Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 178 (TRI)

Bakul Ranjan Dhar v. State of Tripura

2021-09-29

AKIL KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH

body2021
JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.06.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, in connection with case No.ST(Type-1) 28 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of IPC with default stipulation, and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, and fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence under Section 201 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case was set in motion with the receipt of a complaint lodged by one Bakul Ranjan Dhar, the husband of the deceased wherein, it was alleged that on 29.04.2016 at about 0530 hours, he heard a sound from backside of varenda of the kitchen room. Accordingly, he went there and found his wife lying dead with a piece of rope tied in her neck and the other piece of rope tied with the bamboo of the roof. It was a strong apprehension that his wife committed suicide by way of hanging. The husband prayed for conducting an investigation. The officer-in-charge of the Police Station registered an FIR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 3. Shortly stated, the prosecution story is that, Bakul Ranjan Dhar i.e. the appellant herein had entered into wedlock with Ratna Das on 15.12.2008. After two years, they were gifted with the child namely, Rupsagar Dhar. The appellant earlier had married one Sutapa Dhar, and both of them used to torture Ratna Das. Lastly, on 29.04.2016 at about 7.00 A.M. the complainant, Shri Bhupendra Das received an information about the death of his sister, Ratna Das and he went there and found the dead body of his sister lying on the varenda of a room. On receipt of the written complaint, the Officer-in- Charge, Kumarghat Police Station registered the same as KGT P.S. Case No.26/2016 under Sections 302/34 of IPC. It should be mentioned here that before the aforesaid complaint lodged by Shri Bhupendra Das, the appellant himself had reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge, Kumarghat Police Station regarding his wife's unnatural death on 29.04.2016 A.D. at about 5.30 A.M., and said information was received by the Police Station at 10.30 hours. It should be mentioned here that before the aforesaid complaint lodged by Shri Bhupendra Das, the appellant himself had reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge, Kumarghat Police Station regarding his wife's unnatural death on 29.04.2016 A.D. at about 5.30 A.M., and said information was received by the Police Station at 10.30 hours. The said written information was registered under Kumarghat P.S. U.D. Case No.010 of 2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Investigation was carried out and during the investigation, he recorded statements of the witnesses, seized the ropes and other articles by preparing seizure list. Inquest report was prepared at the place of occurrence. The investigating officer arranged for post mortem examination of the deceased, and sent the necessary articles to the forensic laboratory for scientific examination and thereafter, submitted charge sheet against the accused. In the process of investigation, the investigating officer (I.O, for short) apprehended the husband of the deceased i.e. Bakul Ranjan Dhar as his complicity behind the crime was surfaced, and, accordingly, he was arrested. The investigating officer submitted charge sheet against said Bakul Ranjan Dhar, under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. 4. After receipt of the record, Addl. Sessions Judge Unakoti Judicial District framed charges against the accusedappellant when the appellant claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses to substantiate the charges. On completion of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where he declared himself innocent. He denied all the incriminating evidence as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant adduced evidence on his behalf by producing 4(four) witnesses including himself as D.W.1. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties had placed their respective arguments. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the submissions of learned counsel and on consideration of the evidences and materials on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 7. We have heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 8. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. 7. We have heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 8. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, the conviction and sentence as returned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was entirely dependent on the evidence of the child, Master Rupsagar Dhar (P.W.1), a child of 6(six) years and the son of the appellant and the deceased, which was not at all trustworthy. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there were so many discrepancies and inconsistencies in the deposition of P.W.1, who was tried to be projected as an eyewitness by the prosecution. Betting upon the evidence of D.Ws, particularly upon D.W.-2, the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade us that this witness had specifically stated that just after the incident, on being asked by them, P.W.1 told that he was sleeping and could not say anything. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant to fortify his submission that it was a case of suicide contended that the deceased tried to commit suicide by consuming poison on two occasions prior to the incident, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant from the charges leveled against him. Mr. Bhattacharje, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decision of the Supreme Court in support of his submission:- 1. Criminal Appeal No.1013 of 2019 titled as P. Ramesh v. The State, reported in MANU/SC/0956/2019. 9. On the other hand, putting strong resistance to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent strongly contended that there is no hard-and-fast rule that the evidence of a child witness had to be rejected in all circumstances. According to him, in the instant case, the evidence of the child (P.W.1) appears to be reliable and trustworthy as he was found to be consistent all along while he made the statement before the Magistrate and also during the course of trial as P.W.1. Inviting our attention to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, learned Addl. Inviting our attention to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, learned Addl. P.P. tried to persuade us that at the time of the incident, P.W.1 was well inside the room and he woke and had seen his mother being pulled up by his father,the appellant herein. Learned Addl.P.P., further contended that there was none but the appellant alone was present inside the room. They slept together and in that event, it was the responsibility and obligation of the appellant to come up with a reasonable explanation that he has not committed the crime following the principle envisaged under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl.P.P., has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his submissions:- 1) (1997) 5 SCC 341 , (para-5) titled as Datta Ramrao Sakhare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra. 2. AIR 1962 SC-424, (para-8), titled as Ramratan and ors. v. The State of Rajasthan. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we have perused the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. 11. Considering the submissions as well as the judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge, following points may be formulated to examine the sustainability of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence:- i) Whether the death of Ratna Dhar(Das) was homicidal or suicidal. If it is a case of homicide, who had killed Ratna Dhar (Das), the deceased? ii) Whether the evidence of P.W.1, the child inspires confidence in our mind? iii) Whether both the appellant and the deceased were together inside the room along with the child (P.W.1)? iv) Whether post mortem and scientific examinations support the prosecution that the death of Ratna(Dhar) Das was homicidal in nature? 12. To answer the above questions, we have proceeded to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses. 13. The most vital witness in the instant case according to us is P.W.1 that is the child who was born out of wedlock between the appellant and the deceased Ratna Dhar(Das). We have noticed that after the incident, the I.O. of the case had arranged for recording the statement of the child under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He was brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Subhra Nath (P.W.-18). The incident occurred on 29.04.2016. We have noticed that after the incident, the I.O. of the case had arranged for recording the statement of the child under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He was brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Subhra Nath (P.W.-18). The incident occurred on 29.04.2016. The child (P.W.1) was brought to the Magistrate on 30.04.2016. He was aged about 4(four) years as reported. Initially, P.W-1 appeared to be frightened. He was accompanied by his uncle, Shri Bhupendra Das, the maker of the FIR. The learned CJM had interacted with the child and some questions were put to him, and when P.W.1 was found to be reasonably relaxed, he was asked what actually happened on the date of the incident and when he narrated, his statement was recorded. The child being a minor and of tender age, no oath was administered. The statement of P.W.1, Master Rupsagar Dhar has been extracted in verbatim hereunder:- “There had been quarrel between my mother and father the day before yesterday at night. My father did not take food. My mother took food. I did not take food. I slept. At night I woke up and saw from the bed that my father strangulated my mother with a strong rope on the floor below the bed. I also saw that my father hung my mother from the ceiling. In the morning when I woke up I saw my mother body on the floor. At that time there was sunlight outside.” 