Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1315     OF     2009   

Alagupandi @ Alagupandian … Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu … Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Swatanter     Kumar,     J  .

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the  

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dated 28th February, 2007,  

affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated  

19th July, 2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai  

holding the accused/appellant guilty of an offence under Section  

302 IPC and awarding sentence of life imprisonment and also to  

pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for one year.

1

Page 2

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be stated  

as follows:-

Tamilarasi, the deceased, was the second wife of one  

Karuppaiah.    After the death of her husband, she was residing  

at Sikkandarchavadi and was enjoying the properties left by her  

deceased husband and collecting the rent from the properties.  

Accused Alagupandi is the son of Karuppaiah, from his first wife.  

Accused, after the death of his father, used to demand money  

from his step mother for which there used to be quarrel between  

them.   

3. On the midnight of 13th / 14th January, 2002, when the  

deceased was sleeping with her two sons namely Prabakaran,  

PW7, and Vinothkumar, PW8, the accused entered into the  

house with a knife and caused injuries on her stomach, chest  

and thigh.   Because of this assault, Tamilarasi died on the spot.  

4. PW-1, P. Selvaraj, is the brother of the deceased and lived  

at Theni Village.   He was staying with the deceased (his sister)  

and was working as a cleaner in the lorry.   On the fateful day, he  

was sleeping on a rock stone outside the house when he heard  

the distressing cry of his sister.  When he went inside the house,  

2

Page 3

he saw the accused coming out of the house with a knife in his  

hand.  The accused ran towards the western side.   Thereupon,  

he went inside the house and saw his sister lying in a pool of  

blood.   PW-1 then proceeded to the village headman and also to  

the village Panchayat President.   Then, he was directed to go to  

the police station.   He went to the police station, gave the  

complaint Ext. P-1 to Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-11.   On the  

basis of this complaint, the Police registered a case being Cr. No.  

6/2002 under Section 448 and 302 IPC.  The FIR Ext. P-10 was  

registered and sent to the Court.   The Inspector of Police, PW-16  

took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of  

occurrence, made  investigations  in  presence  of  the  witnesses,  

prepared  the  Observation  Mahazar  Ext. P-4  and  sketch,  Ext.  

P-15.   Thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy.  Dr.  

Alavudeen, PW-14 attached to the Government Hospital,  

conducted the post mortem upon the body of the deceased and  

gave the post mortem report, Ext. P-12, wherein he opined that  

the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage  

because of injuries sustained by her.   Upon his arrest, the  

accused also made a confessional statement in presence of the  

witnesses vide Ext. P-17.  On the basis of this statement, M.O.6.,  

knife and M.O.7., blood stained shirt were also recovered vide  

3

Page 4

Ext. P-18.   All the material objects were sent for chemical  

examination by the forensic department which issued two  

certificates, Exts. P-8 and P-9, the chemical examination report  

and the Serological report, respectively.

5. It may be noticed at this stage itself that PW-7 and PW-8,  

the two minor children of the deceased had seen the incident,  

but their examination was not permitted by the trial court as is  

evident from the judgment of the trial court and the evidence  

produced before the Court.

6. The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions for  

trial under Sections 448 and 302 IPC and finally vide judgment  

dated 19th July, 2004, he was convicted and sentenced to life  

imprisonment and fine, as afore-noticed.

7. Upon appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court  

sustained the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the  

appeal of the accused vide its judgment dated 28th February,  

2007, giving rise to the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has  

contended that :-

4

Page 5

a)  PW-1 is the sole witness on whose statement the courts  

have returned the finding of conviction against the accused.  

PW-1 being an interested witness and himself being an  

accused in another murder case, it is not safe to rely upon  

the statement of such witness as, it is neither reliable nor  

truthful.   Thus, the judgment of conviction is liable to be  

set aside.

b) The courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in  

its correct perspective.   The prosecution has not been able  

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.  A number of  

witnesses had turned hostile and there is no corroboration  

to the statement of PW-1.   Even the confessional statement  

recorded by the police is inadmissible.   There exists serious  

doubt as to the very presence of PW-1 at the place of  

occurrence.   Resultantly, the appellant is entitled to the  

benefit of doubt.

