Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 442 (KAR)

Babu alias Venkatesh Babu v. State of Karnataka

2000-06-29

B.PADMARAJ, S.R.BANNURMATH

body2000
JUDGMENT B. Padmaraj, J.—When the matter has reached for hearing, the learned Counsel M/s. Tomy Sebastian and Associates engaged by the Appellant neither turn up to argue the matter, nor has any representation been made on his behalf in Court and hence on the peculiar facts of the case, we felt it proper to appoint an Advocate, viz., Sri E.R. Diwakar, at the cost of the State to argue the case for the accused and assist the Court as amicus curiae. We accordingly invited Sri E.R. Diwakar to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the accused and in response to our request, the learned amicus curiae argued the matter and also took us through the relevant evidence on record. Thus we heard the learned amicus curiae Sri E.R. Diwakar, who was invited by us to appear as amicus curiae and argue the matter on behalf of the Appellant, and also the learned State Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State at a considerable length and we have also gone through the material evidence on record in detail. 2. The sole accused, who is the Appellant herein, was put up for trial before the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 16.11.1994 at about 4.40 p.m. in the evening at N.P. Lane in Cotton-pet, Bangalore, near a public tap, he voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased Shobha by stabbing her by means of a knife and thereby caused her death. 3. The trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and found that the guilt of the Appellant is established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he convicted the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence this appeal by the convicted-accused assailing his conviction as well as sentence passed by the trial Court. 4. 1,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence this appeal by the convicted-accused assailing his conviction as well as sentence passed by the trial Court. 4. The facts of the prosecution case lie in a very narrow compass and shorn of details may be summarised as follows: On 16.11.1994 at about 4 or 4.30 p.m. in the evening, PW-2 Bhagyavathi and her sister deceased Shobha, who were then studying in IX Standard and X Standard respectively in a school called Sri Sarvagna Balakiyara Prouda Shale, situated in Cotton-pet, Bangalore, were returning from school to their house situated in K.P. Agrahara in Bangalore, on the N.P. Lane Road, the accused Babu alias Venkatesh Babu came from their behind and caught hold of the hand of the deceased Shobha and asked her as to her willingness to marry him. Thereupon the deceased Shobha while telling the accused that he should ask her mother and brother about it, got herself released or extricated from the hold or the grip of the accused and went a little further. But the accused chased and having caught hold of her, he stabbed her twice or thrice with the knife on the left side of her chest and abdomen and thereafter, he ran away from the place along with the knife. The deceased Shobha went a little further and collapsed on the road while crying "KANNADA MATTER". Thereafter the injured Shobha was sent for treatment in an autorickshaw by the persons who had gathered there. PW-2 Bhagyavathi had also accompanied the injured to the hospital in the said autorickshaw. PW-3 is the doctor who examined the injured Shobha in the hospital at about 5 p.m. and found on her person the following injuries: 1. Incised wound over the intra-cardiac area measuring 1" by 1" over 4th and 5th intercoastal place. 2. Incised wound left side of abdomen, 1" above umbalicus, measuring 1" by 1/2" protruding omentum. 3. Incised wound over left nipple 1/2" by 1/2". 5. The doctor PW-3 declared the injured Shobha as brought dead to the casualty and then he sent the death memo to the police as per Ex.P.5. 6. PW-21, who was then working as the P.S.I. of Kengeri gate police station, received an anonymous telephone call on 16.11.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. to the effect that one girl has been stabbed at N.P. Galli. 6. PW-21, who was then working as the P.S.I. of Kengeri gate police station, received an anonymous telephone call on 16.11.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. to the effect that one girl has been stabbed at N.P. Galli. He entered the said information in the S.H.D., and left for the spot. On reaching there, he found blood being spread on the road in the Galli in front of a house bearing No. H100 and the people who gathered there informed him that the injured had been shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for treatment. Then he immediately proceeded to Victoria hospital and enquired the concerned doctor about the injured and he was informed that the injured Shobha succumbed to the injuries at about 5.00 p.m. Thereafter PW-21 enquired Kumari Bhagyavathi PW-2 and recorded her oral complaint to writing as per Ex.P.3 at about 6.45 p.m. and obtained her signature thereon after the contents thereof are read over to her. Then at about 7.00 p.m. he returned to the police station and on the basis of Ex.P.3 he registered a case and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he collected the blood stained asphalt and sample of asphalt from the scene of incident under a Mahazar Ex.P.4. He caused the arrested of the accused who was produced before him by the P.S.I., PW-17 and seized from his person the blood stained shirt and pant as per M Os.10 and 11. He also recovered the blood stained knife MO-9 from the place where it was concealed, in consequence of disclosure statement made by the accused before him during the course of interrogation. He also held inquest proceedings and subjected the dead body of the deceased to P.M. examination. He further sent the incriminating articles to the F.S.L. for their chemical examination. He also recorded the statements of the material witnesses. On completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused in Court. 