14. It is evident from the certificate of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the child narrated the incident in Bengali and the CJM himself interpreted the same. The contents were explained by the CJM to him again in Bengali which the child admitted that these have been written truly and correctly. On his appearance in course of Trial, and before recording his depositions, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge put some questions to Master Rupsagar Dhar (P.W.-1) who at the time of deposition was aged about 6(six) years. Having satisfied with the answers of the child, P.W.1 was allowed to depose before the Court. He deposed that his father put a rope on the neck of his mother, Ratna Das and his father killed his mother by pulling the rope. It was night hours when the incident took place and he was present in the room where his mother was killed by his father. He deposed that his father put a rope on the neck of his mother, Ratna Das and his father killed his mother by pulling the rope. It was night hours when the incident took place and he was present in the room where his mother was killed by his father. He was taking milk at that time. He slept after taking the milk and when he woke up he did not find the milk. Deposing further, P.W.1 stated that he saw that his father pulled his mother by rope in the neck and took her in the backside varanda. He deposed that he had seen the incident from his bed and thereafter, he slept. When he woke up in the morning, he found his mother dead and she was lying on the floor of the backside varanda. Thereafter, the police came to the house. P.W.1 identified his father i.e. the appellant at the dock. P.W.1 further deposed that his mother was brought to Kailashahar by Police. He was not inquired anything when he went to Kailashahar. Being confronted with cross-examination, he stated that he was reading in the Chailangta School and was living with his stepmother. She was the teacher of the same school. Answering to a pointed question put forth by the defence, P.W.1 stated that he had no knowledge that his mother was ever admitted to hospital for about 9(nine) days for consuming poison herself before her death. He denied the suggestion made by the defence that he did not see his father killing his mother on the date of the incident. He further stated that after the death of his mother he had been living with his grandfather. He denied the suggestion that he was tutored by his grandfather. To a question, he stated that he made a statement to the police that he slept without taking the food. He further deposed that he stated to the police that firstly he took the milk and thereafter he woke up as he did not get the milk. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident, he was not taking his mother’s milk and that on the date of the incident, he was sleeping and he did not see any incident. He also denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that his father did not kill his mother by hanging her in the backside varanda. He also denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that his father did not kill his mother by hanging her in the backside varanda. 15. P.W.2, Shri Surendra Das, the father of the deceased deposed that when his daughter was aged about 24 years, she was given marriage with the appellant. In the morning on the date of the incident when he woke up he received a phone from Pradhan Manju asking him to go to the house of the appellant with his wife. Thereafter, he accompanied his wife i.e. the mother of the deceased and went to the house of the appellant. There they found the dead body of their daughter, Ratna Das. Police had already arrived and were ready to take the body of his daughter for post-mortem. He stated that the appellant on many occasions used to physically assault his daughter and once her hand was broken by the brother of the appellant in his presence. Out of that incident, he brought back his daughter to his house and when she was healed, she again came back to the house of the appellant. He further deposed that the appellant had a first wife without any issue. P.W.1 i.e. Master Rupsagar Dhar was born out of wedlock of his daughter with the appellant. P.W.2 further deposed that the appellant used to keep Rupsagar, P.W.1 along with his first wife at Chailangte. His daughter protested such custody of her son with the first wife of the appellant but without fulfilling the demand of his deceased daughter, the appellant used to assault his daughter. P.W.2 further deposed that when he went to the house of Bakul Ranjan Dhar, the appellant herein, Rupsagar Dhar came from one of the rooms when he was looking for him and at that time, Rupsagar told him that the appellant had put one rope in the neck of his mother Ratna Das and killed her. Thereafter, his son namely, Bhupendra Das had lodged the complaint against the appellant. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that for assault of his daughter by the appellant, he did not lodge any complaint to the police station. P.W.2 further stated that when his daughter was given marriage, the appellant was aged about 50/55 years. He denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that on the day his daughter took poison, the appellant was not with his daughter. P.W.2 further stated that when his daughter was given marriage, the appellant was aged about 50/55 years. He denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that on the day his daughter took poison, the appellant was not with his daughter. He further stated that his daughter was in the hospital for three days after taking poison. To a question, he answered that it was not within his knowledge that there was any dispute between his deceased daughter and the appellant due to the big age difference between them, and the appellant was not in a position to consummate the marriage with his deceased daughter. He denied the suggestion that the appellant was physically unfit and for that reason, his daughter was mentally depressed. He denied the suggestion that P.W.1 did not tell him that the appellant had killed his mother by hanging her with the rope. P.W.2 further stated that P.W.1 had been residing with him after the death of his daughter. 16. P.W.3, Smti Sima Dey one of the Municipal Councillor of Kumarghat Municipality appearing to depose before the Court stated that on hearing the cry, she went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor of the varanda which was at the backside of the kitchen. She saw a piece of rope tied around the neck of the deceased and also found that a part of the rope was still hanging with the roof. P.W.3 further deposed that out of search, P.W-1, the son of the deceased and the appellant came out from the room and ran towards his maternal grandmother, namely, Sankari Das and hugged her and told her that his father had killed his mother. The child had burst into tears. 17. P.W. 4, Smt. Sankari Das, the mother of the deceased and the grandmother of P.W.-1 deposed that hearing the news, she along with other members of the family had rushed to her daughter’s house. They found the dead body of the deceased lying at the backside varenda and found one rope was in broken condition on the roof of the varenda. On search, Rupsagar(P.W.1) came out of the room and told her and her husband (P.W.2) that his father had killed his mother by tying a rope around her neck. They found the dead body of the deceased lying at the backside varenda and found one rope was in broken condition on the roof of the varenda. On search, Rupsagar(P.W.1) came out of the room and told her and her husband (P.W.2) that his father had killed his mother by tying a rope around her neck. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her daughter had committed suicide out of mental depression. Nothing more had been elicited from her cross-examination. 18. P.W.-5, Smt. Swapna Das deposed that the deceased was her sister-in-law. On reaching the house, she found the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor of the kitchen of the varanda. On search, Rupsagar came out from one of the rooms when he was called by his grandmother, P.W.4. He rushed towards them and stated that his father had killed his mother (Ratna Das) by putting one rope around her neck. The said witness further deposed that P.W.1 further stated that he saw the incident himself from the bed in the night hours when he woke up in the night. She further deposed that the child also stated that his mother was killed by hanging with the said rope. Nothing material came out of her cross-examination. 19. P.W. 6, Shri Lal Mani Malakar deposed that he saw one accused was giving some statement before the police and the Magistrate. He was of no importance. 20. P.W. 7, Shri Mithun Aich was a witness to the seizure list. 21. P.W.8, Shri Bhaskar Guha was the priest who solemnized the marriage between the appellant and the deceased. 22. P.W. 9, Dr. Margaret Debbarma deposed that she discharged her duties as Medical Officer at Kumarghat CHC. On 29.04.2016, she conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased- Ratna. She detected the following injuries:- 1. Deep ligature mark encircling the neck. 2. It is transverse and above thyroid cartilage. 3. Area of bruising and abrasion present in front of the neck and left side of neck about the edges of ligature mark. 4. Superficial mark of knot present in the left side of (Knot mark) neck. After examination, she opined that the cause of the death was asphyxia following compression of neck leading to death which was homicidal in nature. 