9. First and foremost, we may deal with the contention as to  

the presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence and whether the  

statement of the said witness is reliable and can form the basis of  

conviction of the accused.  According to PW-1 and as per the  

case of the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place after 12  

5

Page 6

a.m./midnight on 13th/14th January, 2002.  The FIR, Ext. P-10  

was registered on the basis of the statement of PW-1.   As per the  

details given in the said Exhibit, it was registered at 0130 hrs. on  

14th January, 2002.   Thus, at best, there is nearly one hour gap  

between the time of occurrence and registration of the FIR.   The  

presence of PW1 at the house of his sister can hardly be  

doubted.  If PW1 was not present there, then it could not have  

been possible for him to see the accused running away after  

stabbing his sister and also he could not have met the Sarpanch  

of the village and then the Police Officer within a short period of  

occurrence, which facts have been proved from the evidence  

placed on record.    PW-1 stated the entire facts before PW-11,  

the Sub-Inspector, whereupon the FIR was registered.  

According to PW-1, he was staying at the house of his sister and  

was working as a cleaner in a lorry.   Keeping in view the close  

relationship between the parties, we do not see any reason to  

disbelieve PW-1 in this regard.   Firstly, there is no delay in  

lodging the FIR and even the delay of 1 and 1½ hour is fully  

explained by the conduct of PW-1.

10. As far as his presence at the place of occurrence is  

concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has  

6

Page 7

not been able to refer to any evidence that could create even a  

reasonable doubt as to the presence of PW-1 at the place of  

occurrence.   In fact when PW-1 was cross-examined by the  

accused, any suggestion of this kind was not even put to him in  

the cross-examination.

11. PW-1 also stated that on hearing the noise, he ran towards  

the house of his sister and thereupon the neighbors Rajammal,  

Radha, Murugan, Palanimuthu and Muthaiah had also come  

there.    It is correct that Rajammal and Murugan had not been  

examined by the police, while Radha, PW-4 and Muthaiah, PW-2  

did not speak favorably for the prosecution and were declared  

hostile with the leave of the court.

12. Palanimuthu, was examined as PW-3 and he stated that he  

was living near the house of Tamilarasi, the deceased.  She had  

cried loudly and then he went and saw that some people had  

come there and the deceased was bleeding from her injuries.  

The police had come and they collected the earth from the spot  

and he signed Exts. P-4 and P-5.

13. Nothing adverse came on record in the cross-examination of  

this witness.   PW-3, thus, has not only supported the case of  

7

Page 8

prosecution, but even provided due corroboration to the  

statement of PW-1.  When accused was taken into custody, he  

made a statement on 17th January, 2002 and stated that when  

he was five years old, there was a quarrel between his mother  

and father and his father had brought him to Sikkandarchandi.  

When he was 10 years old, his father contracted a second  

marriage with the deceased.   He stated the complete history of  

his family and about his bitter relationship with the deceased. He  

also stated that he had stabbed the deceased.   Then, he  

proceeded to say that he had hidden the knife with which he had  

committed the offence on the side of the local tank situated at  

Sikkandarchavadi and he could get the same recovered. In  

furtherance to this statement, the knife, M.O.6, was recovered.  

Out of the witnesses to this confession statement, one attesting  

witness, P.Rajendran, was not examined, however, the other  

witness M. Solaimuthu, was examined as PW-15.    

14. The courts, relying upon the admissible part of the  

statement of the accused, held that the recovery of knife had  

been effected in accordance with law.   Importantly, we may  

notice the injuries found on the person of the deceased by Dr.  

Alavudeen PW-14, who conducted the post-mortem upon the  

8

Page 9

body of the deceased.   The injuries on the person of the  

deceased were described by the said witness as follows:-

“1. An oblique stab wound on left breast 5  cm below and medical to the left nipple 3  cm x 1 cm. both ends pointed with  regular margine.   On dissection the  wound passes obliquely backwards and  upwards and inwards, piercing the  underlying intercostals muscles, vessels  and nerves and left ventricle 2 cm x 0.5  cm entering into cavity.

