The direct evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully and with circumspection, but if found reliable, it can form the basis of a conviction.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th December, 2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimapara in S.T. Case No.79/256 of 2016-15 sentencing the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that although the accused was charged also for the offence under Section 498A IPC, he was acquitted of that offence by the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant accused got married to the deceased at Kakatpur in January, 2006. A son was born to them. According to Bijay Kumar Das (PW 10), who is the informant and father of the deceased, the accused did not allow the deceased to visit her parents' place.

4. According to PW 10, on 8th March, 2015 the deceased visited her parents' house with her son and the accused also came to his house. After dinner, they returned to their house. The accused first went with the son and after about 5 to 10 minutes, the deceased went to the house.

5. The star witness of the case, is Dibyanshu Mohanty (PW 8), the son of the Appellant and the deceased who was eight years old at the time of his examination. He very clearly stated that 'after taking dinner, father and myself returned home first and then mother came. Mother was washing utensils, father dragged mother and dealt a blow with a big knife to her hand. Grandmother took him and kept alone.'

6. It has emerged from the evidence of Pravash Chandra Sahoo (PW 25) the Investigating Officer (IO) that at 8 am on 9th March, 2015 he received the report of PW 10 which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. He received a formal FIR and took up investigation and registered the case under Sections 498A, 302, 304 B IPC read with Section 34 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On 10th March, 2015 he arrested the Appellant who offered to produce his wearing apparels which had been concealed in the hood of the Honda Activa vehicle. This was then produced before the IO and seized by him.

7. It is important to note that from the spot itself PW 25 seized a blood-stained knife, chappal, broken bangles from the verandah. On 20th March 2015, PW 25 received the post mortem examination report. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mallick (PW 26). He found 17 incised cut wounds on the body of the deceased and gave his opinion that the death was caused due to the injuries to the "great vessels of neck like jugular and carotid vessels of both sides." It must be mentioned here that Dr. Santosh Kumar Tripathy (PW 24) examined the Appellant and found 'superficial cut marks anteriorly on both palms.'

8. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was led against the Appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On behalf of the prosecution, 25 witnesses were examined and none on behalf of the defence. The chemical examination report dated 17th December, 2015 of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar was exhibited as Ext.24.The blood stains on the track pant and full shirt of the Accused as well as on the broken bangles, saree and blouse of the deceased were all of human blood group 'A'. Even the blood group on the iron handle knife was of Group 'A'.

9. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The case was based on the direct evidence of the child witness, whose testimony was believed by the trial Court as being consistent and reliable. The trial Court found no evidence to bring home the charge against the Appellant accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC. He was accordingly acquitted of the offence under Section 498A IPC.

10. The conclusions of the trial Court were as under:

(i) PW 4, the son of the accused, had se