7. The motive for the crime alleged by the prosecution was that the accused had been insisting for the marriage of the deceased Shobha with him immediately, which was declined by the mother PW-8 and brother PW-9 of the deceased Shobha, as they were intending to perform the marriage of the deceased Shobha only after her SSLC examination. The accused being angered by such refusal on the part of P Ws. The accused being angered by such refusal on the part of P Ws. 8 and 9, committed the murder of the deceased. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that a suggestion was made by the defence to the I.O. PW-21 that he had threatened the accused that he should only disclose that the injury sustained by him was self inflicted. No doubt this suggestion has been denied by PW-21. But the context in which such suggestion has been made would assume some importance in the case. The record of the Court below would disclose that on 17.11.1994 when the accused was brought before the Magistrate seeking his remand, the learned Magistrate having observed the injuries on the abdomen of the accused, appears to have asked about it and accused appears to have told the Magistrate that he himself inflicted such injury on the abdomen. This is very clear from the proceedings of the learned Magistrate dated 17.11.1994. The above suggestion made by the defence in the context of what transpired before the Magistrate on 17.11.1994 would make it appear that it could be a self inflicted injury. I shall further discuss on this aspect at a later stage. 8. The doctor PW-1 who held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Shobha on 17.11.1994 between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m., as per the P.M. report Ex.P.1, found the following external injuries: 1. Stab wound present over left nipple at lower end obliquely situated over front and lower border of left nipple 8.5 cms from left of midline, margins are clean cut, upper inner end is sharp, lower outer end is blunt. The wound measures 1.5 x 0.2 cms cavity deep. 2. Vertical stab wound present over front and left side of chest, situated 12 cms below left sternoclavicular joint, and 4 cms to the left of mid-line, measuring 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms cavity deep, margins are clean cut, lower end is blunt and upper end is pointed. 3. Vertical stab wound present over front and left side of abdomen, situated 3 cms from left of midline and 6 cms above the level of umbilicus. Upper end is sharp and lower end is blunt, with clean cut margins, measuring 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms x cavity deep, through which omentum protruding out. 4. 3. Vertical stab wound present over front and left side of abdomen, situated 3 cms from left of midline and 6 cms above the level of umbilicus. Upper end is sharp and lower end is blunt, with clean cut margins, measuring 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms x cavity deep, through which omentum protruding out. 4. Abrasion present over doraum of right had 2 in number each measuring 1.5 cms x 1 cm and 1 cm x 1 cm. 5. Abrasion present over front of left knee measuring 3 cms x 2 cms. 6. Abrasion present over front of right knee measuring 3 x 1 cms". 9. On dissection of wound No. 1, the doctor PW-1 found the following features.- The weapon had entered the left chest cavity by cutting the muscles of left side of chest piercing the 3rd intercoastal space, and then the weapon has cut the left pleura and pierced the upper lobe of the left lung at its anterior margins through and through and then it has cut the anterior surface of left verticular wall, on which it measures 2 cms x 0.5 cms. The weapon is directed, backwards, upwards and to the right side to a depth of 7 cms. 10. On dissection of wound No. 2, he found the following features: The weapon has entered the left chest cavity by piercing the muscles of left side of the chest and has cut the left 4th coastal cartilage completely and has cut the pericardium and then entered the cavity of the Heart over the anterior surface of the right ventricle. On which it measures 2 x 0.5 cms. The weapon has directed backwards, upwards and to the right side to a depth of 8 cms. 11. On dissection of wound No. 3, he found the following features: The weapon has entered the abdominal cavity on the left side by piercing the muscles of left side abdomen and then piercing the peritoneum. The weapon has entered the left lobe of the liver over superior surface on which it measures 2 x 0.25 cms. The weapon has directed backwards, upwards and to the right to a depth of 7 cms. 12. All the injuries of the deceased Shobha were found to be ante mortem and they were fresh in nature. The weapon has entered the left lobe of the liver over superior surface on which it measures 2 x 0.25 cms. The weapon has directed backwards, upwards and to the right to a depth of 7 cms. 12. All the injuries of the deceased Shobha were found to be ante mortem and they were fresh in nature. In the opinion of the doctor PW-1 the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries sustained. 13. The doctor PW-1 had examined the knife MO-9 with reference to the injuries described in the P.M. report Ex.P.1 and has opined that the stab injuries mentioned in Ex.P.1 could be caused by the weapon like MO-9. His opinion is at Ex.P.2. 14. The doctor PW-1 had also found the following articles on the dead body of the deceased: 1. Blue and white designed full sleeves close neck sweater with four cuts over left front side, blood stained. 2. White terricot shirt, blood stained with 3 cuts on the left side front. 3. White and red sandow typed peticot with 4 cuts on the left side of front and with one cut on right side, blood stained. 4. White skirt with cust on the waist belt, blood stained with black and yellow stripe waist belt with school badge "Sarvagna School, Bangalore". 5. Blue cotton kacha, blood stained. 6. A pair of grey colour socks with red and black stripes. 7. A pair of white canvas shoes. 8. White waist cotton thread. 9. A pair of white ribbons. To substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined at trial PWs-1 to 21 and placed on record Exs.P.1 to 28 and MOs 1 to 12. 