SHISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge and the said conviction and sentence was upheld in appeal by the High Court of rajasthan. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the FIR as well as in the sole evidence of PW 4, is that on the relevant date of occurrence while PW 4 had accompanied his mother, the deceased, and had gone to a nearby field for plucking some vegetables and was returning, the accused reached the scene of occurrence and gave two blows, one on the head and the other on the neck. PW 4 immediately rushed to his house and informed his father, where after the father went to the place of occurrence and found his wife in an injured condition. He brought his wife to his house but she died in the house itself. The father then went to the police station and lodged the report which was treated as FIR, on the basis of which police started investigation and on completion of investigation submitted the charge-sheet. The accused on being committed stood the trial. The prosecution case hinges upon the solitary evidence of the son of the deceased PW 4, apart from the medical evidence. The medical evidence indicates that the death was on account of fatal injury on the neck and that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The said conclusion is not assailed before us. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PW 4, who was 11 years old on the date of occurrence, came to the conclusion that his evidence can be solely relied upon to bring home the charge and ultimately convicted the appellant under section 302. The High Court also relied upon the same evidence, took into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused that the evidence of PW 4, who is a child witness, cannot be accepted without independent corroboration but rejected the same. In this Court, the sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW 4, being a child witness, the courts below could not have relied upon the same to base the conviction of the offence under Section 302. We have been taken through the evidence of the said PW 4 and we do not find any substance in the aforesaid arguments. PW 4 has given a picture of the entire occurrence and the fact that PW 4 came and immediately narrated the same to his father and the father thereafter went to the place of occurrence and brought his wife to his house and then gave the report at the police station and the said report fully depicts the entire incident, indicates that the child PW 4 has truthfully stated as to what he saw. So far as the capacity of the child to depose is concerned, not only the learned Sessions Judge before recording his evidence took the precaution of examining and finding out his capacity to depose, but the very deposition itself on a scrutiny would indicate that though he was 11 years old, yet had sufficient maturity to depose as to what he saw and we see nothing brought out in the cross-examination to have an iota of doubt about his capacity to depose. While placing the evidence of PW 4 nothing has been brought to our notice in the cross-examination to impeach his testimony. In that view of the matter, we see no infirmity in that evidence being taken as the basis of conviction both by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the high Court. As stated earlier, the fact that the medical evidence also indicates two injuries, one on the head and the other on the neck corroborates the oral evidence of PW 4. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.