Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the kidnapping and murder of a six-year-old boy, Ashok, on 29.11.1977 in village Jaleshwar, Etah District, U.P. The accused, Manpal Singh (A-1) and his father-in-law Raghubir Singh (A-2), were alleged to have forcibly dragged the child from near his residence, taken him to an engine shed belonging to Maharaj Singh (PW-2), throttled him, and dumped his body in a pit where a pump set was installed. The child's mother, Ramsri (PW-1), and two neighbors, Maharaj Singh (PW-2) and Adal Singh (PW-3), witnessed the abduction and identified the accused. The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to five years rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted both accused, primarily disbelieving the mother's testimony after defence witness Sheela Devi (DW-1), the mother's own daughter, gave evidence that her mother was living in adultery. The High Court criticized the Sessions Judge for not considering DW-1's statement, though the Sessions Judge had in fact discussed her evidence at length and rejected it as lacking credibility. The State of U.P. filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. During pendency, Manpal Singh died, and the petition abated against him, leaving the appeal against Raghubir Singh. The Supreme Court found no dispute that the child died by throttling, as confirmed by Dr. Daya Shankar (PW-4), and that the body was found in the pit inside the engine shed. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses consistently stated that both accused dragged the child to the shed and later emerged without him. The Court deprecated the defence evidence of DW-1 as unnecessary and irrelevant, observing that in a murder case, the moral character of the victim's mother has no bearing on the credibility of her testimony. The Court ruled that questions eliciting indecent or scandalous imputations should not be permitted under Section 151 of the Evidence Act, and that Section 155(4) is limited to prosecutrix in rape cases. The Court noted that the High Court had overlooked the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and had made baseless criticism of the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the trial court's conviction and sentence against Raghubir Singh. The decision reaffirmed that a murderer cannot escape by establishing the loose morals of the victim's mother and that credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient to sustain conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Murder - Eyewitness testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34 - The trial court convicted both accused for kidnapping and murdering a 6-year-old child based on consistent evidence of the mother and two neighbors; the High Court acquitted them after erroneously discrediting the mother's testimony by relying on irrelevant moral character evidence. Held that the prosecution evidence was credible and the High Court's interference was unjustified, warranting restoration of conviction. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence Law - Impeachment of Witness Credit - Sections 151 and 155, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The defence attempted to impeach the credit of the mother by adducing evidence of her alleged adultery; such indecent and scandalous questions could be forbidden by the court under Section 151 as they did not relate to facts in issue. Section 155(4) is confined to prosecutrix in rape cases and has no application in a murder case. Held that the trial court rightly disregarded the defence witness's imputations, and the High Court erred in criticizing the trial judge for not considering such irrelevant evidence. (Paras 1-5) C) Evidence Law - Relevance of Moral Character - Section 140, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidence of the mother's unchastity was irrelevant to the fact in issue of kidnapping and murder; law does not permit even the child of a prostitute to be murdered. Held that the murderer cannot escape by establishing the loose morals of the victim's mother, and such evidence should not have been allowed to discredit the prosecution case. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by discrediting the prosecution witnesses on the ground of the mother's alleged immoral character; and the scope of Sections 151 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to questions affecting credit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence of the trial court under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC against Raghubir Singh (the appeal having abated against Manpal Singh due to his death).
Law Points
- Evidence of moral character of witness is irrelevant unless it relates to facts in issue
- trial court has discretion under Section 151 to forbid indecent questions
- Section 155 Evidence Act permits impeachment of credit but not by irrelevant scandalous imputations
- in murder case
- unchastity of mother cannot discredit her eyewitness testimony
- conviction can be based on consistent eyewitness testimony