15. Out of the 21 witnesses examined by the prosecution PWs. 2, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 14 were putforth as eye witnesses, but unfortunately for the prosecution except PWs. 2 and 6, all other eye witnesses have turned hostile. PW-2 is the younger sister of the deceased and PW-6 is a resident of Binnypet. But however PWs-5 and 14 have supported the case of the prosecution to a certain extent but PWs-10 and 11 have turned hostile wholesale. PW-2 besides being an eye witness to the incident, is also a complainant in the case. PW- 4 is an engineer who drew the sketch of the scene of incident as per Ex.P.6. But however PWs-5 and 14 have supported the case of the prosecution to a certain extent but PWs-10 and 11 have turned hostile wholesale. PW-2 besides being an eye witness to the incident, is also a complainant in the case. PW- 4 is an engineer who drew the sketch of the scene of incident as per Ex.P.6. The incident in question had occurred in front of the mutton shop of PW-5. PW-7 is a panch for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P.11 is the inquest report. PW-8 is the mother and PW-9 is the brother of the deceased Shobha and PW-2. PW-10 is the former landlord of PW-8. PW-12 is a panch for Ex.P.4 and has turned hostile. PW-13 Lokesh was examined on the motive aspect of the case and has turned hostile. PW-14 Sunitha is the classmate of the deceased and she was putforth as an eye witness but turned hostile. However, she has supported the case of the prosecution to a certain extent. PW-15 is a panch for the recovery of the knife MO-9 at the instance of the accused and has turned hostile. PW- 16 who is another panch for the recovery of knife MO-9 under the panchanama Ex.P.16, has supported the recovery. PW- 17 is the P.S.I. who apprehended the accused on 16.11.1994 near the gate of Victoria Hospital and produced him before the Investigating Officer. PW-18 is a panch for the seizure of blood stained clothes of the accused namely MOs. 10 and 11 under a panchanama Ex.P.18. PW-19 is the carrier of the FIR. He was entrusted with the FIR on 16.11.1994 at about 9.00 p.m. and delivered the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 10.00 p.m. Ex.P.19 is the proforma FIR PW- 20 carried the articles to the FSL. PW-21 is the Investigating Officer who registered the case and conducted the investigation. The accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that: KANNADA MATTER Further the answers given to question Nos. 3, 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36 and 38 put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure are said to contain certain vital admissions. The said questions and answers of the accused to those questions, are as under: Q.3. 3, 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36 and 38 put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure are said to contain certain vital admissions. The said questions and answers of the accused to those questions, are as under: Q.3. PW-2 Bhagyavathi has stated that her mother had talked with your father that her elder sister Shobha will be given in marriage to you. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.20. PW-6 Channappa, has stated that the injured girl had bleeding on the left side of her chest. He has further stated that on the next day at about 10 a.m. he was secured to the police station by the Police and when he went to the Police Station you were present there and the police asked him as to whether you were the person that ran away with knife, then he stated that you were the person who ran away with knife. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.21. PW-8-Papamma, has stated that she knows you, and Manjunatha and Bhaskar are her sons and the deceased Shobha and Bhagyavathi are her daughters. Do you with to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.28. PW-9-Manjunatha has stated that on 16.11.1994 at about 5.45 or 6 p.m. when he was coming at Market in his auto one Rajendra met him and told that Shobha was stabbed on her chest by you and she was admitted at Victoria Hospital and thereafter he went to Victoria Hospital along with Rajendra and when he saw his sister Shobha, she was not alive. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.32. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.32. PW-17-Revanna, Sub-Inspector of Police of Kengeri gate PS has stated that on 16.11.1994 Police Inspector of his station deputed him, HC-1142, HC-772 to apprehend and produce the accused in this case and after making rounds in the jurisdiction of his Police Station along with other Head Constables proceeded to Victoria Hospital and there near the main gate they suspected a person and caught him and when enquired his name and address and he furnished his name as Babu alias Venkatesh Babu, s/o. Narayanaswamy and thereafter the elder brother of the deceased (Manjunatha) was secured for identifying the person who was apprehended by them and the said Manjunath identified the apprehended person as the accused (you) and thereafter, you were produced before the Inspector of Police under a report as per Ex.P.17 and you are the person that was produced before the Inspector of Police. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.33. PW-18-D. Dorai Raj, has stated in his evidence that on 16.11.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. he was secured to the Kengeri gate PS by Police and at that time Police Inspector and you were present and thereafter, he was informed by the police that the shirt and the pant which were put on by you were stained with blood and they have to be seized and thereafter police caused you to remove blood stained shirt and pant and gave another shirt to you to put on and thereafter, police seized blood stained shirt and colour pant under a mahazar Ex.P.18 and his signature was obtained in a slip of paper and they were affixed to shirt and pant which are at MOs. 10 and 11 respectively. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.36. PW-21-H.M. Nanjundaswamy has stated that on the same day at about 9.15 p.m. PSI-Revanna, HC-722 and HC-1142 produced you before him under a report Ex.P.17 and thereafter, he arrested you and your shirt was stained with blood and you had sustained an injury on your abdomen and on interrogation you furnished your voluntary statement before him as per Ex.P.22 that you will point out the knife which is used in the commission of the offence and produced the same. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.38. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER Q.38. PW-21-H.M. Nanjundaswamy has stated that thereafter at about 1 p.m. you led him and panchas to Gejje Basettappa Galli near the old house of Mylarappa and there you went and picked up a knife which was kept under stones by the side of the wall and produced before him and the said knife was examined in the presence of panchas and as it contained blood stains it was packed with cloth and sealed with seal 'PR' and it was seized under mahazar Ex.P.16. Do you wish to say anything? Ans. KANNADA MATTER The accused did not either examine himself or examined any other witness on his behalf to substantiate his plea. 16. It has to be stated here itself that the answers of the accused when contained any admission of circumstances against him or not by themselves be delinked from the evidence, be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had committed the crime. 17. The trial Court as we have already stated convicted the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased Shobha and sentenced him accordingly as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been filed. 18. The learned amicus curiae Sri E.R. Diwakar, contended on behalf of the Appellant that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be accepted on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the several infirmities in the prosecution case. He also contended that the injuries sustained by the accused on the abdomen has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and thereby the entire case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful. He also contended that the recovery of knife MO-9 is from a open place and no significance can be attached. He further contended that there was absolutely no motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased Shobha as there was absolutely no hindrance for the deceased being given in marriage to him and the only dispute was with regard to the time at which the marriage was to be performed. While elaborating this submission, he contended that merely because the mother and brother of the deceased were not prepared to perform the marriage of the deceased with the accused immediately, that could not be a strong motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. While elaborating this submission, he contended that merely because the mother and brother of the deceased were not prepared to perform the marriage of the deceased with the accused immediately, that could not be a strong motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. he also contended that from the evidence of PW-2, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-21 it is clear that before recording of the complaint Ex.P.3, the police had already taken the accused to their custody after getting him discharged from the ward in the Victoria hospital and it is only thereafter the complaint Ex.P.3 of PW-2 came to be recorded and hence it cannot be admitted in evidence as the first information report. He further vehemently contended that the police records as well as the evidence of the witnesses clearly show that the accused had sustained a stab injury on his abdomen at or about the time of the incident which has not been explained by the prosecution as to the circumstances under which the accused had sustained that injury. He therefore contended that the entire case of the prosecution is not free from doubt and the benefit of that doubt should go to the accused. He therefore contended that the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court is patently illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 19. As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-State has contended that there is absolutely no ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2 who was accompanying the deceased at the time of this incident and that further her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-6 and PW-14. He contended that PW-2 had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the case. He also contended that the recovery of the knife MO-9 at the instance of the accused would lend further support to the evidence of PW-2. With regard to the injury sustained by the accused, the learned State Public Prosecutor, has contended that as has been stated by the accused himself before the learned Magistrate on 17.11.1994, it was a self inflicted one. He also contended that when the evidence of PW-2 corroborated by the other evidence is clear, cogent and credit worthy then the non-explanation of the injury on the accused cannot be a basis to discard the entire prosecution case. He also contended that when the evidence of PW-2 corroborated by the other evidence is clear, cogent and credit worthy then the non-explanation of the injury on the accused cannot be a basis to discard the entire prosecution case. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SCW 1314 . He further contended that in the instant case the injury on the accused has however been sufficiently explained by the prosecution from the records that it was a self inflicted injury. He therefore contended that the findings recorded by the trial Court in holding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, are sound and proper and warrants no interference in the appeal by this Court. 