SANKAR BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) FOR committing murder of one Shyamali Mazumder, the appellant Lalu Chaudhury has been convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore under S. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. This appeal seeks to assail the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) SHORN of details, the case for the prosecution was under : keshab Mazumder (P. W. 15) was a tenant in respect of the ground floor of Premises No. 5a, Jadunath Mukherjee Street, Ariadhaha, where he used to live with his wife Shyamali (deceased) and two sons, the eldest being Basudeb (P. W. 2 ). Their Youngest son used to live at Belgharia in the house of Arun Banerjee, (P. W. 9) younger brother of Shyamali. ( 3 ) KESHAB carried on business in chemicals and had to visit different places in connection with his business. On 17-5-81 he went to Darjeeling and returned to Calcutta on 28-5-81 after visiting Siliguri, Kalimpong and Gangtok. ( 4 ) APPELLANT Lalu Chaudhury was a friend of Keshab and a frequent visitor to his house even during his absence from Calcutta. He also used to do marketing for the family of Keshab, whenever requested by Shyamali. Besides the appellant, several other friends of Keshab used to visit his house. ( 5 ) ON May 26, 1981 a person locally known as "half-boil" whom Basudeb (P. W. 2) used to call "kaka" (uncle) came to Keshab's house at or about 5 P. M. and engaged himself in conversation with Shyamali. Basudeb was inside the room when the talks between them were going on, while their maid-servant Sovarani (P. W. 3) was busy in the kitchen. At or about 5-30 P. M. the appellant came to the room where the talks between "half-boil" and Shyamali were going on. ( 6 ) AFTER a short while, "half-boil" left the room and a fresh round of conversation started between Shyamali and the appellant. Basudeb, as before, was sitting inside the room and Sovarani was in the kitchen. ( 7 ) DURING the coversation, the appellant brought out a small gun from his waist and threatened Shyamali with the weapon. He then took out a cartridge from his pocket, put it inside the gun and fired it at Shyamali's face from point blank range as a result of which, she fell down. ( 7 ) DURING the coversation, the appellant brought out a small gun from his waist and threatened Shyamali with the weapon. He then took out a cartridge from his pocket, put it inside the gun and fired it at Shyamali's face from point blank range as a result of which, she fell down. Seeing the ghastly attack Basudeb exclaimed "lalu Kaka, what have you done". But without giving any reply the appellant ran out of the room, leaving his chappals and escaped on a cycle which was kept out side the house. At the time of escape, the appellant took away the small gun with him. ( 8 ) AS soon as the appellant escaped, Basudeb raised an alarm hearing which Sovarani (P. W. 3) rused to the room from the kitchen and was told by Basudeb that his mother had been shot by Lalu Kaka who had fled away after the shooting. Keeping his younger brother Joy near his mother, Basudeb immediately set out for the house of his maternal uncle Arun (P. W. 9) on a cycle rikshaw and reaching there, narrated the occurrence to him. ( 9 ) ARUN (P. W. 9) with his sister and Basudeb rushed to the house of Keshab and saw a crowd in front of the house. Basudeb reported to them that "lalukaka" has run away after killing his mother. ( 10 ) AT 7. 30 P. M. a telephonic message was received at police station Belgharia from a member of the Ariadana R. G. Party that the dead body of a woman was found lying near the Sarbamangala School. The message was diarised and transmitted to Sub-Inspector N. Saha (P. W. 16) who was on patrol duty in a police R. T. Van at that time. ( 11 ) ON receipt of the wireless message Sub-Inspector Saha visited the scene of the crime at or about 8. 20 P. M. , held inquest on the dead body of Shyamali, recorded the statement of Basudeb (P. W. 2) which was treated as the first information report and sent it to the police station for drawing up the formal FIR and registering a case of murder under S. 302, Indian Penal Code. ( 12 ) ON completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet which, in the usual course, ended in committal of the case to the court of session. ( 12 ) ON completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet which, in the usual course, ended in committal of the case to the court of session. ( 13 ) THE defence of the appellant was a plea of innocence. ( 14 ) THE prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all to prove its case, while the defence examined none. ( 15 ) IT should be mentioned at the very outset that the murder of Shyamali is not challenged before us and has been proved by overwhelming evidence. Basudeb (P. W. 2), son of the deceased, saw her mother falling down as a result of shooting at her face. The dead body was seen by Smt. Lakshmi Banerjee (P. W. 4), Arun Banerjee (P. W. 9), as well as the Investigating Officer (P. W. 16) who held the inquest. According to them, the dead body was found lying inside a room of the house of Keshab, husband of the deceased. ( 16 ) AUTOPSY on the dead body was conducted by Dr. K. P. Saha (P. W. 13), the then medical officer-in-charge of the Police Hospital Barrackpur. He found one gun shot wound eliptical in nature with its wound of entry 6/10" (horizontal) X 4/10" (vertical) X bone deep (1) over the left side of the cheek, the centre of the wound lying " behind the left angle of the mouth. The margin of the wound was inverted with an abraded collar of blackening " all around. ( 17 ) THE gun shot wound caused fracture of the mandible and number of abrasions as a result of fall after being hit