Judgment P.K.Sinha and C.M.Prasad JJ. 1. The sole appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("the Code", in short) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the former offence and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the latter, as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months, the sentences ordered to run concurrently. 2. Informant Gujari Devi, the mother of deceased Raushan Mandal, got her fardbeyan recorded on 14.8.1993 at 10 a.m. (Ext. 2) stating therein that on the preceding day her son Raushan Mandal, aged about 10 years, had gone for fishing to Kumarkhand Dhar. At about 3 p.m., the appellant came to the angan. of the informant and told her that he already had killed her son by throttling and was searching the other two who had cut his (fishing) net. When by 5 p.m. Raushan Mandal did not return, the informant went to the working place (Kamat) of the appellant and, on enquiry, his servant Basudeo @ Munna (PW 3), told her that the appellant had killed her son by throttling and had pushed the dead body in the Kumarkhand Dhar putting gheghawa grass over the body. He also informed that the appellant was searching her other two sons to kill them. The informant then sent to Kumarkhand Dhar and located the dead body of her son beneath the water, the head thrust inside of the mud of the Dhar. She took out and kept the dead body there but she could not go to the police station since the night had intervened. When in the morning she was going to the police, in the way she met the Police Officer whom she gave her statement. 3. The defence of the appellant was that the deceased was lame and an idiot who, on the date of occurrence, had fallen behind PWs 1 and 2 and had drowned in the river but because of enmity the informant had falsely implicated the appellant. 4. Out of 10 witnesses examined, PWs 1 and 2, Munna Kumar Mandal and Lalan Kumar Mandal, admittedly both cousins of the deceased, have spoken out as eye-witnesses whereas PW 3, servant of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case hence was declared hostile. 4. Out of 10 witnesses examined, PWs 1 and 2, Munna Kumar Mandal and Lalan Kumar Mandal, admittedly both cousins of the deceased, have spoken out as eye-witnesses whereas PW 3, servant of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case hence was declared hostile. PW 4 is informant and PW 5 is a witness to the inquest report whereas PW 6 was tendered for cross-examination. PW 7 has given hearsay statement about drowning of the victim. PW 8 is Chana Devi who was claimed by defence to be the bhabhi of the informant but this witness denied any such relationship. PWs 9 and 10 (Pramod Kumar and Ashok Kumar Choudhary) are the Investigating Officer, and the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy, respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has extensively argued that it indeed was a case of accidental death and laid stress on the evidence on record suggesting that the deceased was lame. Such evidences are on record claiming that the deceased was lame and PW 3 also claiming that he was dumb also, whereas the informant herself and other witnesses denying that. However, in our opinion it is not a vital point. Simply because a person is lame, if at all, it does not mean that the chances of his drowning would be great particularly when, as per evidence, he was caught elsewhere while fishing and was taken to the place where he was drowned. 6. Evidences of PWs 1 and 2 may be scrutinised, in brief PW 1 has claimed that the deceased, he and PW 2 were fishing when the appellant came and asked them as to why they had cut his net which was denied by them. When all the three tried to flee away, appellant caught hold of the deceased and took him into water and pushed him inside the water and then raised him. He repeated that several times and, ultimately, drowned the deceased in water and thereafter put gheghwa grass over the dead body threatening the witnesses to kill them also if they told anyone. He repeated that several times and, ultimately, drowned the deceased in water and thereafter put gheghwa grass over the dead body threatening the witnesses to kill them also if they told anyone. It may be noticed here that these two witnesses in the Court have given different distances as to from where they saw the occurrence or where the deceased was taken after he was caught by the appellant as well distance of their house from the place where they were fishing, in terms of kilometers, i.e., 1 k.m. 1/2 k.m. and 1/4 k.m. and so on. But from perusal of their evidence it also appears that while deposing in the Court and giving distances, they also pointed some fixed points out-side the Court claiming that the distance was such. This would mean that the distance were not much particularly from the place from where they had seen the occurrence. 7. This witness said that the appellant had chased the deceased before catching hold of him, then dragged him into the water, eventually killing him by drowning. He saw that happening for 10- 15 minutes. At about 1 p.m. the witness had returned to his home. This witness has been extensively cross-examined on the point of occurrence but has well withstood the test of cross-examination. It may be noticed that this witness was examined as witness on 2.5.1996, whereas the occurrence had taken place on 13.8.1993, about three years back. On the date of deposition in the Court his age was assessed by the Court to be 12 years. Therefore, at the time of occurrence he ought to be about 9 years old but even then he gave his evidence with a ring of truth which inspires confidence. 