20. From the evidence placed on record by the prosecution including the evidence of the doctor PW-1 who conducted the postmortem examination, it can safely be concluded that the deceased Shobha, aged about 15 years, had met a violent death or died of violence on her way home from the school on 16.11.1994 at about 4.40 p.m. on N.P. Lane in Cottonpet, Bangalore. The moot question is as to who committed the violence on her. That is to say who did her to death is the moot point in the case. 21. PW-2 Kum. Bagyavathi, aged about 14 years at the time of her evidence, is the younger sister of the deceased Shobha, who was aged about 15 years. PW-2 was studying in the IX Standard while the deceased Shobha was studying in the X Standard in the same school at the relevant point of time. It is not in dispute that PW-2 knew the accused since the beginning. PW-9 Manjunath, who is an Auto Driver and brother of PW-2 and the deceased, used to leave PW-2 and the deceased at their school in the morning in his autorickshaw and so also pick them from their school in the evening after school hours. But, sometimes, PW-9 used to miss them from picking them up from their school after the school hours and at that time they used to go walking from their school to their house. The accused was well known to the members of the family of the deceased. But, sometimes, PW-9 used to miss them from picking them up from their school after the school hours and at that time they used to go walking from their school to their house. The accused was well known to the members of the family of the deceased. On 16.11.1994 at about 9.45 am PW-9 took his both sisters, viz., PW-2 and the deceased, to their school in his autorickshaw and left them at the school. Exhibit P-27 is the Attendance Register Extract pertaining to the deceased Shobha for having attended the school on 16.11.1994 and the relevant entry is found at Exhibit P.27(a). This was secured by the Investigating Officer on 5.12.1994. But on the same day evening after school hours PW-9 did not go the school of his sisters to pick them back. Therefore, both PW-2 and the deceased Shobha were returning to their house from the school on foot. While they were so proceeding towards their house from the school at about 4 or 4.30 pm on 16.11.1994 along the road called N.P. Lane in Cottonpet, the accused came from their behind and caught hold the hand of the deceased Shobha and asked her as to her willingness to marry him to which the deceased Shobha told the accused to ask her mother PW-8 and brother PW-9 about it. Then she extricated herself from the grip of the accused and went a little further. But, the accused did not leave her and he chased and caught hold of her. Then he stabbed her twice or thrice with a knife on the left side of the chest and abdomen. After committing such assault on the deceased, the accused ran away from the scene of the incident. The deceased Shobha, who had sustained the stab injuries, went a little further and collapsed on the ground while crying 'amma! amma!'. PW-2 went near the deceased and held her. In the meanwhile, some of the persons, who had gathered there, arranged to shift the injured Shobha for treatment to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. PW-2 also accompanied the injured to the hospital in the said autorickshaw. Further, she went and brought her mother PW-8 from the house to the hospital. While PW-2 was in the hospital, the Police Inspector PW-21 visited the hospital and recorded her statement in respect of this incident as per Exhibit P-3 at about 6.45 pm. in the hospital. PW-2 also accompanied the injured to the hospital in the said autorickshaw. Further, she went and brought her mother PW-8 from the house to the hospital. While PW-2 was in the hospital, the Police Inspector PW-21 visited the hospital and recorded her statement in respect of this incident as per Exhibit P-3 at about 6.45 pm. in the hospital. Then PW-21 returned to the Police Station and registered the case at about 7.00 pm. Thereafter, the First Information Report was despatched to the Magistrate through PW-19. PW-19 who was entrusted with the FIR at about 9.00 pm delivered the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate, at about 10 pm. 22. PW-5 Syed Jafar Basha, though turned hostile to the prosecution, has however said that on 16.11.1994 at about 4.30 or 4.45 pm, when he and one Dayal were talking in front of their mutton stall in the N.P. Lane, he saw 2 girls who came running and one of them fell in front of his shop. Then he asked the other younger girl as to what happened and he was told by her that the girl who had fallen down is her elder sister and she had been assaulted by a person who was proposed to be married to her. When he saw the fallen girl, he found that she was bleeding on the left side of her chest. He has further stated that he did not see the Appellant. It is pertinent to note that, though PW-5 says that he had seen the accused, he however refused to identify the accused as assailant and therefore the prosecution treated him as hostile. But, he further said in his evidence that thereafter he made the said girl who had fallen on the ground to drink water and then arranged for an autorickshaw and sent the injured and her sister and also another friend of the said girl in the said autorickshaw to the hospital. Later he learnt that the said girl who had fallen on the ground had died. Later he learnt that the said girl who had fallen on the ground had died. It is pertinent to note that PW-5 appears to be an obliging witness to the accused and inspite of that he has stated that, when the deceased came running from the N.P. Lane and fell down in front of his shop, he saw her bleeding on the left side of her chest and at that time she was accompanied by her younger sister and that further her younger sister also accompanied the injured girl to the hospital in the autorickshaw. That apart, he has further stated that, when he enquired with the younger sister about the injured girl, he was told by her that the deceased had been assaulted by a person who was proposed to be married to her. It is not in dispute that the person to whom the deceased was proposed to be married was none other than the accused. But, obviously the accused being known to PW-5, he is trying to save him by saying that he could not know who the assailant was. It is quite clear from his evidence that he is trying to screen the offender. As we have already stated PW-5 appears to be an obliging witness to the accused, which is very clear from the reading of his evidence as a whole. But, inspite of that and inspite of his having been treated as hostile, certain facts disclosed by him in his evidence would substantially