by the shot. Death, in the opinion of Dr. Saha, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the gun shot injury which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature He further expressed the opinion that the shot which was fired from point blank range that is, from a distance of 1' to2' was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. From the nature of the weapon used and the location of the injury, there cannot be any trace of doubt that whoever inflicted the injury must have done so with the clear intention of causing death of the victim. Though Dr. Saha was cross-examined by the defence at some length his evidence could not be shaken at all. From the nature of the weapon used and the location of the injury, there cannot be any trace of doubt that whoever inflicted the injury must have done so with the clear intention of causing death of the victim. Though Dr. Saha was cross-examined by the defence at some length his evidence could not be shaken at all. The murder of Shyamali, therefore, stands clearly established. ( 18 ) THE next question - and the most crucial one - is whether the appellant is responsible for the murder of Shyamali. ( 19 ) ALTHOUGH the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, its case rests primarily upon the evidence of the solitary eye witness Basudeb (P. W. 2) who was in the company of the deceased at the time of the firing. Below is the resume of his evidence given during the trial. ( 20 ) IN May, 1981 he was living with his parents at Premises No. 5a, Jadunath Mukherjee Street, Calcutta-57. About 5 to 7 days before 26-5-81, his father left for Darjeeling. ( 21 ) ON 26-5-81 at or about 5 P. M. while he and his mother Shyamali were in the house, "half-boil" Kaka (uncle) came and started talking with them. Their maid servant Sovarani (P. W. 3) was then in the kitchen. At or about 5-30 P. M. "lalu Kaka" (the appellant was identified by the witness in court as his ';lalu Kaka") came there and "half-boil" Kaka left the place after a short while. ( 22 ) WHILE talking with them, the appellant brought out a small gun from his waist and threatened Shyamali with it. While so, threatening, he took out a cartridge from his pocket, placed it inside the gun and fired it at her face as a result of which, she fell down on the floor of the room. Being startled at the sudden attack, he cried out saying "lalu Kaka, what have you done?" The appellant did not, however, give any reply. He simply ran out of the room leaving his chappals and escaped on a cycle which was kept outside the house. ( 23 ) HEARING the alarm raised by him, Sovarani (P. W. 3) rushed to the spot and asked him what had happened. He told her that "lalu Kaka" had fired at his mother from a gun and fled away. ( 23 ) HEARING the alarm raised by him, Sovarani (P. W. 3) rushed to the spot and asked him what had happened. He told her that "lalu Kaka" had fired at his mother from a gun and fled away. Thereafter, keeping his younger brother near his mother, he rushed to the house of his maternal uncle Arun Banerjee (P. W. 9) in a cycle rikshaw and narrated the incident to him. From there he came back to his house with his maternal uncle and saw a crowd in front of the house. He told them that "lalu Kaka" had killed his mother and fled away. Thereafter the police came and recorded his statement which was signed by him after it was read over and explained to him. ( 24 ) THE evidence of Basudeb (P. W. 2) which is the main stay of the prosecution case has been seriously (Sic) by Mr. Hazra, learned Counsel for the appellant, on the ground that at the time of his deposition Basudeb was aged ten years only which means that he was a child, in the neighbourhood of 9 years at the time of the occurrence. According to Mr. Hazra, as child witnesses are easily susceptible to tutoring and to telling imaginative stories, it would be extremely unsafe to act upon his evidence in the absence of any Corroboration. ( 25 ) THERE can be no denying the position that child witnesses are easily susceptible to tutoring and to telling imaginative stories and their evidence must, therefore, be scrutinised with extreme care and caution before being acted upon as true and dependable. ( 26 ) WE are not unmindful of the legal position that for appraising the evidence of a child witness the first test is whether there is any evidence of tutoring. If this test is found to be positive, the court should not convict an accused on a serious charge like murder, relying solely upon the evidence of a child witness, unless it is corroborated in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime. This precaution should be taken even if there is no infirmity in the evidence of a child witness. ( 27 ) WE now proceed to examine whether there is any evidence of tutoring of Basudeb, the sole eye witness to the occurrence. This precaution should be taken even if there is no infirmity in the evidence of a child witness. ( 27 ) WE now proceed to examine whether there is any evidence of tutoring of Basudeb, the sole eye witness to the occurrence. As stated already, the evidence goes to show that at the time of occurrence there was none else in the house besides Basudeb, his mother Shyamali, the appellant and Sovarani (P. W. 3) who was busy in the kitchen. The shooting took place all on a sudden and the appellant escaped immediately after the shooting. Therefore, at that moment there was none else in the house except Sovarani who could tutor Basudeb to concoct a false case against the appellant. Sovarani did not however, support the evidence of Basudeb that after the sound of gun fire was heard she asked him as to what had happened and got the reply that "lalu Kaka" had fired from his gun at his mother and fled