JUDGMENT 1. 1. Present Jail Appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Udaipur, against the judgment impugned dated 20.6.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Chittorgarh, convicting the accused appellant under Section 394 read with Section 397, IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment whereof to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the present Jail Appeal, which are un-folded by lodging a First Information Report by PW 2 Udai Ram at Police Station, Kapasan, are that on the previous day i.e. on 28.7.1988 between 6-7 PM, while the first informant, along with his brother Lehri Ram, was sitting at their house, his son Madan Lal (PW 5) and his nephew Rameshwar son of Lehri Ram, came and informed that they have heard shrieks from their suger-cane field. An enquiry was made about Sita who was not visible in the house, upon which first informant PW 2 Udai Ram, along with his brother Lehri Ram (PW 3) and two children Madan Lal (PW 5) and Rameshwar Lal (PW 6) went to their sugar-cane fields. Both the children named above showed the place from where they heard shrieks. When above named witnesses approached to the place pointed out by PWs 5 and 6. they found that Sita was lying in the field, with her feet amputated and blood was oozing out from her wounds. They took injured Sita to their house. Injured Sita (PW 1) disclosed in presence of witnesses that accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru had amputated her feet and committed robbery of her two silver 'kadiyas' and one golden 'mandaliya' which she was wearing in her feet and neck. 3. From their house, the witnesses took injured Sita to Chittorgarh hospital on motor cycle of Ganesh Ram where she was hospitalized. PW 2 Udai Ram went to Police Station Kapasan and on his oral information. FIR No. 153/88 (Ex.P. 2) was registered at Police Station under Sections 397 and 307, IPC and investigation commenced. 4. 3. From their house, the witnesses took injured Sita to Chittorgarh hospital on motor cycle of Ganesh Ram where she was hospitalized. PW 2 Udai Ram went to Police Station Kapasan and on his oral information. FIR No. 153/88 (Ex.P. 2) was registered at Police Station under Sections 397 and 307, IPC and investigation commenced. 4. It is found during the investigation that the accused appellant after amputating feet of PW 1 Sita and committing robbery of her two silver 'kadiyas' and one golden 'mandaliya', absconded and was arrested in another case No. 75/91 registered at Police Station. Bhadsoda, under Sections 302 and 379, IPC. 5. After completion of investigation, challan under Sections 397 and 307, IPC was submitted before the committal court, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh framed charges against the accused appellant under Sections 394 read with Section 397, IPC. 7. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 8. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution agency examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Mst. Sita, PW 2 Udai Ram, PW 3 Lehri Ram, PW 4 Onkar Lal, PW 5 Madan Lal, PW 6 Rameshwar Lal s/o Lehri Ram, PW 7 Mst. Chandi, PW 8 Gehru Lal, PW 9 Ramchandra, PW 10 Rameshwar Lal s/o Narainji, PW 11 Dr. J.P Bhadada and PW 12 Badri Lal, and also adduced documents Exhibits P 1 to P 12. 9. The statement of accused appellant Bhura alias Bhanwaru was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., accused appellant stated that he was working as labourer in village godiya from his childhood. The complainant had not paid his wages, therefore, he went to his permanent residence. The complainant has falsely implicated him in the case. 10. In the present case, though sufficient opportunity was given by the learned trial court to accused appellant to adduce evidence in his defence but no defence evidence has been adduced. 11. The learned trial court, after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused appellant, recorded finding of guilt against him under Section 394 read with Section 397, IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. 12. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae Shri Sumer Dan and learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the evidence available on record. 12. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae Shri Sumer Dan and learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the evidence available on record. 13. It is urged by the learned Amicus Curiae that in the present case learned trial court has relied upon the statements of PW 1 Mst. Sita (injured), PW 5 Madan Lal and PW 6 Rameshwar Lal s/o Lehri Ram, who were of tender age, without verifying as to whether they were capable to discriminate between falsehood and truth. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the learned trial court has committed an error in placing reliance upon the statements of PW 1 Mst. Sita, PW 5 Madan Lal and PW 6 Rameshwar Lal s/o Lehri Ram, without probing their understanding and Intelligence Quotient. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the aforesaid argument advanced by learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused appellant. It is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor before us that at the time when the statement of PW 1 Sita was recorded before the trial court, she was 12 years of age, PW 5 Madan Lal was 14 years old and PW 6 Rameshwar Lal s/o Lehri Ram was of 16 years of age. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the statements given by teenagers PW 1, 5 and 6, indicate that they are quite intelligent and they are capable to discriminate between truth and falsehood and an argument contrary to it is devoid of merit. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. Suffice is to say in this regard that all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers in its discretion that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions because of their tender age, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or for any other cause or causes of similar nature. We are of the view that where a witness or witnesses are of tender age or teenagers, his/her/their evidence had to be scrutinised with care and caution by courts is the only requirement of the law within the meaning of Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act. 16. We are of the view that where a witness or witnesses are of tender age or teenagers, his/her/their evidence had to be scrutinised with care and caution by courts is the only requirement of the law within the meaning of Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act. 16. The main grievance of the learned Amicus Curiae in the present case is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to make a preliminary inquiry about the competence of the teenager witnesses, named above, which was required under the law. According to learned Amicus Curiae in absence of preliminary inquiry about the understanding of the teenager witnesses named above, their evidence is not admissible. Firstly, no such objection was raised on behalf of accused appellant before recording their evidence and secondly, we have no hesitation to hold that such preliminary inquiry by trial courts is neither a condition precedent nor a legal necessity. It is further held that the competence of a teenager witness or witnesses can be judged even during the course of his/their examination and the evidence of such witnesses can be ignored if in the course of his/their examination such witness or witnesses are discovered to be incompetent. An objection to the competency of a teenager or child witness can be taken any time during the trial. 17. In the present case, after testing the sworn testimony of the teenager witnesses on the principles discussed hereinabove, we find these witnesses to be competent to give their sworn testimony before trial court yet we propose to scrutinise the statements of PW 1 Mst. Sita (injured), PW 5 Madan lal and PW 6 Rameshwar Lal s/o Lehri Ram, with more care and caution, so as to meet the requirement of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. 18. PW 1 Sita in her sworn testimony has stated that at the time of occurrence she was studying in Class III while at the time of her statement before the trial court she was studying in 5th standard. Due to injuries received in the incident, she could not be able to prosecute her studies for two years. It is stated by her that on the date of occurrence, she reached at her house at about 12:30 PM from her school. Due to injuries received in the incident, she could not be able to prosecute her studies for two years. It is stated by her that on the date of occurrence, she reached at her house at about 12:30 PM from her school. She had taken her meal at house and also gave food to accused appellant Bhoora, who was working as labourer at the that time for bringing bundles of green-fodder from her field. Accused appellant told her that her mother is at the well, therefore, she should also accompany him to the well to bring the bundles of green-fodder. She went along with accused appellant to the well. At the well, accused appellant told her that her mother had gone with bundles of green-fodder. Accused appellant took her to the field of sugar-cane on the pretext that he will give her green bundle of fodder there. Accused appellant took her in middle of the sugar-cane field and then snatched her golden 'mandaliya' which she was wearing in her neck. In process of snatching her golder 'mandaliya' from her neck, he threw her on the ground. The accused appellant then amputated her feet with an axe, which he was carrying. She was wearing silver 'kadiyas' in her feet. After amputating her feet, accused appellant took out the silver 'kadiays' from her feet. He left the place of occurrence with those golden and silver ornaments. 19. PW 1 Sita further stated that she was helplessly lying in the field. After some time his father PW 3 Lehri Ram and his uncle PW 2 Udai Ram came there and they took her to her house, from where she was taken to Chittorgarh Hospital on motor cycle of Ganesh Ram. Her injuries were examined at the Government Hospital at Chittorgarh. 20. PW 1 in her cross examination stated that accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru was working as labourer in her house. It is pertinent to observe that no cross examination has been done on behalf of the accused appellant, touching the material points relating to the occurrence. Only five questions were asked in the cross examination to PW 1, which have no bearing on merits of the prosecution case. It is pertinent to observe that no cross examination has been done on behalf of the accused appellant, touching the material points relating to the occurrence. Only five questions were asked in the cross examination to PW 1, which have no bearing on merits of the prosecution case. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that statement of PW 1 the injuried witness, is trust-worthy and nothing has been brought to our notice which may discredit the sworn testimony of PW 1. 