The reliability of witness testimony, especially that of a minor, and the consideration of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt.

Mutum B.K. Singh, J.

1. The judgment dated 27.08.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Sessions Trial No. 38 (ST/S)/1998, convicting the Appellant and one another under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life, is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. B.R. Das Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.05.1997, one Shri Kamini Kumar Das lodged a written report to the O/C, Sabroom Police Station, stating that in the late night of 24.05.1997 while he was sleeping, his wife and younger daughter, Smti Purnima Das, who went outside their house, informed him that the door of the deceased was found open and a kerosene lamp was burning inside but did not respond to their call. Thereafter, they went together to the room of the deceased and found the dead body of his; daughter-in-law, namely, Sanju Das, lying in the pool of blood in the north-western comer of the room. Police entered the incident in G.D. No. 609 and after visiting the place of occurrence, FIR Case No. 30/1997 was registered under Sections 457 and 302 IPC on the basis of the written report and investigated the case. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet against the Appellant and one Upendra Das was submitted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court, having found a prima facie case, framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused persons, examined as many as 19 witnesses and also exhibited many documents during the course of trial. However, out of the said 19 prosecution witnesses, 5 witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. No defence witness was adduced. The learned trial court, at the conclusion of the trial, found both the accused persons guilty of the commission of the offence of murder of Sanju Das and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

5. Before entering into the merit of the case, it would be convenient to mention that P.W. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8 and 11 were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. No, 10, who was aged about 8 years, is the only eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W. Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are the inquest and seizure witnesses respectively. P.W. No. 17 is the police officer who registered the case and P.W. No. 19 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. No. 18 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body. P.W. Nos. 3 and 7 are the brother-in-law and wife of the Appellant. P.W. No. 9 is the father of the deceased and P.W. No. 6 is a neighbour. P.W. No. 4 is the private tutor of the children of the deceased.

6. Upon hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, the question to be determined in the present appeal is whether the conviction of the present accused-Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is sustainable in law in the given proved facts and the circumstances of the case.

7. What have been emanated from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are that the deceased (Sanju Das) received a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty six thousand) only as compensation in connection with the death of her husband in a vehicular accident. Out of the said amount, Rs. 90,000/- was kept in fixed deposit account in Tripura Gramin Bank in her name and retained the remaining with her in cash. The accused-Appellant, younger brother-in-law of the deceased, persuaded the deceased to part with some portion of the said amount to him and on refusal to do so, the deceased was ill-treated and repeatedly tortured physically and mentally by the accused-Appellant. The ma