WWW.LIVELAW.
IN
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 05.07.2019
Judgment delivered on : 28.08.2019
CRA No. 968 of 2012
Pappu @ Vivek @ Lohasingh @ Azad @ Amarnath S/o Ravel
Minj @ Ramdhani @ Prabhat Minj, aged about 24 years, R/o
Chetag Balumat, Latehar (Jharkhand) Current Address
Govindpur P.S. Batouli, District – Surguja (C.G.)
Arvind Kumar Tigga @ Bada Arvind @ Guddu @ Ashok S/o
Johan Tigga, aged about 20 years, R/o Basen P.S. Batouli,
District – Surguja (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through : Police Station Batouli, District
Surguja (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Smt. A. Lakra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Vikas Shrivastava, P.L.
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra &
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Judgment
28.08.2019
Per Rajani Dubey, J
01. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2012 passed by the 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No.326/2008
whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty of
commission of offence and sentence them as described below.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1000/- each. In default of fine
amount, to further undergo R.I. for
four months.
Under Section 394/34 read with R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.500/-
397/34 IPC each. In default of payment of fine
amount, to further undergo R.I. for
two months.
Appellant Pappu @ Vivek (A-1) Three years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-.
In default of payment of fine amount,
Under Section 25(1) (B) (A) of Arms to further undergo R.I. for two
Act months.
02. In the present case name of deceased is Maheshwar Singh,
husband of Smt. Parvati (PW/3) and father of Kamalnath Singh (PW/4).
03. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the deceased's 10 year old
child Kamalnath Singh (PW/4) was studying in class IV in Dilox School
at Ambikapur and he used to board and get off the bus near Chirga
turn from where his father Maheshwar Singh used to pick up and drop
him. On the date of incident i.e. on 05.07.2008, Kamalnath Singh
(PW/4), after final bell of school, was waiting for his father in passenger
waiting room near Chirga turn. At around 3.30-3.45 PM, his father
Maheshwar Singh reached there and picked up him and was going to
home on their motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15-C-2845.
When they reached near Chirga nala, accused/appellant Pappu @
Vivek (A-1) intercepted them and then a letter was given to Maheshwar
to read, to which he denied. Thereafter, accused/appellant Pappu @
Vivek (A-1) pointed gun at Maheshwar saying that 'you are under
arrest' and opened gun fire on him, resulting in his death. Seeing this,
Kamalnath Singh (PW/4), son of Maheshwar, started crying and the
accused persons took his father's motorcycle and ran away from the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
spot. Kamalnath Singh (PW/4) informed the incident to the passerby.
Further case of the prosecution is that one Dev Kumar (PW/6) also
heard the sound of gun fire and saw the accused persons fleeing from
the spot on motorcycle. On that very day, merg intimation in Ex.P/4
was recorded at the instance of Kamalnath Singh (PW/4), son of the
deceased, followed by registration of FIR in Ex.P/34. The alleged letter
(Article-B), which was given to deceased to read, was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.P/8. Inquest was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Body of
the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was
conducted by Dr. (Smt.) Manorama Minj (PW/21) who gave her report
in Ex.P/33 opining that the deceased died due to head injury caused by
firearm and mode of death was coma. On 05.07.2008 itself diary
statement of Kamalnath Singh (PW/4), son of deceased, was recorded
vide Ex.D/1 wherein he blamed the accused/appellants for committing
murder of his father. The police statement of Smt. Parvati (PW/3), wife
of deceased, was also recorded vide Ex.D/1 and she has also stated
that after coming to know about the murder of her husband, she rushed
to the place of incident and on reaching there, it was disclosed by her
son Kamalnath (PW/4) that two persons one of them was fat and one
was lean, opened fire on his father and killed him. During investigation,
test identification parade of the accused/appellants was conducted and
they were duly identified by Kamalnath vide Ex.P/9. Bloodstained
clothes of deceased were seized vide Ex.P/11. Memorandum
statements of appellants Arvind Kumar (A-2) and Pappu @ Vivek (A-1)
were recorded vide Ex.P/16 and P/17, based on which, clothes and
umbrella of A-2 & half T-shirt, full pant and country made pistol of A-1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
were seized vide Ex.P/18, P/19 and P/20 respectively. Specimen hand
written letter of appellant Pappu @ Vivek (Article C-1 to C-18) and
paper cutting were also seized vide Ex.P/24. Sanction letter was also
obtained vide Ex.P/38-C for prosecuting the accused/appellants under
Arms Act. Alleged hand written letter and specimen letters written by
appellant Pappu @ Vivek (A-1) were sent for examination to State
Examiner of Questioned Document vide Ex.P/31 and report thereof
was obtained vide Ex.P/39, which confirmed that writing characteristics
were significant and sufficient and when considered collectively proved
to be of common authorship between both the sets.
04. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court has framed charge
under Sections 302/34, 394/34, 397/34 IPC and Section 25 (1)(B)(A) of
Arms Act against the accused/appellants. The prosecution in order to
bring home the charge levelled against the accused/appellants
examined as many as 25 witnesses in all. Statements of
accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in
which they abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence and false
implication.
05. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and
sentenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described above.
06. Counsel for accused/appellants submits that ;
Conviction of appellants is solely based on the evidence of
Kamalnath (PW/4), a child witness, and test identification parade
in which this witness is said to have identified the appellants, but
his evidence does not inspire confidence and is unreliable
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
because on his report, offence was registered against the
unknown persons, later on, without any substantive piece of
evidence and without assigning any reasons, other sections
have been added. More so, this witness has been tutored by
Parvati (PW/3), the mother.
The accused/appellants were arrested after 17 days of the
incident and only on their memorandum statements they have
been implicated in the crime in question and nothing
incriminating has come in the evidence against the appellants.
The test identification parade (Ex.P/26) was conducted on
22.07.2008, and the child witness Kamalnath (PW/4) has stated
in his court statement that next day after the incident, he saw the
photo of accused/appellants in the news paper and prior to
identification, he saw them in the police station and Kamalnath
(PW/4) was tutored by her mother Parvati (PW/3). Therefore,
test identification parade loses its significance.
Dhan Singh (PW/12) and Jagrit Das (PW/13) who are the
witnesses of memorandum of accused/appellants and seizure,
have not supported the prosecution case. Other seizure
witnesses namely Ramsai Paikra (PW/8), Bajrang (PW/14),
Surendra Kumar Singh (PW/15), Armel Kerketta (PW/17) and
Manish Kumar (Pw/18) have not supported the prosecution case
and turned hostile.
07. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned
counsel for the State submits that conviction of the accused/appellants
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in
the same warranting interference by this Court. He further submits that
there is no reason before this Court to disbelieve the testimony of
Kamalnath (PW/4) who had witnessed the incident and immediately
thereafter informed about the incident to her mother Parvati (PW/3).
He would submit that it is not a thumb rule that the accused cannot be
convicted on the sole testimony of a child witness. If the statement of
child witness after due scrutiny inspires confidence, the conviction can
be based on such statement. He would further submit that on the
memorandum of the accused/appellant Pappu (A-1), country made
pistol allegedly used in the commission of crime, has been seized, and
in the test identification parade, the accused/appellants have been duly
identified by Kamalnath (PW/4), which point towards the guilt of the
accused/appellants.
08. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence
available on record.
09. Arvind Kumar Kerketta (PW/02) has not supported the
prosecution case and turned hostile. Smt. Parvati (PW/3), wife of
deceased, has stated in her evidence that after coming to know about
the incident, when she along with her family members reached the
place of occurrence, she saw her husband Maheshwar in pool of blood
and her son Kamalnath (PW/4) was crying. On being asked, her child
PW/4 informed that two unknown person opened fire at his father and
ran away towards Chirga on his father's motorcycle. She has further
deposed that she herself had seen the gunshot injury on the head of
her husband. She has also stated that after two weeks of the incident,
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
she was called in police station where accused/appellants were
interrogated. She also states that identification of the
accused/appellants was carried out in the police station in which her
son PW/4 identified them to be the assailants. She also states that,
thereafter, test identification parade was also conducted before
Additional Collector, Ambikapur, where also her son PW/4 had
identified the accused/appellants. A suggestion that her son did not
inform her about the incident, has been denied. In para 10 of her
cross-examination, she has denied suggestion that she tutored her son
saying that he has to depose against them.