2. An oblique stab wound on left  hyppchondrium 5 cm below the left  costal margin 4 cm x 1 cm x entering  into abdominal cavity through which the  loops of small bowel found protruding  out.   Both ends pointed with regular  margin.  On dissection the wound  passes obliquely, backwards and  inwards.

3. An oblique stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x  entering into abdominal cavity on the  right side of upper abdomen 4 cm below  the right costal margin through which  loops of small bowel found protruding  out, both ends pointed with regular  margins.   On dissection the wound  passes obliquely downwards, backwards  and medially.

4. A vertical oblique stab wound 3 cm x 1  cm on the outer aspect of the left thigh  13 cm from left anterior superior liiac  spine.   Both ends pointed, margins  regular.   On dissection the wound  passes backwards, medially and  upwards, piercing the underlying  muscles, nerves and vessels and ends as  a point.

9

Page 10

5. An oblique stab wound on the back of  left side of abdomen 3 cm above the left  ilisc crest 3 cm x 1 cm.  both ends  pointed with regular margins.   On  dissection: the wound passes upwards,  forwards and medially  piercing the  underlying tissues, entering the  peritoneal cavity.

6. An oblique out injury on the back of left  forearm 6 cm above the wrist 3  cm x 1  cm x bone deep cutting the underlying  muscles, vessels, nerves and bones.

7. An oblique out injury on the front of left  forearm 10 cm above the wrist 8 cm x 2  cm x bone deep cutting the underlying  muscles, vessels, nerves and bones.

8. An oblique out injury on front of left  forearm, 3 cm below injury No. 7 – 8 cm  x 2 cm x bone deep cutting the  underlying muscles, vessels and nerves.”

15. The case of the prosecution clearly indicates that the  

present case is, to a very limited extent, based upon  

circumstantial evidence and largely there exists ocular and  

documentary evidence to support the case of the prosecution.  

The statements of PW1, PW6, PW14 as well as the report of the  

chemical examination and the serology report, Exts.8 and 9,  

respectively, clearly establish the material facts that lead to the  

irresistible conclusion that the accused had committed the  

murder of his step-mother, Tamilarasi.   

10

Page 11

16. We are not impressed with the contention that PW1 is the  

sole and interested witness and, therefore, his statement cannot  

be relied upon by the Court for returning the finding of  

conviction.  It is a settled principle of law that the Court can  

record a finding of guilt while, entirely or substantially, relying  

upon the statement of the sole witness, provided his statement is  

trustworthy, reliable and finds corroboration from other  

prosecution evidence.  In the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda  v.  

State of Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr., [Crl. Appeal No. 984 of 2007  

decided on March 15, 2012], this Court held as under:

“11. Now, we come to the second  submission raised on behalf of the appellant  that the material witness has not been  examined and the reliance cannot be placed  upon the sole testimony of the police witness  (eye-witness).  It is a settled proposition of  law of evidence that it is not the number of  witnesses that matters but it is the  substance.  It is also not necessary to  examine a large number of witnesses if the  prosecution can bring home the guilt of the  accused even with a limited number of  witnesses.  In the case of Lallu Manjhi  and  Anr. vs.  State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC  401, this Court had classified the oral  testimony of the witnesses into three  categories:-

a. Wholly reliable;

b. Wholly unreliable;   and

11

Page 12

c. Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

12. In the third category of witnesses, the  Court has to be cautious and see if the  statement of such witness is corroborated,  either by the other witnesses or by other  documentary or expert evidence.  Equally  well settled is the proposition of law that  where there is a sole witness to the incident,  his evidence has to be accepted with caution  and after testing it on the touchstone of  evidence tendered by other witnesses or  evidence otherwise recorded.  The evidence  of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable  and must essentially fit into the chain of  events that have been stated by the  prosecution.  When the prosecution relies  upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness,  then such evidence has to be wholly reliable  and trustworthy.  Presence of such witness  at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If  the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict  with the other witnesses, it may not be safe  to make such a statement as a foundation of  the conviction of the accused.  These are the  few principles which the Court has stated  consistently and with certainty.  Reference in  this regard can be made to the cases of  Joseph  v.  State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465  and Tika Ram  v.  State of Madhya Pradesh  (2007) 15 SCC 760.  Even in the case of  Jhapsa Kabari  and Others v.  State of Bihar  (2001) 10 SCC 94, this Court took the view  that if the presence of a witness is doubtful,  it becomes a case of conviction based on the  testimony of a solitary witness.  There is,  however, no bar in basing the conviction on  the testimony of a solitary witness so long as  the said witness is reliable and trustworthy.  

