The testimony of a child witness can suffice for conviction if credible and corroborated, while the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish an alibi.

JUDGMENT :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 17.06.2003 and order of sentence dated 19.06.2003 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.215 of 2002, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that only on the basis of the sole testimony of the child witness, this appellant has been convicted. There were other witnesses in the house but they were not examined which caused great prejudice to the appellant. The appellant admittedly was not present in his house. The appellant in fact was a School Teacher who was serving at a distant place, and when he was returning after hearing the information about death of his wife, he was arrested. This aforesaid fact was narrated by this appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but the Trial Court has not considered the same. He submits that there is no reason to commit murder of the deceased. The Doctor has opined that the head injury can be caused due to fall also. Thus, the statement of the child witness can be easily negated. Reliance has been placed to the judgments reported in (2009) 15 SCC 292 and 2024 (1) JLJR 592.

4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that the appellant has committed murder of his wife and he does not deserve to be acquitted. The informant in his fardbeyan as well as in his deposition has clearly stated that the appellant always used to fight with his sister on the pretext of one or other excuse and assaulted his sister with fists and slaps. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased has found several grievous ante mortem and burn injuries which are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also stated that the child witness (P.W.-7) is the eye-witness of this case and she stated about each and every cruelty meted out to her mother. On these grounds, he stated that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the fardbeyan of Md. Sah Nawaz Khan, is that the marriage of his deceased sister – Nigar Sultana, had been solemnized with Md. Farooque Hussain Khan (appellant herein) in the month of May, 1990 and four children were born out of the said wedlock. His brother-in-law used to work as a Teacher in Primary School and was a resident of Katkamsandi. In the year 1992, his brother-in-law had built a house on the land given to him by his father and started living near their house. Since 3 -4 years, behaviour of his brother-in-law towards his sister was not good and he always used to fight with his sister on the pretext of one or other excuse. On 21.04.2001 also, at about 07:00 P.M. a feud occurred between his sister and brother-in-law over some issue, which was somehow pacified. Then the appellant threatened the deceased. Thereafter like every day, they went to sleep after having dinner. In the midnight at about 02:30 A.M., when the informant went for nature’s call, he smelled something burning. Then he saw that smoke was coming out from the kitchen of his sister. He ran to the house of his sister and opened the door of the kitchen, where he found that his sister was completely burnt and lying on the floor and his brother-in-law was not there. They got panicked and took out the children of his sister out of the house and raised alarm. On his alarm, people of the vicinity gathered there and with their help they extinguished the fire. By then, his sister was dead.

6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan F.I.R. being Sadar P.S. Case No.203 of 2001 was registered under Section 302 IPC and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. The