corroborate and support the evidence of PW-2. At any rate, his evidence leaves no doubt that, when the incident in question had occurred, PW-2, who is the younger sister of the deceased, was accompanying the deceased and in all probability she must have seen the incident which occurred on their way to the house from the school and immediately after the incident she had also accompanied the deceased to the hospital in the autorickshaw where her statement came to be recorded by the Police Inspector as per Exhibit P-3. The clothes of the deceased Shobha would reveal that she was in school uniform when the incident in question had occurred. Now comes the evidence of another hostile witness PW-14 who has also supported the case of the prosecution to a certain extent. The clothes of the deceased Shobha would reveal that she was in school uniform when the incident in question had occurred. Now comes the evidence of another hostile witness PW-14 who has also supported the case of the prosecution to a certain extent. PW-14 is none other than the class mate of the deceased and at the time of this incident she was also returning to her house from the school. Her evidence would reveal that on that relevant day after the school hours at about 4.30 pm the deceased Shobha and her sister PW-2 were both returning together to their house in K.P. Agrahara and she also joined them after some time and then all the three were returning to their respective houses. She further says that, when she parted their company to go towards her house, both PW-2 and the deceased proceeded further to go to their house and after about 5 minutes of their proceeding further, PW-2 came and informed to her that "KANNADA MATTER" meaning thereby that he stabbed the deceased. PW-14 also stated to have gone to the spot where the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries and she also saw PW-2 accompanying the deceased to the hospital in an autorickshaw. Her evidence would clearly indicate that in all probability PW-2, who was the companion of the deceased, must have seen the incident. Obviously because PW-14 did not support the prosecution case in its entirety, she was treated as hostile. But, even then, to the extent she has supported the prosecution case, it will clearly go to show that PW-2 was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time of this incident and in all probability she had seen the incident in question and further she had accompanied the injured to the hospital in the autorickshaw. 23. It is a settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses also can be relied upon to the extent to which they support the prosecution version. It remains admissible at the trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused on their testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence on record. In the instant case, we have the reliable evidence of the eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-6, apart from the evidence of P Ws. It remains admissible at the trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused on their testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence on record. In the instant case, we have the reliable evidence of the eye witnesses PW-2 and PW-6, apart from the evidence of P Ws. 5 and 14 to prove the prosecution version that it is the accused who had stabbed the deceased Shobha on her way to her house from the school and then ran away from the scene of incident along with the knife. PW-2 had also accompanied the deceased Shobha to the hospital in the autorickshaw and within two hours of the incident her statement came to be recorded by the Police Inspector PW-21 in the hospital which was treated as the First Information and it clearly involves the accused as the person who had inflicted the stab injuries with the knife on the deceased Shobha. A number of incised woulds were found as per the evidence of the Doctor PW-1 and the post-mortem report Exhibit P-1. The prosecution version as spoken to by PW-2 gets further corroboration from the medical evidence as well as from the discovery of the knife containing blood stains. Further, the clothes of the accused were also found to be blood stained. It is no doubt true that the accused has sought to contend that, when he was coming in search of the deceased Shobha, both himself and the deceased were assaulted by one Srinivasa as a result of which he had also sustained injuries to his abdomen. In our considered view, there is absolutely no substance in the contention of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had sustained injury in the same occurrence and that being so the prosecution, in our view, is not obliged to explain the injury sustained by the accused. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned State Public Prosecutor, when the accused was produced before the Magistrate for his judicial remand he appears to have stated before the Magistrate that the injury found on his abdomen was a self-inflicted one. In this context, a suggestion was made by the defence to the Investigating Officer PW-21 that, when the accused was produced before the Magistrate he had threatened him that he should only say that the injury sustained by him was self-inflicted. In this context, a suggestion was made by the defence to the Investigating Officer PW-21 that, when the accused was produced before the Magistrate he had threatened him that he should only say that the injury sustained by him was self-inflicted. He has clearly denied this suggestion. There is absolutely no basis for such suggestion. It cannot be believed that the accused when produced before the Magistrate for his judicial remand, could have been threatened by the Police to say before the Magistrate in a particular manner regarding the injury found on his person. Therefore except the suggestion made to PW-21, which has been clearly denied by him, there is nothing on record to show that when the accused was produced before the Magistrate for his judicial remand, he was threatened by the Police and as such he had stated that the injury sustained by him was a self inflicted injury. There appears to be no truth in the said suggestion. If, according to the accused, he had sustained the injury in the circumstances as now sought to be made out, nothing prevented him from saying so before the learned Magistrate. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to show that the injury sustained by the accused was in the same occurrence and that being so the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injury sustained by the accused. Further, it is an accepted principle that, if the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy, non-explanation of the injury on the accused ipso facto cannot be a basis to discard the entire prosecution case. In fact, bearing this principle in our mind we have carefully examined the evidence of PW-8 and other material witnesses for the prosecution and we find that PW-2 and other material witnesses for the prosecution are trustworthy and, therefore, non-explanation of the injury in question on the accused cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution. It is not the law or invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so, the prosecution case should be disbelieved. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision reported in the case of Bhaba Nanda Sarma and Others Vs. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision reported in the case of Bhaba Nanda Sarma and Others Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1977 SC 2252 wherein it is held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all cases and in all circumstances. That apart, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the injury sustained by the accused had been caused at the time of occurrence in question. That being so, the non-explanation of the injury by the prosecution is not fatal especially when the accused himself had admitted before the Magistrate at the time of his remand to judicial custody that the injury sustained by him was a self inflicted one. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention advanced by the learned amicus curiae. The chronology of the series of the occurrence shows that the crime in question had taken place after the school hours of PW-2 and the deceased at about 4.30 pm or so when both the deceased and PW-2 were together returning to their house from the school, as claimed by the prosecution and testified by the eye witness PW-2. That being so, the lodgement of the FIR by PW-2 promptly with a detailed account of the incident renders improbable the possibility of the fabrication and the false involvement of the sole accused in the case. Now we shall advert to the evidence of PW-6. He is a resident of the same locality where the incident in question had occurred and he says that he has seen the accused. He has deposed that on 16.11.1994 at about 4.00 or 4.30 pm while he was in his house, he heard the loud cry outside his house and came out of his house to see what it was and at that time he saw 2 girls running crying. He has stated that the accused was running behind both the girls holding the knife. Thereafter, out of the two girls, one girl collapsed at a distance of 100 to 120 yards in front of a mutton shop. Thereafter, the people gathered there and also himself arranged to send the injured girl to the hospital for treatment. He has stated that the accused was running behind both the girls holding the knife. Thereafter, out of the two girls, one girl collapsed at a distance of 100 to 120 yards in front of a mutton shop. Thereafter, the people gathered there and also himself arranged to send the injured girl to the hospital for treatment. He has further stated that he also saw the accused running towards Goodshed road after the girl had collapsed in front of the mutton shop. He further enquired with the girl who was accompanying the injured girl and he was told that she is the younger sister of the injured girl and that the accused had stabbed her elder sister. He also deposed that the younger sister revealed the name of the Appellant as Babu. Thereafter he came to know that the injured had died in the hospital. In the cross-examination he has stated that Goodshed Road lies to the west of his house which may be at a distance of 120 to 130 yards and on either side of the road there are houses and shops where the injured girl had fallen. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of this witness that, when he came outside his house, he saw two girls running fast in front of his house and the accused was chasing them. It is to be remembered that the incident in question had occurred at a distance of a few feet away from his house in a later evening broad day light and hence there could be no difficulty for PW-6 to see the accused and remember his face as well as the faces of PW-2 and his sister the deceased Shobha, especially when such ghastly incident has taken place in his very presence. 24. Having regard to the material placed on record which confirms the presence of PW-2 at the spot at the time of the incident in question and she being a companion of the deceased, we find no difficulty in placing reliance upon the direct evidence of PW-2 which is amply corroborated by her evidence on record with regard to the involvement of the accused in the crime. On the other hand, the Appellant's version of the incident has not at all been substantiated or probabilised from the circumstances appearing in the case. 25. On the other hand, the Appellant's version of the incident has not at all been substantiated or probabilised from the circumstances appearing in the case. 25. It is true that PW-2 Bhagyavathi was hardly aged about 14 years and was studying in IX Standard at the time of this incident. But, that by itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of PW-2 which is corroborated by other evidence and found to be convincing and trustworthy. We do not agree that the evidence of PW-2 being a child stands stigmatised. It is not the law that the evidence of PW-2 being a child her evidence shall be rejected even if it is found to be reliable. The law is that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection. Having done this exercise, we find that the evidence of PW-2 is worthy of acceptance and it could be safely