The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the evidence of a child witness and the caution required when considering such testimony in criminal cases.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

1. Present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the sole accused/appellant taking exception to the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.132 of 1999. The said impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 29th September, 2003. Present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal was filed on 3rd December, 2003.

2. Heard the arguments of learned Advocate Mrs.Revati Mohite-Dere for the appellant and learned A.P.P. Mr.Pednekar for the State.

3. At the threshold it must be mentioned that the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the eye-witness and also on cognate circumstantial evidence. Peculiarity of the present case lies in the fact that the sole eye-witness to the incident of assault is a tender age girl by name Kajol. Said witness was then aged about 5 years, a kindergarten (Balwadi), child, and is daughter of the present appellant/accused and the victim woman. Admittedly, the entire case of prosecution revolves around the statement of said child witness (PW 3). Coupled with her ocular evidence, there are overwhelming circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the present appellant/accused.

4. Prior to discussing the arguments, certain factual position as to the case of the prosecution and different stages of the investigation can be narrated as under:

Present appellant was residing in the rented room on the ground floor along with his wife - Savita (the victim, since deceased) and also along with his daughter Kajol (aged about 5 years) and son Kiran (aged about 2 & 1/2 years) The incident of assault, causing the death of Savita, occurred in the afternoon of 15th December, 1998, in the same room. The landlady Rakhmabai Chavan (PW 2) was residing at the first floor of the same building and on the day of the incident she had an occasion to hear the quarrel between the appellant and his wife-Savita. It happened in the afternoon of the fateful day after about 12:30 p.m.. Rakhmabai (the landlady) initially noticed that the door of the house of accused and deceased was closed however she heard the noise of quarrel. From outside the room, she censored the appellant and went to her room on the first floor. However, again she came down as called by another tenant of the Chawl. This time, she knocked the door and when it was opened by the appellant, she saw the victim Savita lying on the floor and there was blood around her head. Said Rakhmabai directed the appellant to take his wife to hospital for treatment. Appellant agreed to do so and left the house along with his two children i.e. Kajol (PW 3) and son Kiran.

5. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant along with his two children attended the police chowky in the area and intimated one police official on duty (Kishor Kapare PW 13). Certain entry was made by said police personnel and allegedly that time appellant made a confession about assaulting his wife with the help of grinding-stone and causing her death in the house. Intimation was given to the police station from the said police chowky. Police Inspector Mr. Shinde (PW 19) went to the spot and conducted the panchnama after calling the panch witnesses and collected the blood samples and grindingstone having blood stains. One Mr.Sunil Renuse (PW 4), brother of the deceased, was called. He lodged the First Information Report. On the basis of his report, offence was registered against the appellant/accused at C.R. No.272/1998 at Sahakarnagar police station, Pune for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

6. During the investigation, on the same day of the incident, the appellant/accused was put under arrest and under the panchnama the clothes, he was wearing and having blood stains, were seized and taken