The court affirmed that child witness testimony, when corroborated by adult witnesses, can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases, emphasizing careful scrutiny of such evidence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction dated 28th November, 2016 and sentence dated 30th November, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 02(09) of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 98 of 2015 wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life.

2. The prosecution case is that on 15th March, 2015 at about 8:00 P.M. the appellant came to the house of his mother-in-law, the victim (Bharati Mondal). An argument ensued between them as regards custody of the minor daughter of appellant who was residing with the victim. This led to a heated exchange. The appellant thereupon took out a knife and stabbed the victim, repeatedly on her neck and body. The victim also sustained an injury on her head.

3. At the relevant point of time PW-2, the granddaughter of the victim was studying inside the house. The conversation between the appellant and the victim took place initially outside the hut where the victim was sitting on the door way. The offence occurred inside the house after the appellant entered into the same following the victim.

4. On hearing the cries and commotion at the house, PW-1 the other daughter of the victim, residing with her, who had gone to a nearby tube-well to fetch water, came rushing back to her house. She found the appellant outside the house with a broken knife in his hand. While trying to stop the appellant, she was attacked by the appellant as he tried to throttle her. Hearing the commotion, the neighbours PW-3 and PW-4 immediately rushed to the place. The appellant fled from behind the house of the victim.

5. PW-3, Susanta Belel wrote the complaint on the instructions of PW-1 and filed the same with Dadpur Police Station, District - Hooghly. The police arrived later at the spot, collected the body, wearing apparel and a broken part of the knife that was lying inside the hut. Blood-stained earth from the PO was also collected. The evidence was seized in the presence of the witnesses, namely, PW-3 and PW-19, Investigating Officers of the case.

6. Inquest was performed in presence of witnesses and the body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem was conducted by PW-11, Dr. Jayanta Kumar Mishra. The weapon was recovered upon being indicated by the appellant in a recorded statement.

7. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

8. PW-1 was, Tuktuki Paik, separated daughter of the deceased, who was living with her. She narrated the entire incident as indicated hereinabove. She, therefore, was not an eye-witness to the incident. She, however, deposed that PW-2 (her daughter) was present in the house when the incident took place. After the appellant fled the scene after trying to throttle her, PW-1 entered the house and found her mother lying on the floor with blood-stained hair and clothes. She confirmed that the police arrived and performed inquest of the body and seized the wearing apparels of the victim. She also confirmed that the police seized the broken portion of the knife and the blood-stained earth. Her evidence could not be shaken in the cross-examination.

9. PW-2 was a child witness, who was seven years old. She was the granddaughter of the victim and the niece of the PW-1. Her evidence is set out herein-below:

“My name is: Rajlakhi Roy

My f