23. 4. Superficial mark of knot present in the left side of (Knot mark) neck. After examination, she opined that the cause of the death was asphyxia following compression of neck leading to death which was homicidal in nature. 23. P.W.11, Shri Dinesh Sarkar deposed that he was one of the members of the two meetings held to mitigate the disputes between the appellant and the deceased. On the date of the incident, he went to the house of the appellant and saw Ratna Das lying dead in the backside varenda of the house of the appellant. He also saw that one rope was hanging from the roof of the varenda. The rope was very strong and it could bear a load of 2/3 quintals. P.W. 11 further deposed that the weight of Ratna would be around 40/45 Kgs. In the cross-examination, he stated that his house is adjacent to the house of P.W.2. 24. P.W. 12, Shri Bhupendra Das, brother of the deceased and the maker of the FIR deposed that once during his visit to the house of his deceased sister, he found her hand was broken. He brought back his sister and arranged for her treatment. After recovery, she returned back to the house of the appellant. On the date of the incident, after getting the news he himself along with his parents and some village people went to the maternal home of his sister at Bhati Dudhpur. He found the dead body of his sister lying on the floor of the varenda having one piece of rope tied around her neck and one piece of rope in broken condition tied with the roof of the varanda. P.W.12 further deposed that he also saw one bench that was fallen nearby the dead body of his sister. Thereafter, police personnel had reached there. He told the police personnel to look for his cousin Rupsagar Dhar, (P.W.1). Rupsagar was found. On inquiry, Rupsagar, P.W.1 stated that the appellant had killed his mother by tying her with a rope around her neck, and thereafter, his father had brought the body in the varenda and hanged it with the help of the rope. P.W.12 put his signature in the inquest report (exhibit-8 as a whole). He also identified his signature in the seizure list (exhibit-5/1, exhibit-4/1, and exhibit-7/2). During cross-examination, the depositions of P.W.12 could not be shaken by the defence. 25. P.W.12 put his signature in the inquest report (exhibit-8 as a whole). He also identified his signature in the seizure list (exhibit-5/1, exhibit-4/1, and exhibit-7/2). During cross-examination, the depositions of P.W.12 could not be shaken by the defence. 25. P.W. 13, Shri Lalruata Darlong, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police (ASI) was on duty on 29.04.2016. He was one of the witnesses of the inquest report (Exbt-8/1). He deposed that he received one written complaint from the appellant regarding the death of his wife. He further deposed that the dead body was forwarded to the morgue of the Fatikroy PHC. Some articles were seized from the place of occurrence like nylon rope, night wearing apparel, etc., by preparing a proper seizure list (Exbt-5/2). The articles were identified in the Court and marked as Exbt. MO 1 series. P.W.13, further deposed that he examined five numbers of witnesses at the place of occurrence. After completion of post mortem, the boy was handed over to the relative of the deceased. In cross-examination, the said witness had confirmed that he examined the witnesses namely, Bhupendra Das, Surendra Das, Debabrata Datta, and Mithun Aich when he reached the place of occurrence. 26. P.W. 14, Smti. Rupali Majumder deposed as Scientific Officer. After receipt of the information from O/C Kumarghat P.S., she visited the place of occurrence at about 10.35 hours. She found the deceased in a hanging position from the bamboo ceiling of the room in the backyard of her residence. After reaching the place of occurrence, she observed thus:- “1) The dead body of the deceased was found lying on the floor of the room (temporary bamboo made structure) at her residence. 2) One ligature material (rope) with a torn end was found around the neck of the deceased and the other terminal end was found to be observed on the bamboo ceiling of the room. 3) The ligature mark was found deep, contused, circular, continuous and horizontal on the neck of the deceased. 4) One nail scratch mark on the cheek portion and one black colour injury mark below the chin were observed on the body of the deceased. 5) The hands of the deceased were not found in clenchied position. 6) No such protrusion of tongue , the dribbling of saliva, involuntary discharge of urine & faeces was found over the body of the deceased. 5) The hands of the deceased were not found in clenchied position. 6) No such protrusion of tongue , the dribbling of saliva, involuntary discharge of urine & faeces was found over the body of the deceased. 