The evidence of a minor witness can be reliable if free from tutoring and supported by corroborative evidence, especially in homicide cases.

Judgment :

(Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant/original accused Vijay Kishan Dhillod has challenged his conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.47/2022 under the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2022, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.””). The learned trial Court, under the impugned judgment, has sentenced the appellant/accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, i/d to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. As per the prosecution case, the informant Jyoti Vijay Dhillod i.e. PW-1 is the wife of appellant/accused and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2005. Both of them are having six children out of the wedlock. Since the appellant/accused used to beat the informant by taking doubt on her chastity, she started residing with her mother Sakhubai Kale i.e. the deceased, at Jalna alongwith her children. However, the appellant/accused used to come to Jalna for insisting her to come with him at Aurangabad with their children. Informant Jyoti and her mother used to oppose such insistence of the appellant/accused, and therefore, the appellant/accused was threatening them of dire consequences. Two to three days prior to the incident the appellant/accused had come to Jalna and was insisting the informant to go with him for cohabitation. Due to fear of the appellant/accused, the informant was residing in the vicinity of bus stand. She was doing labour work at brick kiln near Noorshah Ali Dargah at Jalna and while going to work, she used to drop her children with her mother Sakhubai who was doing job of Watchman at Marble Palace in the shop of one Kumawat.

3. On 22.11.2021 the informant started for home after finishing labour work at about 9.30 p.m. As the appellant/accused had come to Jalna, she remained in the area of bus stand. Thereafter anticipating that the appellant/ accused might have left the house of her mother Sakhubai, she started to go to the house of her mother at about 12.00 to 12.30 hrs in the midnight. When she was proceeding to the house of her mother, her 10 years old son Yash came there on the bridge and told her that the accused assaulted his grandmother with piece of tile and knife. On hearing the same the informant rushed to the house of her mother Sakhubai at Marble Palace alongwith her son Yash. At that time she saw Sakhubai lying down in the pool of blood and her other sons namely Jayesh and Krishna were crying near her body. On making further enquiry, her son Yash told her that the appellant/accused had come there and hit Sakhubai on her head with piece of tile and knife. When the informant raised shouts, the people nearby gathered there and one of those persons by name Golu Badhai i.e. PW-4 intimated about the incident to police. Accordingly, police came there and the informant lodged report against the appellant/accused as per Exh.14. On the basis of the said report, First Information Report (F.I.R.) in printed form was also registered and investigation of the crime started. On completion of investigation, the appellant/accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 85 (1) (2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act .

4. The learned trial Court conducted the trial and convicted appellant/accused as mentioned above.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Moreover, the charge against th