JUDGMENT N.K. Parekh, .T. -The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 17th October, 1987, by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to deceased Geeta but his relations with her got strained and, therefore, both of them began to live separately. On 20th March, 1986, at about 4.00 p.m. Geeta was washing clothes at a spring of water existing at Maina of Pilerne, when the appellant came near her and after exchanging a few words, stabbed her on the belly with a knife. As a result of this assault, Geeta came to die on the next day in the hospital. 3. The appellant advanced a ease that he did not assault the deceased, but he admitted his presence on the spot at the relevant time of the incident. According to him, he went to the spring because one Kashi, that is to say, P. W.4, had told him that, he had been called by Geeta. On seeing him, Geeta lifted a knife in order to assault him and he raised his hands to avoid the blow. He succeeded in catching hold of the knife and, while trying to snatch it from the hands of Geeta the knife dashed against the chest of Geeta who fell down. He immediately went to the police station to give information about the incident. 4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case and, ultimately, the learned trial Judge held that the evidence on record was clearly establishing that the appellant had gone to the spring where Geeta was washing the clothes and intentionally stabbed her to death. Accordingly, he held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to an additional period of 6 months of imprisonment. 5. Mrs. Agni, the learned counsel appointed by the Court to defend the appellant, contended before us that the evidence on record is not sufficient to justify the conviction of the appellant. According to her, the whole case of the prosecution turn around the evidence of P. W.4. Kashi Gaundar, who is the only eyewitness. Now, Kashi Gaundar is a child who was 13 years old at the time of the incident. According to her, the whole case of the prosecution turn around the evidence of P. W.4. Kashi Gaundar, who is the only eyewitness. Now, Kashi Gaundar is a child who was 13 years old at the time of the incident. Her evidence, therefore, bas to be looked into and examined with due care and, unless there is proper corroboration to such evidence, the same cannot justify and warrant a conviction, The learned counsel than submitted that no such corroboration has come forth and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not justified she urged that P. W.5, Chandra Gaundar, is the mother of Kashi and her evidence goes only to the extent of showing that the appellant and deceased had got married and had separated because they had quarrelled between themselves. P.W.6 Gauri Krishnamurthy, reached the place of the incident much after the alleged assault as also P.W.9 John Fernandes. In any event, according to the learned counsel, there are material contradictions between the evidence of Gauri and John which contradictions make their evidence unreliable. In addition, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.8, Dr. Shivanageshwar Rao, shows that the blood group of the accused is a B positive and of the deceased, A positive. Now, the report of the Chemical Analyser clearly shows that the shirt of the accused was not having any bloodstains of A group. This circumstance is most symptomatic because, accordance to Dr. Reddy, there were in all 15 bleeding injuries on the body of deceased Geeta and, if the appellant had assaulted Geeta with a knife, in all probabilities blood would have spilt on the shirt of the appellant. Therefore, the absence of blood stains of group A in the shirt of the appellant goes to show that the version of the prosecution is not correct. That apart, P. W. 11 Domnic Fernandes, who examined the appellant after the incident has deposed that he found on the body of the appellant some abrasions on the right palmar surface of the little finger as well as on the right ring finger on the palmar surface, which injuries, in his opinion, could have been sustained in the Course of a defensive gesture, namely, while raising the hand in defence while being hit with a knife by another person. All these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, go to show that the evidence of the prosecution is basically the evidence of Kashi Gaundar, which has no sufficient corroboration. That apart, Mrs. Agni submitted that, according to the prosecution, the knife, which is the murder weapon, had been recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery allegedly done by the police is not, however, to be relied upon for, on one hand, the knife was found, according to the panch witness Audhut Parulkar (P.W.2) in an open place and, on the other the accused was not called upon to explain the alleged discovery of the knife made by him when examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This has affected prejudicially the accused and vitiates therefore, the trial. In this connection, reliance was placed by the learned counsel in S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.)1 6. Although we appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, we find it rather difficult to agree with her. In fact, in our view, the evidence of the eyewitness Kashi Gaundar gets full corroboration in other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Kashi Gundar is the only eyewitness and the was no doubt, only 13 years old when the incident took place. She deposed that she had accompanied the deceased Geeta to the spring when she went to wash clothes. Geeta washed the clothes and, thereafter, prepared herself to have a bath. At that moment, the appellant Palani came to the spot and asked Geeta whether she had been telling that she would dress him with a saree adding to dress him at that moment. To this, according to the witness, Geeta denied having said such a thing and immediately after the appellant took a knife he was carrying on his back and stabbed Geeta on the belly. He gave two more blows with the knife on Geeta. The witness getting afraid ran away from the place. She stated that, at the relevant time, the deceased Geeta was wearing a gagra of pink colour and a blouse of blue colour. The accused was wearing a shirt of banian type with long sleeves and had a towel around his waist or something similar. She was not able to recollect the colours of the appellant's clothes. She stated that, at the relevant time, the deceased Geeta was wearing a gagra of pink colour and a blouse of blue colour. The accused was wearing a shirt of banian type with long sleeves and had a towel around his waist or something similar. She was not able to recollect the colours of the appellant's clothes. She stated that she ran away and informed her mother that the appellant has killed Geeta with a knife. She also stated that the appellant and the deceased were not living together at the time