The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistent and credible evidence, particularly in cases where the conviction is based on the testimony of a child witness and the lack of corroborative evidence.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2009 and order on sentence dated 18.11.2009 passed by learned ASJ (Dwarka) whereby the appellant was convicted of offences under section 302, IPC read with section 34, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life in addition to an imposition of fine.

2. The prosecution alleged that on receipt of DD No. 5A to the effect that opposite B-12, Shyam Vihar, 25 foot road, the wife of accused Raju was stabbed with a knife and the assailant fled after snatching of Rs..20,000, the police reached the spot. Inspector Mahender and members of the staff also reached there and upon inspection of the spot they found that gate of the House B-12, Shyam Vihar, Phase I, was lying open. Inside the house a dead body of a female (Mamta, accused Raju’s wife) was lying near the diwan (bed). The bed sheet was blood stained and a blood stained kitchen knife too was found. An iron cupboard in the room was open but no item was found outside. A clump of hair was also found lying near the left side of the body. During enquiry, it was found out that the deceased had returned to her house at around 8:30/9:00 P.M. after purchasing vegetables. It was also revealed that Neelam, the deceased’s daughter aged seven years was injured by a knife. Neelam was removed to the RTRM Hospital from where she was later shifted to DDU Hospital. The crime team was summoned, photographs of the scene were taken. From the spot the exhibits i.e. blood, hair, blood stained bed sheet etc were seized. Inspector prepared the rukka (first intimation) and sent the same to the P.S. Najafgarh. A case was registered as FIR no. 251/08 under section 302/307, IPC. During investigation, the statement of one Pappu was recorded who stated that on 23.4.2008, accused Raju, husband of deceased who used to cook sweets at weddings, had left for Kashi Ram’s house to prepare sweets; and that after working till 7 P.M., Raju asked his workers to bring a fan from his house, and that at 8:15 P.M. these two workers found that Lalit was standing outside his (Raju’s) house along with two other boys. Later Lalit and his two associates went to Kashi Ram’s house and were seen talking to the accused Raju. At about 9:30 P.M. Raju left the marriage without telling anyone and returned at 11:30 P.M. At about 11:15 P.M., they left the marriage site and on reaching the house, they heard the cries of children; upon opening they found that Mamta was smeared in blood and Neelam was bleeding from her neck, and the two children were weeping.

3. Based on Pappu’s statement, Raju was interrogated. He disclosed that the people of the locality had complained to him that in his absence someone used to visit his house; that he was very agitated about this and hatched a conspiracy with Lalit, Omi and the appellant to kill Mamta. Neelam remained unfit to give a statement till her death on 5.5.2008. On the basis of the disclosure statement of Raju, on 25.05.2008, Lalit, Naresh @ Bahadur were apprehended from Ganda Nala, Goyala. At the pointing out of Lalit, a mobile phone and a knife were recovered. The accused Omi absconded, and was declared a proclaimed offender. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Session. The accused were charged under section 302/120-B, IPC; they denied guilt and claimed trial. During trial the prosecution examined 31 witnesses, and presented other documentary evidence. After considering the evidence before it, the Trial court acquitted accused Raju and Lalit but convicted the appellant, Naresh under Section 302, IPC, awarded him sentence of life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs..10,000/.

ARGUMENTS

4. It was urged by Counsel that since the FIR was registered against Lalit, Raju and the appellant, and co-accused were acquitted, the prosecution version was disbelieved, and thus the appellant should also have been acquitted. Learned counsel further contended that the conviction was unsustainable as it w