away. On the contrary she stated that on being asked as to what had happened, Basudeb replied that he knew nothing for which, the lower court declared her hostile and allowed the prosecution to cross-examine her. In such a situation, we may safely rule out the possibility of Sovarani tutoring Basudeb to falsely implicate the appellant with the murder of Shyamali. ( 28 ) IT next appears from the evidence of Basudeb that before leaving for his maternal uncle's house, he had no talk with anyone except Sovarani and his younger brother Joy who was called from outside and asked to sit near his mother as Sovarani left the house immediately after the occurrence. We think it to be too obvious to point out that there could be no question of Basudeb being tutored by his younger brother Joy. ( 29 ) AFTER going to his maternal uncle's house, Basudeb disclosed the occurrence to him. His evidence goes to show that he boarded a cycle rikshaw from near his house and went straight to the house of his maternal uncle without stopping on the way or having any talk with anyone. ( 29 ) AFTER going to his maternal uncle's house, Basudeb disclosed the occurrence to him. His evidence goes to show that he boarded a cycle rikshaw from near his house and went straight to the house of his maternal uncle without stopping on the way or having any talk with anyone. The evidence of Basudeb finds Corroboration from his maternal uncle Arun (P. W. 9) who deposed that on 26-5-81 at or about 7 P. M. Basudeb went to his house and told him that "lalu Kaka" came to their house, killed his mother by shooting and fled away. ( 30 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, Arun (P. W. 9) rushed to the house of Keshab and found Shyamali lying dead inside a room. There was a crowd in front of the house and Basudeb disclosed to the people who had collected there that his "lalu Kaka" killed his mother and ran away. Later on, at or about 8. 20 P. M. , the police came there and recorded the statement of Basudeb which was treated as the first information report. It is thus manifestly clear that till the lodging of the first information report there was absolutely no scope for tutoring of Basudeb by any person interested in the conviction of the appellant. Even Basudeb's father was away from Calcutta on that fateful day and returned home only on 28-5-81. ( 31 ) SINCE we are satisfied that there is absolutely no evidence of tutoring of Basudeb, we now proceed to see whether there is Corroboration of his evidence as regards his ocular version of the incident. ( 32 ) IT may be noted in this context that out of sixteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, as many as five namely P. Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 turned hostile at the trial and were permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. ( 33 ) IN the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) Cri, LJ 295, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for evaluating the evidence of a hostile witness. It runs as follows :"even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law be washed off the record altogether. It runs as follows :"even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law be washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If, in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto. " ( 34 ) IN the light of the above test, we now proceed to examine whether the evidence of Basudeb has been sufficiently corroborated by the other witnesses, including the hostile witnesses. ( 35 ) SOVARANI (P. W. 3), although a hostile witness, stated in clear and unambiguous language that in the afternoon of the date of occurrence she was in the kitchen of Keshab Babu's house where she used to work as a maid servant at the material time. She further stated that at that time the eldest son of Keshab Babu whom she called "babu" (P. W. 2) and his mother were inside the house though she did not know what they were doing. It is also in her evidence that suddenly she heard a sound and found the eldest son of Keshab Babu coming out of the room after shutting the door. According to her, when she asked Babu as to what had happened, he answered that he did not know. She then enquired of him where his mother was and was told that she was lying. At this, she told Babu that she was leaving as her work had been finished. ( 36 ) SOVARANI had to concede in cross-examination that after hearing the sound, she did not ask Babu what had happened. She then enquired of him where his mother was and was told that she was lying. At this, she told Babu that she was leaving as her work had been finished. ( 36 ) SOVARANI had to concede in cross-examination that after hearing the sound, she did not ask Babu what had happened. She did not also state to the Investigating Officer that on her query Babu told her that his mother was lying and she then left the house asking Babu to tell his mother that her work had been finished. ( 37 ) ALTHOUGH, this part of her evidence cannot be accepted because of the reasons stated above, the evidence of Basudeb receives Corroboration from her on the following points viz. , (I) at the time of occurrence, he was inside the room with his mother; and (II) immediately after the occurrence he went out of the room, after shutting the door but not bolting it. ( 38 ) SMT. Lakshmi Banerjee (P. W. 4), a neighbour, was sitting in the front verandah of her house at or about 5. 30 P. M. to keep watch over her children who were playing outside, when she found a man going inside Shyamali's house, keeping a cycle outside the house. She could not, however, recognise the man as she saw him from behind. At or about 6. 