8. Likewise, the age of PW 2 was assessed by the Court to be 10 years old at the time of occurrence. PW 2, similarly, gave evidence and supported PW 1 narrating as to how they were chased and how Raushan was caught by the appellant and how he was forcibly drowned in water. Thereafter he was buried inside the water and above gheghwa grass was placed. This witness said that he and PW 1 had seen the occurrence from the road. PW 2, similarly, gave evidence and supported PW 1 narrating as to how they were chased and how Raushan was caught by the appellant and how he was forcibly drowned in water. Thereafter he was buried inside the water and above gheghwa grass was placed. This witness said that he and PW 1 had seen the occurrence from the road. According to him, he returned back his home at about 1-2 p.m. According to the evidence, these witnesses were examined on the very next day of the occurrence, in the morning by the Investigating Officer. This witness was asked specific question, that he had not told (the police) that the deceased was throttled to death by pressing of the neck. However, from the evidence of these two eye-witnesses it is clear that the appellant had forcibly drowned the deceased and thereafter had concealed his dead body inside water. This witness also said that he or his family members never had any quarrel with the appellant or his family members. 9. Coming to the evidence of PW 4, the informant, she has supported what she had alleged in the First Information Report. She said that the appellant had come to her angan and had said that he had drowned her one son by pressing his neck as he had cut his fishing net. She admitted that the appellant did not tell the name of the boy whom he had killed. This witness said that at about 5 p.m. she went out in search of her son Raushan Mandal and met PW 3 who told that the appellant had killed her son and had concealed him under the water at Kumarkhand Dhar. She said that then she went to the place indicated by PW 3 and located the dead body which was buried under the water. 10. In cross-examination she said that she met Basudeo at a culvert which was 1/2 k.m. from her house. She said that she had gone to Kumarkhand Dhar on information received from Basudeo. This witness also pointed a house, from the Court, indicating the distance of the culvert to the place of occurrence. She said that the entire body was thrust inside the water, into the mud at bottom, but a portion of leg was visible. She also said that she found some injuries on the person of the deceased. 11. This witness also pointed a house, from the Court, indicating the distance of the culvert to the place of occurrence. She said that the entire body was thrust inside the water, into the mud at bottom, but a portion of leg was visible. She also said that she found some injuries on the person of the deceased. 11. PW 3, as already stated, had been declared hostile as he denied the statement imputed to him as given under Section 161 of the Cr PC. However, in cross-examination this witness admitted that he had seen the dead body at the ridge of the field of Tinkauri but he said that from the village to the place of occurrence one could go only with the help of boat, also saying that before the occurrence, flood had come. He also said that the informant herself had told him that her son had drowned. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued about this piece of evidence that the entire area was under flood at that time and one could go to the Dhar only on boat. Different witnesses also have said about this. PW 4 has admitted that flood had come 5-6 days before the occurrence and PW 7 also admitted that 4-5 days earlier the flood had come but he asserted that they could come to the place of occurrence by foot. 13. Barring some minor discrepancies the defence has not able to elicit anything of importance from the informant. 14. Her statement was further supported by PW 8, Chano Devi. She said that on the date of occurrence while she was in her house, at about 3 p.m., the appellant came to her darwaja and told that out of three children he had killed and buried one, but two had fled away. She also claimed that she told this to Gujari Devi also when she came to enquire about the boy. 15. Evidence of this witness as well of the informant in so far as the aforesaid confession of the appellant is concerned has its value, though limited one. According to PW 8 the appellant had told that out of three he had killed one. But this witness does not say that he had taken any name. 15. Evidence of this witness as well of the informant in so far as the aforesaid confession of the appellant is concerned has its value, though limited one. According to PW 8 the appellant had told that out of three he had killed one. But this witness does not say that he had taken any name. Evidence of Gujari Devi is more important on the point so much so that she claimed that appellant also had told that her son Raushan Mandal with others had cut his net and then also told that one child he had killed and buried (under the water). 