Evidence of a child witness to be examined cautiously.

M.Thanikachalam, J.

The accused, who stands convicted in S.C.No.112 of 1995, for the offences under Sections 499, 302, 201 and 394 r/w 397 I.P.C., for various terms of imprisonment is the appellant.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimarudur, moved the court below, by filing a final report, against the accused/appellant, for appropriate punishment under Sections 449, 302, 201 and 394 r/w 397 I.P.C., alleging that on 8.3.1995, at about 1.00 a.m., the accused/appellant committed trespass into the house of one Muthachiammal, with an intention to commit murder, due to previous enmity, that after committing the trespass, he had murdered Muthachiammal and Vinod, by strangulating both, that in order to escape from the legal punishment, causing disturbance of evidence of offence, he had hanged the two bodies, as if they had committed suicide in the house, and that during the commission of the above offence, he had committed robbery also, thereby he is liable to be punished under the above said sections.

3. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, after going through the materials placed before him, prima facie satisfied, to proceed further against the accused, after framing the charges. Thus, after framing the charges under the above said sections, when the accused was questioned, he pleaded not guilty, repudiating the allegations against him also.

4. The prosecution had marched in 19 witnesses armed with 17 documents and 9 material objects. The appreciation of the above materials, while scanning, according to law brought to surface to the satisfaction of the learned trial judge, that all the charges framed against the accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus concluding, the learned trial judge had convicted under sections 449, 302 (2 counts), 201 and 394 r/w 397 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years, life imprisonment of two counts, R.I for three years and five years R.I., respectively. This sentence preceded by conviction are under challenge before us.

5. The facts leading to conviction may be stated briefly as follows:

(a) Tmt. Vimala @ Ambika, P.W.4 is the wife of one Pichaipillai, who had gone abroad for eking livelihood. In the house belongs to the family, situated at Kangeyampettai, Vellala Theru, P.W.4, her mother-in-law and her child aged four years viz., Vinod were living. The accused also belongs to the same village.

(b) One year prior to 8.3.1995, there was some dispute between the accused and P.W.4's family, regarding the grazing of goat. P.W.4 reported the matter to P.W.12, who compromised the same. Even thereafter, the accused allowed the goat to graze in the field of the P.W.4 and when the dispute had arisen, it seems P.W.4 caused injuries to the goat, which aggravated the accused to threaten P.W.4, for which she preferred a complaint to the police, resulting the arrest of the accused and later on released on bail. Thus, there was a long standing animosity, as well as enmity between the accused and P.W.4's family. Because of this animosity, it seems, the accused had reported to P.W.6 and others that he will one day take revenge for the act done by P.W.4.

(c) On 7.3.1995, P.W.4 left her house and went to the parents' village, in order to get money for agricultural operation. On that day, during night hours, i.e. 7/8/.3.1995, Muthachiammal and her grand son Vinod alone were in the house. The accused, who had the ill feelings and animosity against this family, trespassed into the house of P.W.4 and committed murder of Muthachiammal and Vinod by strangulating both. Then after removing M.Os.1 & 2 from the body of Vinod, in order to escape from the legal punishment, the accused hanged the bodies, as if they had committed suicide, and thereafter decamped from the scene of crime.

(d) On 8.3.1995 at about 8.00 p.m., P.W.3-Subramanian, who had noticed the dead bodies in their house along with P.W.2, informed the same to the Village Administrative Officer, who had been examined as P.