The evidence of a child witness is admissible if the court is satisfied that the witness is capable of understanding the questions put to them and giving rational answers.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Dash, J. - The appellant assails the judgment and order of conviction u/s 32.IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1992. The charge levelled, against the appellant was that on 15-1-1992 he assaulted Sumitra Bhukta (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), his daughter-in-law with an axe and committed her murder.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant an old man aged 75 used to have frequent quarrels with the deceased and this is the reason why he, although was residing under the same roof with his son, was cooking his food separately. On the date of incident, i. e. on 15-1-1992, at about noon, the appellant hit the deceased with an axe and caused her instantaneous death. He had been seen by Dhanmat Saraf, PW 1 while coming out of the place of incident with an axe smeared with blood. PW 1 then reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 7 who registered a case and proceeded with the investigation in course of which he held inquest over the body of the deceased, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, seized blood-stained earth, wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the appellant, blood stained axe and nail scrapping of the appellant, examined the witnesses and after closure of investigation, placed charge-sheet against the appellant u/s 302, IPC to face the trial.

3. The plea of the appellant was one of denial and false accusation.

4. The prosecution, in oder to bring home the charge to the appellant, examined as many as seven witnesses of whom Daitari Bhukta (PW 3) is the sole eye-witness to the incident, Dhanmat Saraf the informant (PW 1) and Govinda Chandra Tandi (PW 2) are the post occurrence witnesses and Juglal Bhukta (PW 4) is the son of the appellant. Dr. Sarat Kumar Routrai (PW 5) is the doctor who conducted autopsy and Ganesh Chandra Pradhan (PW 7) is the Investigating Officer The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence and mainly relying on the evidence of the sole eye-witness (PW 3) held the appellant guilty of the charge and consequently, convicted and sentenced him as hereinbefore stated.

5. Shri P. K. Misra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has assailed the legality and correctness of the findings arrived at by the trial Court on the following grounds :

(1) That PW 3, the solitary eye-witness to the incident being a child witness and there being no other evidence to corroborate his testimony, learned trial Judge would have been slow to put implicit reliance on his evidence and to act upon it, particularly when he was not questioned about his competency to understand the questions and give rational answers;

(2) That the find of blood of group 'B' in the wearing apparel of the appellant which was the blood group of the deceased, cannot be a circumstance against the appellant since his blood Was of the same group as found by the Scientific Officer;

(3) That the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, even if taken as a whole does not establish beyond doubt about the appellant's involvement in the alleged crime.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, while supporting the impugned judgment, contends that as the findings of the learned trial Judge is based on appreciation-of evidence and there being no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion, the same should not be interfered with.

7. The motive for the crime, as sought to be projected by the prosecution, was that there were frequent skirmishes between the appellant and the deceased for which the appellant intended to do away with the deceased. In order to prove the motive, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW 1 as also PW 4, the son of the appellant. It would appear from the evidence of PW 1, the informant that the deceased bad earlier lodged report to the police against the appellant but police did not file any case as dispute and difference between them was