16. Though PW 3 did not support the prosecution case and denied having told the informant that the appellant had killed her son but he has admitted having gone and seen the dead body near the place of occurrence at the ridge of the field of Tinkauri. In the FIR itself the informant had claimed that she was told about the place of occurrence by PW 3. There is more reason to believe the evidence of PW 4 on this point. According to her evidence she had come to know that something had happened to her son and as claimed by her, it was PW 3 who had informed her of the location where the dead-body was lying at which she had gone at the pin- pointed place and had found the dead body of her son on the same day, after-noon. It is more probable that she had gone to place of occurrence only after some one had indicated her the place who, as per evidence, was PW 3, otherwise it might not have been possible to search out the dead body so soon, with the surrounding areas inundated. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out hearsay statement of witness such as PW 7 who said that she had heard that the deceased had drowned. Such evidence is hardly helpful to the defence to view of the categorical evidence particularly of PWs 1 and 2, as also being hearsay. 17. It has come in the evidence that statements of PWs 1 and 2 were recorded the next morning when the Police Officer came to investigate the case, having recorded the fardbeyan on his way to the village. Obviously in the FIR there is no mention of PWs 1 and 2 having seen the occurrence. 17. It has come in the evidence that statements of PWs 1 and 2 were recorded the next morning when the Police Officer came to investigate the case, having recorded the fardbeyan on his way to the village. Obviously in the FIR there is no mention of PWs 1 and 2 having seen the occurrence. But it is well explained by PW 4 herself when she said that Lalan and Munna Mandal had told her about murder of her son three or four days after the occurrence. Therefore, it appears that before the informant had lodged the FIR she had no communication with these two witnesses. In that regard PW 1 has said that he and Lalan Kumar Mandal had gone back to their house at about 1 p.m. but at that time his parents were not there nor anyone was in the house. He said in his cross-examination that on the date of occurrence he had hid himself till 5 p.m. and out of fear did not say about the occurrence to anyone. He said that mother of deceased had come to his house. On that day when he met his parents, brother and sister he told about occurrence to his parents. Having heard that they also had called Lalan Kumar Mandal who lived nearby. 18. PW 2, in his cross-examination said that he told his mother about the incident the next day. He also met Munna Kumar Mandal next day at 8-9 a.m. When he gave his statement before the police, to have seen the occurrence. Even PW 1 has claimed that he had not any quarrel with the family members of the accused. Therefore, it will appear that before these witnesses had given their statement before the police, they had told their parents but there is nothing on record to show that they narrated the incident to the informant also lather, as per informant, they had told her about that 3-4 days after the occurrence. Therefore, this rules out the possibility of any confabulation in between the informant and these two witnesses. In any case, child witnesses of their age, if tutored about the incident, are not likely to given such good evidence. 19. Therefore, this rules out the possibility of any confabulation in between the informant and these two witnesses. In any case, child witnesses of their age, if tutored about the incident, are not likely to given such good evidence. 19. There is nothing on the record to show that the informant, PW 8 or PWs 1 and 2 had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant, particularly the informant and PWs 1 and 2 who happened to be the relatives of the deceased, no enmity of any of them with the appellant has been shown. 20. The evidence of PW 10, doctor, fully supports the prosecution case. He did find two abrasions also, one on the right arm and the other on the left foreleg. He found trachea and larynx congested. Pleural cavity contained watery fluid. Stomach also contained water with mud. In the opinion of the doctor the death had resulted due to asphyxia as result of drowning. The post-mortem report is Exhibit-5. 21. The evidence of witnesses particularly of PWs 1 and 2 on the face of it appear to be quite reliable and worthy of trust. It was lastly argued that the place of occurrence was not established. But from the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 as well of the Investigating Officer we find that the place of occurrence was fully established. Investigating Officer had found the dead body on the ridge of Tinkauris field and nearby there was water reservoir. This witness said that from that place the dead body was brought to the ridge. PW 4 also has said that she had taken out the dead body with the help of some others and had kept that on the ridge. She had gone to Kumarkhand Dhar which is the place of occurrence as per evidence of PWs 1 and 2. 22. In the result we find that the prosecution has proved beyond doubts its case under Section 302 of the Code against the appellant. 23. In so far as the conviction under Section 201 of the Code is concerned, it also has been established by evidence that the appellant had concealed the dead body inside the water, by pushing the same in the mud. Therefore, there is no error in the conviction of the appellant also under Section 201 of the Code. This appeal shorn of merit, is dismissed.