of the incident as they had quarrelled and started living separately. In cross-examination she stated that the accused was carrying the knife on his back illustrated between his body and the towel which he had around his waist Geeta was, at that time a few metres away and the accused was in between the witness and Geeta. His back was towards the witness. She added that she saw the knife inserted at the back and could see only the handle. This evidence of the witness Kashi gets some corroboration in the evidence of her mother Chandra Gaundar (P.W.5) who stated that, on 20th March, 1986, at about 3.30 P.M., her daughter Kashi came running and informed her that Geeta had been killed by the appellant. Similarly, further corroboration of the statement is found in the evidence of P. W. 6 Gauri Krishnamurthy. She stated that she knew the deceased Geeta since the time she was staying at Dona Paula. At that time, Geeta was living with her parents', brother and sister, and then, Geeta went to Karwar. About 3 months prior to her death, she came to Porvorim and started living there with the witness and her husband. Another woman, by name Jyoti, also came there. After some time, Geeta got married to the appellant and about one month after, she had some quarrel with the appellant and stated living separately. She further stated that on the day of the incident, at about 3.00 p.m., her brother-in-law Nagraj who is about six years old, came to her and told that Geeta had been killed by the appellant. He informed about the place where the assault had taken place and, therefore, the witness proceeded to the site. She saw Geeta, who was lying on the ground, with an injury on the belly and with her intestines coming out. He informed about the place where the assault had taken place and, therefore, the witness proceeded to the site. She saw Geeta, who was lying on the ground, with an injury on the belly and with her intestines coming out. She was lying on the ground and witness asked her what had happened. Geeta told the witness that she had been assaulted by her husband and further told that he had come to the spot asking her whether she had been saying that she would dress him with a saree and asking her to dress him there and then. Then, he had stabbed her with a knife. The witness tried to help Geeta but she told her not to take her from that position in the meanwhile, her brother John had come to the spot where Geeta was lying. She proceeded to her house and then she came to know that her elder brother had gone to the police station to inform about the incident. This evidence given by the witness was not all challenged in the course of cross-examination and, in particular, it was not put to the witness that Geeta had not told her that she had been assaulted by the appellant. Further corroboration of the evidence of Kashi is found in the medical evidence of Dr. Reddy. Dr. Reddy bas performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Geeta. He described in all fifteen injuries he found in the body of Geeta. Three of those injuries are located on the chest; six on the abdominal region and the remaining on the arms and legs. He deposed that any of the injuries on the abdominal region could have caused in the course of nature, the death either individually or cumulatively. The report of the Chemical Analyser also brings further corroborations as the lungi, which admittedly was worn by the appellant at the relevant time, had blood stains of group A, the blood group of the deceased, as well as of group B, i.e. the blood group of the appellant. Then, the gagra, which the deceased was wearing, and which was examined by the. Chemical Analyser, was showing cuts which were corresponding with the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. 7. We agree with Mrs. Then, the gagra, which the deceased was wearing, and which was examined by the. Chemical Analyser, was showing cuts which were corresponding with the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. 7. We agree with Mrs. Agni that the evidence of a child witness has to be looked into with due care and prudence requires to get some corroboration to such evidence. We already mentioned that the evidence of Kashi Gaundar is clear and, in addition, gets sufficient corroboration in the other evidence. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence alone the conviction of the appellant was' fully justified. It is true that the learned trial Judge has also placed reliance in the recovery of the knife allegedly made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the learned Judge while examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. had not put the said circumstance to the appellant to enable him to explain it. This circumstance, however, in no manner has prejudiced the appellant and therefore does not vitiate the trial. In S. Haranam Singh's case (above) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, dealing with the provisions of Section 3420; the old Criminal Procedure Code which corresponds to Section 313 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, had indeed observed that Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code cast a duty on the Court to put, at any enquiry or trial, questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. Therefore, each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately. Failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating the trial. Their Lordships added, if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused. If the irregularity does not, in fact, occasion a failure of justice, it is curable under Section 537 of the Code. We have already mentioned that, in the present case, no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the non-putting to him the said circumstance while being examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the omission in doing so amounts to a mere irregularity, which gets cured in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. We have seen that the medical evidence of Dr. Reddy clearly shows that fifteen serious injuries bad been inflicted on the deceased Geeta. Therefore, the omission in doing so amounts to a mere irregularity, which gets cured in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. We have seen that the medical evidence of Dr. Reddy clearly shows that fifteen serious injuries bad been inflicted on the deceased Geeta. Some of those injuries were located on the chest and six of them on the abdominal region. According to the said Doctor, any of the injuries inflicted on the abdominal region were sufficient to pause death in normal course of nature. This being so, we agree with the learned Judge that the intention of the accused to cause death has to be held as proved. 9. In the light of the above discussion, in our view, this appeal fails and there is no reason for interference. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 1. AIR 1976 SC 2140