relied upon to base the conviction. Further, her evidence in the Court stands corroborated from the other reliable evidence on record. That apart, it is to be stated that the evidence of a child witness must find corroboration is more a rule of prudence than of law. However, in this case, the evidence of PW-2 stands amply corroborated from the other material evidence placed on record by the prosecution. PW-2 was the companion of the deceased at the time of this incident, which admittedly occurred after the school hours of the deceased when both PW-2 and the deceased were together returning to their house from the school. The evidence of their brother PW-9 would clearly disclose that on the relevant day in the evening after the school hours he had not gone near the school to pick up PW-2 and the deceased and hence they were both returning to their house from the school walking. The narration of the incident by PW-2 in the Court is quite natural and probable which, in our view, inspires confidence. While evaluating the evidence of a witness it is open to the Court to sift the deposition of any witness and accept a part thereof while rejecting the other part. Giving more detail while deposing before the Court is not improvement and corroboration with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. While evaluating the evidence of a witness it is open to the Court to sift the deposition of any witness and accept a part thereof while rejecting the other part. Giving more detail while deposing before the Court is not improvement and corroboration with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that where the witness is a child the Court is alerted on the need to test whether oath can be administered. Ordinarily, this satisfaction is to be arrived at by the preliminary examination of the witness by the Court. But, this does not mean that in the absence of preliminary examination the evidence becomes inadmissible and since the general rule is in favour of the competency and satisfaction, if necessary, can be arrived at in the course of the evidence. However, the trial Courts would do well to conduct a preliminary examination to satisfy themselves in regard to the competency under Section 118 of the Evidence Act as well as under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Oath Act. It is also desirable to bring on record the questions and answers put to the witness and to make a record about the satisfaction of the Court. But, however, even in the absence of specific record of preliminary question regarding the satisfaction of the trial Court, the trial Court would examine the nature and tenure of the evidence recorded in the manner in which the witness faced in the cross-examination and satisfy itself on the competency of the witness to give evidence. In the instant case, having applied that test we find that the witness PW-2 had developed sufficient understanding at that time when she gave evidence in the Court. After witnessing the occurrence she could describe the incident in question as witnessed by her and understood the questions and answers. The testimony of PW-2 in the Court which gets corroboration from the other evidence is in our view quite reliable and acceptable and it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. Therefore, we find no difficulty in accepting the evidence of PW-2 and we find that she was quite competent to describe the incident as witnessed by her in the Court. Therefore, we find no difficulty in accepting the evidence of PW-2 and we find that she was quite competent to describe the incident as witnessed by her in the Court. That apart, it is to be stated that the provisions of the Oath Act read with Section 118 of the Evidence Act indicate that one aged about 12 years or above is normally accepted to have attained a minimum faculty of understanding so as to engender a prima facie presumption of his or her testimonial competency. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that, when PW-2 gave evidence in Court, she was aged about 14 years and was a student studying at that time in X Standard and coming from a urban background. That being so, we find that the trial Court having satisfied with the competency of the witness to give evidence in Court has taken her evidence on oath. In our view, therefore, the testimony of PW-2 does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to discredit her evidence. 26. With regard to the injuries found on the person of the accused, it is to be stated that in Bhaba Nanda Sarma and Others Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1977 SC 2252 it is held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injury on the person of the accused in all cases and in all circumstances. The same principle has been reiterated both in Vijayee Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 1459 and in Rajendra Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SCW 1314 . In the instant case, as we have already stated, the evidence of PW-2 and the other circumstances appearing in the case including the evidence of PW-6 corroborating the version of PW-2 is clear, cogent and creditworthy regarding the involvement of the accused in the crime and that being so, the mere fact that the injury on the accused is not explained in the manner as required by the defence by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case, more so, when the defence version is not probabilised from the circumstances of the case. 27. 27. Hence, on consideration of the entire evidence record, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed any error in convicting the Appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of the deceased Shobha and sentencing him accordingly as stated supra. We find no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the Appellant by the learned amicus curiae. 28. In the result, therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the Appellant is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. 29. We place on record the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae, Sri A.R. Diwakar to arrive at the correct conclusion in the case and we fix his fee at Rs. 1,000/-.