10. Pradeep Ekka (PW/5) and Dev Kumar (PW/6) turned hostile.
Jasman Ram Painkra (PW/7) and Ramsai Painkra (PW/8) are the
constables and seizure witnesses to shirt and pistol made under
Ex.P/11 and P/12 respectively have turned hostile. Shambhu Singh
(PW/9) is the witness to seizure of alleged letter which was given to
deceased to read made under Ex.P/8 and inquest (Ex.P/15), has
admitted his signature thereon. Bhairavnath (PW/11) is also witness to
seizure of alleged letter made under Ex.P/8 and admitted his signature
thereon. Somaru (PW/12), witness to seizure of various articles made
under Ex.P/16, P/17 to P/23, has turned hostile. Jagrut Das (PW/13),
cleaner of police station and witness to seizure made under Ex.P/16,
P/17, P/18, P/19, P/20, P/21 and P/23, has turned hostile. Bajrang
(PW/14), witness to seizure of motorcycle of deceased made under
Ex.P/1, turned hostile. Surendra Kumar Singh (PW/15), witness to
seizure of country made pistol (Ex.P/24) and spot map (Ex.P/25), also
turned hostile. Armel Kerketta (PW/17) and Manish Kumar (PW/18),
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
witness to identification parade made under Ex.P/26, turn hostile.
11. R.B. Markam (PW/19) is the retired Deputy Collector. He has
stated that on 22.07.2008 test identification parade of
accused/appellants was carried out by him under Ex.P/26 and P/27, in
which they were duly identified by Dev Kumar (PW/6) in presence of
witnesses, who later on turned hostile. Likewise, on 23.07.2008, test
identification parade of accused/appellants was also conducted in
which accused/appellants were duly identified by Kamalnath (PW/4),
the child witness. This witness (PW/19) has admitted his signature
thereon. In para 5 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that
on 22.07.2008, he was posted as Deputy Collector in Ambikapur and,
at the relevant time, as the Tahsildars were on strike, therefore, under
the oral direction of Collector, he conducted test identification parade.
He has further stated that the police officials were not present at the
time of test identification parade.
12. Sobius Khakha (PW/20) – Inspector, has assisted in the
investigation.
13. Dr. (Smt.) Manorama Minj (PW/21) is the doctor who performed
autopsy on the body of deceased and found (i) entry wound in the size
of 0.5 diameter on right side of forehead near midline 1 cm above right
eyebrow, scorching was present over entry wound with burning, and (ii)
exit wound over right side of occipital region in the size of 1 cm in
length. Elliptical and obliquely placed which was covered by skin,
blood clot was present over exit wound. This witness has opined that
cause of death was coma due to head injury caused by firearm and the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
death was homicidal in nature.
14. Krishna Pandey (PW/22) is the investigating officer who has duly
supported the prosecution case. He has stated that on 05.07.2008, at
the instance of complainant Kamalnath (PW/4), he had registered an
FIR against the unknown persons. On 22.07.2008, he had recorded
the memorandum statements of the accused/applicants, based on
which country made pistol and four live cartridges were seized vide
seizure memo Ex.P/20.
15. O.P. Singh (PW/23), Assistant Grade-II posted in License
Section of District Collector, has proved sanction letter (Ex.P/38) for
prosecuting the accused/appellants under Arms Act. This witness has
admitted the signature of District Magistrate on sanction letter.
16. N.K. Sikkewal (PW/24) is the D.S.P.-cum-Additional State
Examiner of Questioned Document. He has stated in his evidence that
he examined the hand written letters of accused/appellant Pappu and
alleged letter send by Superintendent of Police, Sarguja, vide Ex.P/31.