7) One wooden table was found beside the body of the deceased in inverted position with one end of it found under a fixed RCC slab which means the table might not be used by the deceased as stepping device.” P.W.14 deposed that from the above observation, the possibility of antemortem hanging could not be ruled out. She opined that the victim died before hanging. She also took some photographs from the digital camera provided by her office in support of her observations. She prepared a report and put her signature and seal thereof, Exbt-10 series and Exbt-10/1 respectively. Deposing further, P.W.14 stated that from the observation of the place of occurrence, she could gather that there was nothing to relate regarding the hanging of the victim, rather, the scene of occurrence was arranged for hanging. Being confronted with the cross-examination, she denied that her opinion that the victim died before hanging was not correct and proper. 27. P.W.15, Shri Goutam Ghosh was a witness to the seizure of the marriage certificate. 28. P.W.16, Sri Subhrendu Das turned hostile. 29. P.W.17, Sri Runulal Basak during his deposition stated that he heard from P.W.1 that the appellant had killed his wife. In the cross-examination, the said witness deposed that he stated before the police that he came to know from P.W.-1 that the appellant had killed his wife by way of hanging her. 30. P.W.18, Shri Subhra Nath was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kailashahar on 30.04.2016 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. Mr. Nath deposed that before recording, he tested the minor boy in regard to his level of understanding and after putting some common questions he was satisfied that the minor boy would be capable of giving his statement before him. Accordingly, he recorded his statement. He also gave his certificate (Exbt- 14/1). The officer also identified his signature (Exbt-14/2). In cross-examination, P.W.18 stated that it was not mentioned in the statement of the P.W.1 as to how he witnessed the incident in the night hours as the minor boy did not state said fact before him. 31. Accordingly, he recorded his statement. He also gave his certificate (Exbt- 14/1). The officer also identified his signature (Exbt-14/2). In cross-examination, P.W.18 stated that it was not mentioned in the statement of the P.W.1 as to how he witnessed the incident in the night hours as the minor boy did not state said fact before him. 31. P.W.19, Smt. Sandhaya Rani Sen deposed that on 29.04.2016 at about 6.00 A.M. the appellant told her that his wife Ratna Das had committed suicide by hanging. 32. P.W. 20, Shri Jayanta Dey deposed that he was discharging his duties as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kumarghat on 01.05.2016. On request, he went to the police station. In front of him and other witnesses, the appellant had confessed his guilt. 33. P.W.21, Shri Alok Acharjee was a videographer who videographed the confessional statement of the appellant in the police station. 34. P.W.22, Shri Nikhil S. Debbarma was posted as Subinspector of Police at Kumarghat Police Station on 29.04.2016. He deposed that he received information that a dead body was lying in the varanda of the kitchen of the appellant. After making G.D. entry, he along with one ASI Lal Ruata Darlong had proceeded towards the place of occurrence. He found the dead body. He prepared the inquest report and FIR was registered. The Officer-in-charge of the police station entrusted him to investigate the case. He identified the ejahar (Exbt-7/3) and the printed form of FIR was prepared by the officer-incharge of the police station wherein he put his signature. The signature of the officer-in-charge of the police station was put in the printed form of the FIR at two places and on identification was marked as Exhibit-16 series. P.W.22 further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statements in front of the Magistrate (P.W.20). He arranged for post mortem of the dead body and also arranged for recording the statement of the son of the appellant by a Chief Judicial Magistrate. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. During cross-examination, P.W.22 deposed that there was no reflection in the case diary regarding the persons who were found at the place of occurrence when he reached there on 29.04.2016. On his further cross-examination, he deposed that on 30.04.2016 he found P.W.1 at the Bhati Dudhpur area in the house of the accused. 35. During cross-examination, P.W.22 deposed that there was no reflection in the case diary regarding the persons who were found at the place of occurrence when he reached there on 29.04.2016. On his further cross-examination, he deposed that on 30.04.2016 he found P.W.1 at the Bhati Dudhpur area in the house of the accused. 