13. In the case of Jhapsa Kabari (supra),  this Court noted the fact that simply because  one of the witnesses (a 14 years old boy) did  

12

Page 13

not name the wife of the deceased in the  fardbayan, it would not in any way affect the  testimony of the eye-witness i.e. the wife of  the deceased, who had given graphic  account of the attack on her husband and  her brother-in-law by the accused persons.  Where the statement of an eye-witness is  found to be reliable, trustworthy and  consistent with the course of events, the  conviction can be based on her sole  testimony.  There is no bar in basing the  conviction of an accused on the testimony of  a solitary witness as long as the said witness  is reliable and trustworthy.”

17. In view of the settled position of law, we find that the  

statement of PW1 inspires confidence and is truthful and  

reliable.  His statement does not suffer from any material  

contradictions.  On the other hand, it gives a correct eye-version  

of what this witness saw.  If PW1 intended to lie, nothing  

prevented him from saying that he was also an eye-witness to the  

scene of stabbing of the deceased by the accused.  He only stated  

that this crime was witnessed by the two minor children of the  

deceased and he had merely seen the accused running out from  

the house of the deceased with a knife in his hand.  Where a sole  

witness has stated exactly what he had actually seen and the  

said statement otherwise fits into the case of the prosecution and  

is trustworthy, the Court normally would not be inclined to reject  

13

Page 14

the statement of such sole witness.  Furthermore, it is contended  

that the statement of PW-1 cannot be relied upon by the Court  

also for the ground that he is an interested witness.  This  

argument is equally without merit.  The presence of PW1 at the  

house of his sister is natural.  He was working as a cleaner and  

was staying with his sister in the same village.  He was sleeping  

outside the house of the deceased and went towards the house  

upon hearing her screams.  Every witness, who is related to the  

deceased cannot be said to be an interested witness who will  

depose falsely to implicate the accused.  In the present case, the  

accused is also related to PW1 and there could be no reason for  

PW1 to falsely implicate the accused.   

18. We have already discussed that the statement of PW1 is  

worthy of credence.  In the case of Mano Dutt & Anr.  v.  State of  

U.P. [Crl. Appeal No. 77 of 2007 decided on 29th February, 2012],  

a Bench of this Court held that it is not the quantity but the  

quality of the evidence which would bring success to the case of  

the prosecution or give benefit of doubt to the accused.  

Statement of every related witness cannot, as a matter of rule, be  

rejected by the Courts.  This court, in the aforesaid case, held as  

under:

14

Page 15

“19. Another contention raised on behalf of  the accused/appellants is that only family  members of the deceased were examined as  witnesses and they being interested  witnesses cannot be relied upon.  Furthermore, the prosecution did not  examine any independent witnesses and,  therefore, the prosecution has failed to  establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.  This argument is again without much  substance.  Firstly, there is no bar in law in  examining family members, or any other  person, as witnesses.  More often than not,  in such cases involving family members of  both sides, it is a member of the family or a  friend who comes to rescue the injured.  Those alone are the people who take the risk  of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a  quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis.  Besides, when the statement of witnesses,  who are relatives, or are parties known to  the affected party, is credible, reliable,  trustworthy, admissible in accordance with  the law and corroborated by other witnesses  or documentary evidence of the prosecution,  there would  hardly be any reason for the  Court to reject such evidence merely on the  ground that the witness was family member  or interested witness or person known to the  affected party.  There can be cases where it  would be but inevitable to examine such  witnesses, because, as the events occurred,  they were the natural or the only eye witness  available to give the complete version of the  incident.  In this regard, we may refer to the  judgments of this Court, in the case of  Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [(2007) 14  SCC 150].  This Court drew a clear  distinction between a chance witness and a  natural witness.  Both these witnesses have  to be relied upon subject to their evidence  being trustworthy and admissible in  

