In this case a person called Munnibai was
killed. The respondent had an 'evil eye ' on her. It may be stated that the
respondent was a tenant and was occupying a part of the house, in which landlord
Angad, was living, whose daughter-in-law was deceased Munibai. The family came
to know about the respondent having an 'evil eye' from the deceased herself,
which was reported by her to her mother-in-law Kosabai. This was about 15 days
before the occurrence. Kosabai in turn stated about this to her husband, who
asked the respondent to vacate to premises.
Both Angad and his wife have categorically
deposed about these facts. Kosabai had, however, stated that she had spoken to
her husband on the very day Munibai told about the respondent having an 'evil
eye', which was about 15 days before the occurrence, whereas the evidence of
Angad is that his wife had stated to him about this aspect 7-8 days before the
occurrence. We do not think if this little discrepancy is enough to discard the
otherwise consistent evidence on this point, especially when the statement made
by Angad that he had asked the respondent to vacate the house has not
challenged in cross-examination. We also do not think that omission of the
Angad to tell during investigation that his wife had asked him to get the house
vacated is enough to disbelieve Kosabai that she had asked her husband to do
so.
This judgment is set aside and we convict
the respondent under section 302, for which offence we award the sentence of imprisonment for life. The
respondent is on bail; his hail bonds are cancelled. He would be taken in
custody to serve out the sentence.
Post a Comment