He has stated that alleged letter is marked as Q-1, which was marked
as Article-B by the Court. Likewise, specimen hand written letters and
signature have been marked as A-1 to A-25, which was marked as
Article C-1 to C-18 by the Court. He has further stated that on careful
scrutiny and examination of these letters, he gave his report (Ex.P/39),
which reads as under:-
“I:- The person who wrote the red enclosed
writings & signatures stamped & marked A-1 to A-25 of cx-
130/08, B-1 to B-18 of cx-131/08 & C-1 to C-48 of cx-
129/08 also wrote the red enclosed writings & signature
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
10
similarly stamped & marked Q-1.”
17. Ganga Prasad Mishra (PW/24) is the Patwari, who prepared spot
map, vide Ex.P/25. Laxman Prasad Rajwade (PW/25) is the Head
Constable, who assisted in the investigation.
18. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimony of
Kamalnath (PW/4), who is child witness, and was aged 10 years
when his evidence was recorded. Before discussing the evidence of
the child witness, it would be advantageous to refer to the law relating
to child witness. Section 118 of the Evidence Act deals with the
question of competency of persons to testify. Under this section, all
persons are competent to testify, unless they are, in the opinion of the
Court, (a) unable to understand the questions put to them, or (b) to
give rational answers to those questions, owing to (I) tender years, (ii)
extreme old age, (iii) disease of mind or body, or (iv) any other such
cause. Even a lunatic, if he is capable of understanding the questions
put to him and giving rational answers, is a competent witness. With
respect to children, no precise age is fixed by law within which they are
absolutely excluded from giving evidence on the presumption that they
have not sufficient understanding. A child is not an incompetent
witness by reason of its age. A child of tender years is not, by reason
of its youth, as matter of law, disqualified as a witness. There is no
precise age which determines the question of competency. According
to Section 118 of the Evidence Act, a child of tender age is a competent
witness if it appears that it can understand the questions put to it and
give rational answers thereto. This section vests in the Court the
discretion to decide whether an infant is or is not disqualified to be a
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
11
witness by reason of understanding or lack of understanding. When a
young child is a witness, the first step for the Judge or Magistrate to
take is to satisfy himself that the child is the competent witness within
the meaning of Section 118 of the Evidence Act and for this purpose,
preliminary inquiry should be held. It is the duty of the Court to
ascertain in the best way, which it can, whether from the extent of his
intellectual capacity and understanding the child witness is able to give
a rational account of what he has seen, heard or done at a particular
occasion or in other words, the witness understands the duty of
speaking truth or not. Competency of young children can be
ascertained by putting a few questions to them in order to find out
whether they are intelligent enough to understand what they had seen
and afterwards inform the court thereof. The holding of a preliminary
inquiry is merely a rule of prudence and is not a legal obligation upon
the judge. It is desirable that after holding a preliminary inquiry, Judges
and Magistrates maintain record incorporating opinion that the child
understands the duty of speaking truth. Though no precise criteria for
appraising the evidence of a child witness can be laid down, yet one
broad test is whether there was possibility of any tutoring. If this test is
found in positive, the Court will not, as a rule of prudence, convict the
accused of a major offence on the basis of child evidence unless it is
corroborated to material extent in material particulars, directly
connecting the accused with the crime. At the same time, if otherwise
the testimony of a child witness is not shown to be tainted with any
such infirmities, it calls for due credence. A child in the innocent purity
of its mind and unsophistication is more likely to come forth with
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12
version which is unbiased, unsoiled, natural and forthright. It is less
prone to manipulation, motivation and spirit of vendetta. It can as well
be spontaneous and inspiring, once the child is enabled to overcome
the initial shock and awe, and ensured protection, security, compassion
and given confidence to come out with what was seen. Further, some
of the children are fairly intelligent, truthful and straight forward, and
there is no reason to start with a presumption of untrustworthiness in
the assessment of their evidence. The merit of evidence has to be
judged on the touchstone of its own inherent intrinsic worth.