35. P.W.23, Shri Debabrata Dutta alias Manju deposed that he was Gram Pradhan at the time of the occurrence. On 29.04.2016 in the morning, the appellant had made a phone call informing him that his wife had committed suicide. Thereafter, the younger brother of the appellant namely, Kanailal Dhar came to his house. Then, he went to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of the wife of the appellant lying on the floor with one rope tied around her neck. Thereafter, P.W.23 informed the matter over the phone to the brother of the deceased, namely, Bhupendra Das. He also informed the matter to the Kumarghat P.S., and he came to the place of occurrence accordingly. P.W.23 further stated in his cross-examination that he saw one broken piece of rope was tied with the roof of the varenda where the dead body of the victim was found. 36. P.W. 24, Shri Amrit Das was constable. 37. P.W. 25, Shri Nayanmani Namasudra deposed that being the Officer-In-Charge of the Kumarghar P.S. he received an FIR by one Bhupendra Das and he registered the case. He identified his signature in the FIR marked as Exbt-7/4. On identification, the FIR was marked as Exbt-17(as a whole). 38. In the present case, the appellant had adduced 4(four) witnesses on his behalf. 39. The appellant himself appeared before the witness box as D.W.-1. He deposed that he had a good relation with the deceased wife but was not able to give her sexual satisfaction for which, she was suffering from depression. He further deposed that on two occasions the deceased consumed poison, the last incident being occurred in the year 2012 when he was at Chailengta along with P.W.1. He further deposed that he got his son admitted at Chailengta considering the mental condition of his mother-Ratna Das. D.W.1 further deposed that on 28.04.2016, he was in his house and his son Rupsagar (P.W.1) was also with him. He further deposed that he got his son admitted at Chailengta considering the mental condition of his mother-Ratna Das. D.W.1 further deposed that on 28.04.2016, he was in his house and his son Rupsagar (P.W.1) was also with him. After taking their dinner at night at about 9.30 hours he went to sleep and his son Rupsagar also slept with him. Proceeding further, D.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 always used to sleep with him and when he woke up early in the morning, at about 5.30 to attend the nature’s call and while he was returning to his room after such nature’s call, he saw the dead body of his wife Ratna on the floor of the varanda and there was a torn rope entangled around her neck and another part of the rope was hanging from the ceiling of the roof. He realized that his wife was unconscious. He raised hue and cry when his son who was sleeping came near to him. Nearby people also arrived after hearing his cry. He further deposed that his brother informed the incident to the Pradhan of the village. He further deposed that his son was with him till 29.04.2016 and on 30.04.2016 he heard that his son was handed over to his in-laws by the police when he was at the police station. He was arrested by the police. His son had started to reside with his grandparents. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the deceased was not suffering from mental illness. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not quarreling with him. 40. D.W. 2, Shri Prabesh Paul deposed that he knew the appellant as he was a resident of his village and from his locality. The distance between his house and that of the appellant is about 100 meters. He knew the wife of the appellant i.e. deceased Ratna Das. He deposed that prior to his marriage with deceased Ratna, the appellant married Sutapa Paul and during the lifetime of Sutapa, the appellant married Ratna Das as he had no issue out of his wedlock with Sutapa. He also deposed that Sutapa was a teacher employed under the Government and she used to maintain the family of the appellant and the marriage between the appellant and Ratna was solemnized with the consent of Sutapa. He also deposed that Sutapa was a teacher employed under the Government and she used to maintain the family of the appellant and the marriage between the appellant and Ratna was solemnized with the consent of Sutapa. D.W. 3 deposed that out of the wedlock with Ratna Das, a male child was born and there was good relation between Ratna and the appellant as they could see prima facie. He saw the dead body of the deceased-Ratna lying on the ground with rope partly tied on her neck and another part hanging from the roof of the ceiling. They went to the spot after hearing hue and cry early in the morning and saw P.W.-1 also in the spot. On being asked by them, P.W.-1, the son of the appellant said that he was sleeping and could not say anything. He also deposed that on two occasions Ratna Das consumed poison and on the 2nd occasion the appellant was not present in the house and on hearing hue and cry they went to the house of the appellant but she resisted and said that she will not go to hospital and she wants to die, so they informed the appellant. Subsequently, on the arrival of the appellant, Ratna was taken to hospital by the appellant. In the cross-examination, D.W.