30 P. M. she heard a cry and on going to Shyamali's house found her lying dead in her room with her face downward. She also found Shyamali's second son Joy in the house but not her first son whom she could not see. She did not also find the man who entered the house while she was sitting in the front verandah of her house nor the cycle which he kept outside the house. ( 39 ) THE evidence of P. W. 4, therefore, supports Basudeb's evidence in that the appellant escaped on a cycle which he kept outside the house, that after escape of the appellant he called his second brother Joy from outside and asking him to remain in the house, immediately left for the house of his maternal uncle to report the incident to him. ( 40 ) THE evidence of Smt. Parul Sarkar (P. W. 5) and Prabhat Bhattacharjee (P. W. 6) appears to be of no assistance either to the prosecution or to the defence and needs no discussion. ( 41 ) SMT. Manjusree Das (P. W. 7) of Belgharia and Keshab, husband of Shyamali are disciples of the same 'guru' (preceptor) and are on visting terms with each other. Her evidence indicates that on the date of occurrence, at or about 5. 30 P. M. , she started for the house of her friend Dipa. At or about 6. 30 P. M. when she carne near Shyamali's house after doing some marketing on the way, she noticed the appellant coming out of the house hastily. She asked him how were the inmates of the house but the appellant went away hurriedly on a cycle without giving any reply. ( 42 ) THOUGH she was cross-examined at length, nothing tangible could be elicited from her evidence that the appellant was known to her from before. There was not even any suggestion of any enmity or ill-feeling between her and the appellant. Also, no motive was sought to be attributed to her for falsely implicating the appellant on the grave charge of murder. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 7 also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2 that immediately after the occurrence, the appellant escaped on a cycle which was kept outside the house. ( 43 ) KALIPADA Ganguly (P. W. 8), the landlord of Keshab, was also declared hostile. He, however, corroborated Basudeb to the extent that he knew the man whom P. W. 2 used to call "lalu Kaka" and that the said man was a frequent visitor to Keshab Babu's house. He further stated that on the date of occurrence, after returning from office, he heard from Basudeb that "lalu Kaka" went away after killing his mother. This goes to show that Basudeb disclosed the incident not only to his maternal uncle at the earliest possible opportunity but also to his neighbours who collected in front of the house, after he returned with his maternal uncle. This goes to show that Basudeb disclosed the incident not only to his maternal uncle at the earliest possible opportunity but also to his neighbours who collected in front of the house, after he returned with his maternal uncle. ( 44 ) THE evidence of the autopsy surgeon, already discussed above, leaves no room for doubt that Shyamali died as a result of firing at her face from a distance of about 1' to 2' which strongly probabilises Basudeb's evidence that the shot was fired by the appellant while he was talking with Shyamali inside the room. The autopsy surgeon stated that from the nature of the injuries he was firmly of the opinion that the assailant was face to face with Shyamali at the time of firing and categorically asserted that the injury noticed by him could not have been caused if the shot had been fired from any other position. He also expressed the opinion that the shot was fired from a weapon like a revolver. ( 45 ) LASTLY, a pair of chappals was seized by the Investigating Officer from the house of Keshab under a seizure list on the night of occurrence. The seizure was proved by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 16) as well as Hiren Pal (P. W. 10), one of the seizure list witnesses. The pair of chappals was identified in court by the Investigating Officer, Hiren Pal and also by Basudeb (P. W. 2) who, while identifying the chappals, emphatically stated that those were the chappals left behind by 'lalu Kaka' and later on seized by the police. Although the Investigating Officer did not take the foot prints of the appellant to establish that the chappals were used by him, which he would have been well advised to do, we are unable to discard the evidence of identification of the chappals by Basudeb as the chappals which were left behind in their house by the appellant at the time of his escape. ( 46 ) IT will be thus seen that the ocular account of the incident as given by Basudeb stands fully corroborated in all material particulars connecting the appellant with the crime in question. Basudeb, though a child witness, faced the cross-examination unfalteringly and in a straight forward manner and even Mr. ( 46 ) IT will be thus seen that the ocular account of the incident as given by Basudeb stands fully corroborated in all material particulars connecting the appellant with the crime in question. Basudeb, though a child witness, faced the cross-examination unfalteringly and in a straight forward manner and even Mr. Hazra, learned defence counsel, could not point out any infirmity in his evidence which would go to show that he is a tutored witness and, as such, is untrustworthy and undependable. ( 47 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, we do not feel the least hesitation to hold that the charge has been brought home to the appellant beyond the slightest shadow of doubt. He was, therefore, rightly convicted of the charge and there is absolutely no reason for interference with the impugned judgment and order. ( 48 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court are affirmed. 49. J. N. MORE, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.