21. The statement of PW 1 Mst. Sita had been corroborated from the statements of her uncle PW 2 Udai Ram, her father PW 3 Lehri Ram, PW 5 Madan Lal (her cousin brother), PW 6 Rameshwar Lal (her real brother) and PW 7 Mst. Chandi (her mother). PWs 2, PW 3, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7, named above, had categorically stated on oath that when injured PW 1 Sita was brought from suger-cane field to her house, in her first opportunity she told them that accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru amputated her feet and took away her two silver 'kadiyas' and one golden 'mandaliya' from her neck. Nothing has been brought to our notice which may discredit the sworn testimonies of above named witnesses adduced by prosecution in support of its case. 22. The statement of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7, named above, are also corroborated from statements of PW 11 Dr. J.P. Bhadada, who has categorically stated on oath before the learned Sessions Jude that on 28.7.1988 he was on night duty in Government Hospital, Chittorgarh where PW 1-Sita daughter of Lehri Ram, aged about 10 years, resident of village godiya, Police Station Kapasan was admitted for her treatment. It is stated by PW 11 Dr. J.P Bhadada that he has noted the injuries of PW 1 Sita. on the indoor bed-head ticket. He has also proved injury report Ex.P 10, prepared by him at the instance of Investigating Officer in the hospital. A close scrutiny of the injury report Ex.P 10. prepared by the Medical Jurist Dr. J.P Bhadada (PW 11) reveals that PW 1 Sita got two injuries. According to the injury report Ex.P 10 of Mst. Sita (PW 1), prepared by Dr. A close scrutiny of the injury report Ex.P 10. prepared by the Medical Jurist Dr. J.P Bhadada (PW 11) reveals that PW 1 Sita got two injuries. According to the injury report Ex.P 10 of Mst. Sita (PW 1), prepared by Dr. J. Bhadada (PW 11), injury No. 1 was amputation of her right foot one inch above ankle. Similarly, injury No. 2, was found to be amputation of her left foot, one and half inch above ankle. These injuries, according to injury report Ex.P 10, were caused by sharp edged weapon and were found to be grievous in nature by Medical Jurist PW 11 Dr. J.P. Bhadada. 23. From the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that in the present case, the prosecution has succeeded to establish its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence discussed hereinabove, we are fully satisfied that it was accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru who amputated feet of PW 1 Mst. Sita and committed robbery of her two silver 'kadiyas' and one golden 'mandaliya' from her neck, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence and none else. 24. The learned trial court has committed no error in evaluating the testimonial values of the prosecution witnesses in the present case. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is based on analytical discussion of ocular and documentary evidence on record, which is eminently just and proper. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of findings of guilt recorded by him against accused appellant, with which we are in full agreement. In such a situation, we decline to interfere with the judgment impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 25. Learned Amicus Curiae has given much emphasis on the question of sentence. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the sentence imposed against the accused appellant, for offences under Section 394 read with Section 397, IPC is too severe. The aforesaid argument of learned Amicus Curiae is not acceptable to us, for the reasons given hereinbelow. 26. It is borne out from the record that after committing the heinous crime, the accused appellant absconded from village godiya and he was arrested in present case in the month of August, 1991, while he was in custody in another case registered against him for offences under Sections 302 and 379, IPC at Police Station, Bhadsoda. 26. It is borne out from the record that after committing the heinous crime, the accused appellant absconded from village godiya and he was arrested in present case in the month of August, 1991, while he was in custody in another case registered against him for offences under Sections 302 and 379, IPC at Police Station, Bhadsoda. It is further borne out from the record that accused absconded in month of November, 1992 from Jail and he was re-arrested in the month of June, 1995. We are of the opinion that it is one of the rarest of rare case where accused appellant deserves to be given maximum sentence of life imprisonment, as envisaged under Section 394, IPC, which clearly provides that if any person in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 27. We have also examined the provisions postulated under Section 397, IPC which provides that if at the time of committing robbery or decoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. 28. From the conjoint reading of Section 394 and 397, IPC, we are of the opinion that within the meaning of Section 397, IPC the court can not impose less than seven years' imprisonment in those cases where at the time of committing robbery or decoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or .grievous hurt to any person. 29. Here, in the present case, it goes without saying that the accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru had used deadly weapon in causing grievous injuries to PW 1 Sita by amputating her feet at the time of committing robbery of two silver 'kadiyas' from her feet and one golden 'mandaliya' from her neck. 29. Here, in the present case, it goes without saying that the accused appellant Bhoora alias Bhanwaru had used deadly weapon in causing grievous injuries to PW 1 Sita by amputating her feet at the time of committing robbery of two silver 'kadiyas' from her feet and one golden 'mandaliya' from her neck. From the conduct of the accused appellant, as discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that it is one of the rarest of rare cases where the accused appellant deserves to be punished with imprisonment for life, as contemplated under Section 394, IPC, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, we are of the opinion that the sentences imposed upon the accused appellant is not severe and any punishment less than imprisonment for life will not meet the ends of justice, in the back-drop of the conduct of the accused appellant and other facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove.The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the instant Jail Appal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The findings of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the accused appellant by his impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******