The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and reliability of the testimony of a child witness, the evaluation of evidence as a whole, and the relevance of hearsay evidence under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

Tabla Ansari, Vilash Ansari, Suleman Ansari, Anwar Ansari, Mangan Ansari and Karu Ansari were named as accused in Pathargama (Basantrai) PS Case No. 95 of 2008 which was lodged by Md. Nazam Ansari on the allegation that the accused abducted his daughter in the intervening night of 01/02.06.2008, killed her and tried to conceal the crime by disposing her dead body in the well.

2. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 02.06.2008 at about 11:30 AM by Sidheshwar Sawaiyan who was posted as ASI at Basantrai OP, Nazam Ansari has stated that his younger son Sakir Ansari informed him that the accused abducted Imrana Khatoon from Bahiyar where he had gone with her to ease himself. The informant was not at home at that time and when he came back home after making dish (poori) in the house of Md. Rafique his son gave this information to him, whereupon he had gone to the house of Md. Tabaraque Ansari and searched his daughter in the night but she was not found. Next morning, alarm was raised in the village that a dead body was found in the well of Suleman Ansari who was on inimical terms with him. The body was taken out from the well and he identified his dead daughter whose neck was slitted. His fardbeyan was recorded in the village and the police after conducting inquest sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The informant has further stated that in the recent past the accused were threatening to kill one member of his family.

3. After the investigation, Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari and Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari were sent up for trial while the investigation against other accused remained pending. Through a supplementary charge-sheet dated 31.12.2008, Mangan Ansari, Anwar Ansari and Gyas Ansari @ Vilash Ansari were also sent up for trial. After cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Mangan Ansari and Anwar Ansari absconded and accordingly the case records were split up on 01.07.2009. From the records, it appears that the other accused also absconded at some point in time and they faced the trial separately. Anwar Ansari was apprehended in the year 2012 and charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against him by order dated 13.06.2012 – sessions trial against him was renumbered as 01/2012. In the meantime, Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2009 / 400 of 2009 came to be concluded and vide judgment dated 18.02.2010 Suleman Ansari, Karu Ansari @ Kalimuddin Ansari and Atabul @ Tabla @ Tabul Ansari were convicted and sentenced under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009 ended in conviction of Gyas Ali Ansari @ Vilash Ansari, the appellant, by a judgment dated 22.02.2017.

5. At one point in time this criminal appeal was listed along with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2015 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 262 of 2010 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 830 of 2010. The other three criminal appeals were heard together but we have written separate judgments, as we have to do in this case also, for the reason that all the six accused faced trial in four separate sessions cases and the learned Sessions Judges have delivered separate judgments. Another reason is that even though the material witnesses have tendered similar evidence in the trial in all sessions cases the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution has varied – in Sessions Trial Case No. 27 of 2009/400 of 2009 the Investigating Officer was not examined. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination was not produced by the prosecution in any sessions trial. From perusal of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2009, we gather that Dr. Digvijay Kumar who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Imrana Khatoon passed away on 16.12.2008.

6. In the present case also similar charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against Gyas Ali Ansari for committi