19. In the matter of Panchhi v. State of UP reported in (1998) 7
SCC 177 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“.....It cannot be said that the evidence of a child witness
would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the
law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be
rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that
evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more
carefully with greater circumspection because a child is
susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus
a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.”
20. With regard to the testimony of child witness the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa
Galapuji & others reported in (2009) 12 SCC 731 had noticed the
case law and held as under:
“The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prescribe any
particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness
to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of
the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be
competent to testify, unless the court considers that they
are prevented from understanding the questions put to
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
13
them or from giving rational answers to these questions,
because of tender years, extreme old age, disease --
whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A
child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has
intellectual capacity to understand questions and give
rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness
is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule
of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny
and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and
reliability can record conviction, based thereon. {See
Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001) 9 SCC
129}. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra
[(1997) 5 SCC 341] it was held as follows : (SCC p.343,
para 5) :-
“A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts
and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of
conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the
evidence of a child witness can be considered under
Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such
witness is able to understand the questions and able to
given rational answers thereof. 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 a
reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other
competent witness and there is no likelihood of being
tutored.”
21. The position of law relating to the evidence of a child witness has
been dealt with also by the Apex Court in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate
and others V. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (12) SCC 565
and Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in
(2008 (4) SCALE 569). In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
14
Master & Others reported in (2010) 47 OCR (SC) 263 the Hon'ble
Apex Court also has gone a step ahead in observing that a child of
tender age who has witnessed the gruesome murder of his parents is
not likely to forget the incident for his whole life and would certainly
recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same at any
point of time notwithstanding the gap of about ten years between the
incident and recording his evidence.
22. The legal position which can be culled out from the aforesaid
decisions is that before recording conviction on the solitary testimony
of a child witness, the Court has to ensure that he is a reliable witness.
If his testimony is found to be trustworthy and reliable then conviction
can be recorded on his sole testimony.
23. Having noticed the principles, we would now examine the
evidence of child witness Kamalnath (PW/4). At the time of recording
of evidence of Kamalnath (PW/4), his age was about 10 years and
therefore the trial Judge had asked certain questions to him and after
satisfying itself of the fact that he understands the duty to speak truth
and is able to rationally answer the questions put to him, the Court has
examined him. This witness has deposed that on the date of incident
when he along with his father was coming to their house on
motorcycle, near Dhodaka nala they were intercepted by two persons,
thereafter, the person who had worn white colour shirt pointed gun
towards his father saying that 'you are under arrest'. Another
accused/appellant, who is standing with appellant Pappu in the Court,
was standing behind him holding umbrella. Appellant Pappu (A-1)
gave a letter to his father to read, to which his father denied, thereafter,
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
15
A-1 opened gun shot on his father, resulting his instantaneous death.
This witness has further deposed that thereafter, the
accused/appellants took his father's motorcycle and fled away from the
spot. He informed the incident to passerby and one of them, whose
name he does not know, informed the incident to his mother, who along
with other family members reached the place of occurrence and then
the matter was reported to police station. This witness has admitted
his signature on dehati merg intimation (Ex.P/4), dehati nalisi (Ex.P/5),
merg intimation (Ex.P/6) and on the alleged paper seized vide Ex.P/8,
which was given to his father by appellant Pappu @ Vivek (A-1) to
read. This witness, in para 4, has given vivid description of the incident
as also accused/applicants like what kind of clothes had they worn at
the time of incident, how they intercepted them and killed his father. A
suggestion that he (this witness) could not see the incident as his
father was tall and he was sitting behind his father, has been denied.
In para 9 of his cross-examination, he has stated that just after one day
of incident, he came to know the names of accused/appellants through
news paper and their photo had also been published. Further, in para
11 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he identified the
accused/appellants in the test identification parade which was
conducted in Ambikapur. In para 13 of his cross-examination this
witness has denied the suggestion put to him that he was tutored by
his mother. A suggestion that his mother had told him that he has to
identified the accused/appellants, has been accepted.