15

Page 16

accordance with the law.  This Court, in the  said judgment, held as under:   

“28. From the aforesaid  discussion, it is clear that Indian  legal system does not insist on  plurality of witnesses. Neither the  legislature (Section 134 of the  Evidence Act, 1872) nor the  judiciary mandates that there  must be particular number of  witnesses to record an order of  conviction against the accused.  Our legal system has always laid  emphasis on value, weight and  quality of evidence rather than on  quantity, multiplicity or plurality of  witnesses. It is, therefore, open to  a competent court to fully and  completely rely on a solitary  witness and record conviction.  Conversely, it may acquit the  accused in spite of testimony of  several witnesses if it is not  satisfied about the quality of  evidence. The bald contention that  no conviction can be recorded in  case of a solitary eyewitness,  therefore, has no force and must  be negatived.

29. It was then contended that  the only eyewitness, PW 6 Sopan  was none other than the son of  the deceased. He was, therefore,  “highly interested” witness and his  deposition should, therefore, be  discarded as it has not been  corroborated in material  particulars by other witnesses. We  are unable to uphold the  contention. In our judgment, a  witness who is a relative of the  

16

Page 17

deceased or victim of a crime  cannot be characterised as  “interested”. The term “interested”  postulates that the witness has  some direct or indirect “interest”  in having the accused somehow or  the other convicted due to animus  or for some other oblique motive.”

20. It will be useful to make a reference of  another judgment of this Court, in the case  of Satbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar  Pradesh, [(2009) 13 SCC 790], where this  Court held as under:

“26. It is now a well-settled  principle of law that only because  the witnesses are not independent  ones may not by itself be a ground  to discard the prosecution case. If  the prosecution case has been  supported by the witnesses and  no cogent reason has been shown  to discredit their statements, a  judgment of conviction can  certainly be based thereupon.  Furthermore, as noticed  hereinbefore, at least Dhum Singh  (PW 7) is an independent witness.  He had no animus against the  accused. False implication of the  accused at his hand had not been  suggested, far less established.”

21. Again in a very recent judgment in the  case of Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of  Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673], this Court  stated that when the eye-witnesses are  stated to be interested and inimically  disposed towards the accused, it has to be  noted that it would not be proper to  conclude that they would shield the real  culprit and rope in innocent persons. The  

17

Page 18

truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be  weighed pragmatically. The Court would be  required to analyse the evidence of related  witnesses and those witnesses who are  inimically disposed towards the accused.  But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of  their evidence, the version given by the  witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and  credible, there is no reason to discard the  same.”

19. It will now be appropriate to refer to the statement of PW14,  

the doctor, who performed the autopsy upon the body of the  

deceased.  According to this witness, he had found multiple  

injuries on the person of the deceased and that too, at the vital  

parts.   We have already noticed the injuries caused, in some  

detail.   The accused inflicted injury on the breast of the  

deceased wherein it pierced into the left ventricle of the heart.  

Another stab injury was caused by him on the left side of the rib  

through which the samall intestine had protruded out.   Still,  

another injury was caused on the right side of the rib through  

which also the small intestine had come out.   This is besides the  

injuries he caused on the left hip, wrist and stomach of the  

deceased.  This clearly shows that the deceased had come to the  

house of the deceased with the definite intention to kill her.  The  

accused, by inflicting these multiple injuries on vital parts of her  

18

Page 19

body, ensured that she died instantaneously.   There appears  

dual motive for the accused to commit the crime.  Firstly, the  

deceased was his step-mother, whose behaviour towards him  

was not acceptable to the accused.  Secondly, the entire  

properties left by the father of the accused and husband of the  

deceased, were being enjoyed by the deceased herself.  

Furthermore, every time the accused had to ask for money from  

the deceased and more often than not, she refused to give him  

the money.  These circumstances emerging from the record  

clearly show reason for some kind of animosity and ill-will on the  

part of the accused towards the deceased.  Existence of a motive  

for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but  

it is always a relevant factor, which will be taken into  

consideration by the courts as it will render assistance to the  

courts while analysing the prosecution evidence and determining  

the guilt of the accused.

