IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of child witness needs corroboration.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Patnaik, J.

1. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 23.09.2005 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2005 (B).

Facts of the Case:

2. The facts very briefly are that on 26.02.1998 between 7.00 p.m. To 7.30 p.m. Suhara sustained stab injuries on her neck while she was in the house of her in-laws. She was initially taken to the Government hospital, Pattambi and was thereafter taken to Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna, where she succumbed to the injuries and died. On 27.02.1998, the Pattambi Police registered the First Information Report (FIR) on the statement given by one Saidalavi, a relative of Suhara, that she had suspicion regarding the death of Suhara (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). On 27.02.1998, postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by the Lecturer, Forensic Medicine and Assistant Police Surgeon, Medical College, Trichur. The local police then investigated into the case and came to the conclusion that it was a case of harassment and suicide and filed a charge-sheet against four members of the family of the in-laws of the deceased for offences Under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Indian Penal Code) but the accused persons were subsequently acquitted of the offences Under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and no appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. After two years of the incident, Hamza, the brother of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the Magistrate on 26.02.2000. In the complaint, Hamza stated that the deceased was married to Ishaq, who was employed abroad and the couple had two children, a boy Mohd. Faizal and a girl Fasila. Hamza alleged that in the beginning Ishaq was sending cash from abroad to his brother Muhammadkutty, but later on stopped sending cash to him and instead sent the cash to the deceased and as a result a quarrel started between the brothers of Ishaq and the deceased and on 26.02.1998 at 6.30 p.m. Hamsappa (Accused No. 2 for short 'A-2'), brother of Ishaq, caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased and Muhammadkutty (Accused No. 1 for short 'A-1') killed her by stabbing her neck with a knife and stuffing clothes into her mouth. Ayisha (mother-in-law of the deceased), Asia (wife of Hamsappa), Pathummakutty (wife of Muhammadkutty) and Saju @ Sajitha (daughter of Muhammadkutty) (Accused No. 3 to Accused No. 6 for short 'A-3 to A-6') changed the dress of the deceased and washed all the blood from the scene of occurrence and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder. Accordingly, the aforesaid six accused persons committed offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant and his witnesses were examined by the Magistrate Under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code of Criminal Procedure'). The Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued processes against all the six accused persons. After the accused persons entered appearance and were served with the copies of all the relevant documents, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Palakkad on 03.04.2001. The Sessions Court thereafter framed charges against the six accused persons Under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and conducted trial in Sessions Case No. 447 of 2001.

3. At the trial, altogether six witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. Mohd. Faizal, the son of the deceased, was examined as PW-1. He was about 7 years old on 26.02.1998 and he claimed to be a witness to the murder of the deceased. He deposed before the Court that on 26.02.1998 at 7.00 p.m. When he, his mother and younger sister were lying in the bedroom for the purpose of sleeping, A-1 and A-2 came to the bedroom and A-1 took