Evidence of this witness is well corroborated from his diary
statement (Ex.D/1), wherein he has categorically and specifically
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
16
stated as to how the incident took place and the manner in which
accused/appellant Pappu (A-1) opened gunshot on his father, resulting
in death. Statement of the child witness is also supported from the
medical evidence. According to Dr. (Smt.) Manorama Minj, all the
injuries were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death was shock
due to firearm injury to head of the deceased. She had given opinion
that the two injuries present on the head of the deceased could be
caused by one bullet. No ulterior motive was assigned by the defence
to the child witness to make a false statement or that being aged about
ten years there was any infirmity in his understanding of facts
perceived or his ability to narrate the same correctly.
24. Kamalnath (PW/4) firstly in his statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. gave description of the accused/appellants and attributed a
specific role to them in the crime and after that in the Court evidence
also he stuck to his statement made during investigation in all material
particulars. The role attributed to the respective accused/appellants is
that accused Pappu @ Vivek (A-1) opened fire at his father and
another accused Arvind Kumar Tigga (A-2) was standing behind him
holding umbrella in his hand and after the incident both the accused
persons flee from the spot taking his father's motorcycle towards
Chirga. Though, the accused were not very well known to him, but in
the identification parade and in the Court, PW/4 has identified them. It
is also not the case where the child witness had remained silent for
some days and narrated the incident thereafter only to his mother,
whereas he was informing the incident to passerby also. The evidence
of Kamalnath (PW/4) is sought to be impeached on the ground that he
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
17
could identify the accused persons only when their names and photos
were published in the local news paper and in the police station in
presence of police personnel, and thereafter, in the test identification
parade, which render the TIP doubtful. We do not find anything
adverse in the evidence of PW/4 which renders his testimony doubtful
and we have no reason to disbelieve his evidence for the reason that
at the time of incident, he was the only person, who was available with
his father and seen the accused/appellants committing murder of his
father. He was having much time so that he could identify the accused
persons and he did so well.
25. Considering the evidence of Parvati (PW/3), wife of deceased
Maheshwar Sing and mother of Kamalnath (PW/4), who had deposed
that when she along with other family members reached the place of
incident, at that time Kamalnath (PW/4) was present on the spot and
he narrated the entire incident while crying, we are of the view that
there was hardly any chance of tutoring. Being so we are of the view
that evidence of PW/4 inspires confidence and there exists no
likelihood of being tutored.
26. Another circumstance pointing towards the guilt of
accused/appellants is the alleged hand written letter, which was given
to the deceased to read, was seized vide Ex.P/8, and specimen hand
written letters of accused/appellant Pappu @ Vivek (A-1) were
obtained and seized vide Article C-1 to C-18 and the same were sent
to the hand writing expert for its opinion. According to opinion of hand
writing expert (Ex.P/40), the person who wrote Article C-1 to C-18 also
wrote the alleged letter Article-B, meaning thereby it is the appellant
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
18
Pappu @ Vivek (A-1), who gave the said letter to deceased to read.
The question with regard to the alleged letter was put to
accused/appellants during their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
but except vague denial, they said nothing more.
27. Thus, the cumulative effect of the above is that evidence of
Kamalnath (PW/4) is truthful, reliable and inspires confidence. He has
narrated the incident in a most natural way and the manner in which he
has narrated the incident, inspires confidence of this Court. His
evidence does not show that he was tutored. His testimony is
corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the trial Judge has erred in relying upon the testimony of
Kamalnath (PW/4) while convicting appellants of the offence
punishable under Sections 302/34, 394/34, 397/34 IPC and Section 25
(1) (B) (A) of Arms Act.
28. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be
dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Since the accused/appellants
are already in custody no extra direction is needed regarding their
surrender etc.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Pekde
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
19
CRA No.968/2012
(Pappu @ Vivek & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh)
HEAD NOTE
A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts
and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction.
;fn cky lk{kh rF;ksa ds laca/k esa vfHklk{; nsus ds fy;s l{ke vkSj fo'oluh;
ik;k tkrk gS rks ,slk ,dek= lk{; nks”kflf) dk vk/kkj gks ldrk gSA
