Singh earlier in the morning and also going out of it in the manner stated earlier. Atar Singh went to the police station at about 3-30 p. m. when he made his first information, the police station being at a distance of six miles from the village. The investigating police officer came to the village and recovered the blood-stained shirt and chopper. These were later sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist and were found to be stained with human blood. The post mortem examination revealed that Sarjiti had been literally hacked to death. There were eight incised wounds, some of which had cut the occipital. temporal and parietal bones, the vault of the head was open and the brain matter was coming out. There were about six ounces of 'dalia' in her stomach, which was consistent with death having taken place soon after morning breakfast.
(3.) The defence of the appellant was that he had been falsely implicated out of enmity. It was suggested on his behalf that Mukhia, one of the prosecution witnesses, had illicit connection with Ram Siri: Sarjiti objected to such illicit connection and it was suggested that Mukhia and Ram Siri might have killed Sarjiti and then attempted to foist the murder on the appellant. This was one line of defence. The other line of defence was that there was a quarrel between Atar Singh and some of the villagers on one side and the appellant on the other over the tethering of bullocks in front of the appellant's house. Some of the villagers gave slaps to the appellant and in the evening Puran, a nephew of Mukhia, told the appellant that he was called by Puran's grand-father The appellant refused to go, but seeing some constables sitting at the house of Mukhia, the appellant left the village and went to Mathura on a cycle and on November 20, 1957 he was in Mathura where he filed a petition in the box kept for that purpose in the house of the Superintendent of Police and also filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. On behalf of the appellant one Bhagwan Singh (defence witness No. 1) was examined and this witness said that he wrote the petition which was put in the box of the Superintendent of Police. The petition which was marked as an exhibit was dated November 20, 1957, but an endorsement thereon showed that it was found in the box on November 22, 1957. The appellant suggested that when he came to know of the case against him, he surrendered on November 23, 1957. The appellant denied that he had entered into the house of Atar Singh on November 20, 1957 or that he had killed Sarjiti or that the blood-stained shirt and chopper belonged to him.;