Bombay High Court relies on 10-year-old witness to uphold life term in murder

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday upheld a judgement of Jalna Sessions court which had given life sentence to a man for brutally assaulting and killing his mother-in-law.

35-year-old Vijay Dhillond has filed an appeal assailing the life sentence handed to him by the Jalna court for a 2021 murder.

Dhillond and his wife Jyoti were married in 2005 and had six children. However, she left her husband's Aurangabad house as he used to beat her, suspecting her chastity, and started living in Jalna with her mother. However, Dhillond used to frequent Jalna asking Jyoti to return, but she and her mother, Sakubai Kale, both opposed this proposition. Following this, he started threatening them with dire consequences.

Tired of his threats, Jyoti started living away from her mother and began working at a brick kiln. She used to leave her children at her mother's place before going to work. Her mother, Sakubai, used to work as a watchman in a shop.

On November 22, 2021, Dhillond visited his mother-in-law while his wife was at work. Jyoti waited at a bus stop after work and started going towards her mother's house around midnight, thinking that Dhillond would have left by then. However, at a short distance from her mother's home, she was informed by her 10-year-old son that her Dhillond had assaulted Sakhubai.

Jyoti rushed to her mother’s house and saw her in a pool of blood and two of her children crying near her body.

In the High Court, Dhillond’s lawyer questioned the evidence of the only eyewitness, i.e. the son, on the grounds that he was just a child and tutored by his mother.

The prosecution also pointed to the evidence of CCTV footage, which indicated the presence of the accused on the spot of the incident at the relevant time. It said that Dhillond had gone to the house of Sakhubai to insist that Jyoti return to Aurangabad and on Sakhubai’s refusal, he assaulted her with a piece of tile, wooden log, a knife and inflicted grievous injuries on her head, resulting in her death.

The bench of Justices NB Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More said that Jyoti and their son’s evidence carried immense importance and the remaining evidence was corroborative in nature.

The bench observed that “Admittedly, sanctity is always attached to the evidence of a child witness and, in so many cases, the child witness is believed due to the innocence of the witness. It is significant to note that before believing the evidence of a child witness the only precaution to be taken is to see whether it is free from tutoring, because child witnesses often tend to depose as per the say of their close relatives.”

In this case, the child had denied being tutored and so the bench observed, “the evidence of this witness, even being a child witness, appears reliable and trustworthy as it is also supported by other corroborative circumstances or material on record. Therefore, it would rather be safe to rely on his testimony in the light of other corroborative circumstances.”

Dhillond’s lawyer also submitted that the incident could have happened at the spur of the moment. However, the bench said that it had been established that Dhillond assaulted Sakhubai, an old lady, mercilessly, with a piece of tile, wooden plank and knife which he had carried with him.

“Therefore, the manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased with predetermination definitely indicates that he is guilty of the offence of murder,” said the bench dismissing Dhillond’s appeal.

- Ends