20. Statement of PW1, supported by the statements of PW11,  

PW6, PW14 and the recovery of the weapon of crime vide Exhibit  

M.O. 6, upon disclosure statement of the accused, completes the  

chain of events as stated in the case of the prosecution.  Except  

the part of the disclosure statement of the accused which led to  

19

Page 20

the recovery of the said knife, the rest of the statement of the  

accused would be inadmissible in evidence as per Section 27 of  

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

21. Still, there is another very vital aspect of the case of the  

prosecution on which the discussion is necessary.   It has come  

in evidence in the statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-16,  

the Sub-Inspector who recorded the complaint of PW-1, PW-11  

and the witness to the recovery, PW-6 that blood-stained earth  

was collected from the place of occurrence and was subsequently  

sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science  

Laboratory.

22. According to PW-16, after the arrest of the accused, the  

accused had taken the police to Sikkandarchavadi where he got  

recovered the wooden-handled bloodstained knife M.O.6, and the  

bloodstained shirt worn by him, M.O.7, hidden in the bushes.  

They were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer in  

presence of the attesting witnesses.    The recovered items, along  

with blood stained blue, green and white check shirt which the  

accused was wearing at the time of commission of offence, were  

sent to the Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,  

Madurai for examination vide Ext. P-7.  The serological report,  

20

Page 21

Ext. P-9, was submitted to the Court by the laboratory.  This  

report provided the result of MO-7 (the said shirt) at serial No.8  

of the report.  As per the report, it contained human blood of  

group ‘A’.  It has come in evidence that the blood group of the  

deceased was ‘A’.     The same blood group was also found on the  

saree, jacket and gunny bag which were seized by the  

Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence.   This clearly  

connects the accused with the commission of crime.   This is a  

very material and significant piece of evidence and was put to the  

accused during his statement under Section 313 CrPC, but  

except vague denial, the accused said nothing more.

23. This is clinching evidence against the accused which fully  

supports the case of the prosecution.   PW-7 and PW-8 are said  

to be child witnesses who had seen the occurrence.   They are  

sons of the deceased.   When they appeared before the Court, the  

Court put certain questions to both these witnesses to form an  

opinion whether they would be able to depose.   It granted the  

permission to PW-7, but his statement was not recorded.   The  

Court declined permission for examining PW-8.   As such, the  

statement of both these witnesses was not recorded.   It is a  

settled principle of law that a child witness can be a competent  

21

Page 22

witness provided statement of such witness is reliable, truthful  

and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence.   The Court in  

such circumstances can safely rely upon the statement of a child  

witness and it can form the basis for conviction as well.  

Further, the evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof  

would depend upon the circumstances of each case.    The only  

precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing  

the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be  

reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other  

competent witness and that there exists no likelihood of being  

tutored.    There is no rule or practice that in every case the  

evidence of such a witness be corroborated by other evidence  

before a conviction can be allowed to stand but as a rule of  

prudence the Court always finds it desirable to seek  

corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence  

placed on record.  Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a  

child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable.  

(Ref. Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 5 SCC  

341] and Panchhi v. State of U.P. [(1998) 7 SCC 177].

24. This aspect of the case need not detain us any further,  

inasmuch as the Trial Court did not permit recording of  

22

Page 23

statement of these witnesses being child witnesses.   Legality or  

correctness of this direction of the Trial Court was not  

questioned either by the State or by the accused in their appeal  

before the High Court and even before this Court.

25. No arguments have been addressed even before us by either  

party that these two child witnesses should have been examined  

and that it has caused any prejudice to any of the parties in the  

present appeal.

26. According to PW-1, these children had seen the accused  

murdering their mother.  Despite this statement if these  

witnesses have not been examined and parties have not raised  

any objection in that regard, we see no reason to record any  

findings on this aspect of the case.

27. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts  

below, based upon proper appreciation of evidence clearly prove  

the guilt of the accused. The statement of PW-1 is fully  

corroborated by other witnesses, expert evidence and the medical  

evidence.     

23

Page 24

28. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with  

the finding of guilt as the well as the order of sentence.  

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.  

…….…………......................J.                                                     (A.K. Patnaik)

...….…………......................J.                                                     (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi, May 8, 2012

24