The judgment underscores the importance of scrutinizing witness testimony, including that of child witnesses, and the need for evidence to be evaluated based on its trustworthiness rather than the quantity of witnesses.

1. :- The appellant Prem Singh was indicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Session Case No. 36/95 for having committed murder of Deepak. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated April 6, 1998 to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 11.6.1995 at 11:05 P.M., P.W. 14 Rajendra Singh Rathore, SHO, P.S. Kunhadi, Kota City recorded 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P. 1 of Smt. Rekha (P.W. 1) W/o Bheru Lal, by caste-Dhobi, R/o Sakatpura, (Kota City) at her house, wherein she stated that today after around 7:30 P.M., she and her nephew Pappu @ Deepak were ironing clothes. At that time Hansraj and Satya Narain quarrelled each other and Sattu chased Hansraj when Hansraj ran from the place of scuffle. It was also stated by Rekha (P.W. 1) that at that time Durga Singh was abusing her. When her nephew Deepak asked Durga Singh not to abuse her (Rekha) then Deepak was told to come out of the house and thereafter, Prem Singh caused injury with a knife to Deepak. Rekha also stated in Ex. P. 1 that children informed her that Deepak had sustained injury with a knife. She was also beaten up and abused by Ramgopal Teli. When she wanted to take Deepak in an Autorikshaw, the driver of Auto-rikshaw was told not to take Deepak in his Auto-rikshaw. It was also stated in Ex. P. 1 that Deepak was inflicted injuries by Prem Singh and Mahaveer with knives. After that she took Deepak to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P. 1, Rajendra Singh, SHO registered a case under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and Section 3 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at 11:30 P.M. and investigation commenced. Formal FIR. is Ex. P. 16. The Investigating Officer Bal Mukund (P.W. 16) reached on the spot and prepared Site Plan Ex. P. 2. Blood smeared soil and control soil were also seized and sealed vide Ex. P. 3. Inquest Report Ex. P. 8 of the dead body of Deepak was prepared by P.W. 16 Bal Mukund. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 10 Dr. Y.K. Sharma and he prepared post-mortem report Ex. P. 12 as well as Injury Report Ex. P.11. Blood stained 'Shirt' and 'Chaddi' belonging to the deceased which he was wearing at the time of the incident were also seized and sealed vide Seizure Memo Ex. P. 4. Statements of the witnesses under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. Appellant Prem Singh was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex. P. 18. On his information given in police custody and recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and at his instance, a knife (Chhura) was recovered from the house of the appellant. It was seized and sealed vide Recovery Memo Ex. P. 10. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota (South), who committed the appellant to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kota, who transferred the file to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota.

3. Learned trial Judge framed charges under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and 4/25 of the Arms Act, which were denied by the appellant and he claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. In the statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code., the appellant claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that at the time of the alleged incident, he was not present on the spot. In his defence the appellant examined 4 witnesses.

5. Learned trial judge after hearing the final submissions of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here