-2 stated that after the house of the appellant, there is the house of Sona Chand Sen and there is a pond between his house and the house of Sona Chand Sen but there is no cultivating land in between but on the side, there is cultivating land. Nothing more elicited from his cross-examination. 41. D.W.-3, Dr. Rupesh Banik deposed that he was posted at Kumarghat Rural Hospital(CHC) from the period 2009 to 2017. He also deposed that he cannot say whether Ratna Dhar was admitted to hospital or not as he does not know who issued the discharge certificate shown to him nor he can identify the signature. In his cross-examination, D.W.-3 stated that there was PHC both in Kanchanbari and Fatikroy during his tenure. 42. D.W. 4, Smt. Jharna Banik deposed that she knew the deceased-Ratna Das as she was her sister-in-law and the appellant is her brother-in-law. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased-Ratna was solemnized after her marriage. She also deposed that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2008. 42. D.W. 4, Smt. Jharna Banik deposed that she knew the deceased-Ratna Das as she was her sister-in-law and the appellant is her brother-in-law. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased-Ratna was solemnized after her marriage. She also deposed that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2008. She also deposed that prior to marriage with the deceased, the appellant married Sutapa Paul and during the lifetime of Sutapa, the appellant married the deceased- Ratna with the consent of Sutapa as she had no child out of her wedlock with the appellant. After marriage with Ratna Das, out of her wedlock, the appellant and Ratna had a son, namely, Rupsagar Dhar and at present Rupsagar is aged about 8/8 and half years. She also deposed that there was harmonious relation between the appellant and the deceased. She also deposed that she does not know how Ratna died but on 29.04.2016 early in the morning they heard hue and cry and went and saw that a rope was hanging partly from the roof of the ceiling and a part of it was tied around the neck of Ratna who was lying on the ground. She also found Rupsagar present there and asked him what happened with his mother when he said that he does not know as he was sleeping with his father. The nearby people gathered along with the Pradhan of their area. The parents of the deceased were also informed over telephone and they came and the police also came. On that date, the appellant was apprehended by the police, and on 30.04.2016, Rupsagar was handed over by the Police to his maternal grandparents. From 30.04.2016, Rupsagar is residing in the house of his maternal grandparents. After the birth of Rupsagar, she found the deceased to be quite depressive and thoughtful, and on her asking the reason for her depression, Ratna told her that she does not like anything and wants to die. From 30.04.2016, Rupsagar is residing in the house of his maternal grandparents. After the birth of Rupsagar, she found the deceased to be quite depressive and thoughtful, and on her asking the reason for her depression, Ratna told her that she does not like anything and wants to die. On a certain day, she consumed poison and they treated her by giving herbal aid but when on the 2nd occasion Ratna again consumed poison, she was serious and at that time the appellant and Rupsagar were also not in the house and had gone to Chailengta, so they informed him over telephone from the phone of one Prabesh Paul and on arrival of the appellant, he took her to Kumarghat hospital though Ratna Das resisted, and said that she wanted to die. Rupsagar mostly stayed with Sutapa and Ratna was unable to take proper care of him. Moreover, Rupsagar was admitted to a school of Chilengta and Sutapa was a teacher at Chailengta school. Ratna also used to visit Chailenga and stayed there for 2/3 days. In her cross-examination, D.W. 4 deposed that she and the appellant residing in the same house, and after their house, there is the house of Sona Chand Sen, thereafter a paddy land, a pond, and then the house of Prabesh Paul on the western side. She admitted that she was also an FIR named accused in this case. The rest part of her cross-examination is nothing but denials to the suggestions put by the prosecution. 43. On the basis of the above evidences and materials on record, we are to answer the questions that were formulated at the earlier parts of the judgment. ANALYSIS Whether the death of Ratna Dhar (Das) was homicidal or suicidal. If it is a case of homicide, who had killed Ratna Dhar(Das), the deceased? 44. P.W.1, specifically deposed that his father had put one rope around the neck of his mother. He saw his father pulling her mother by the rope that was tied around her neck and took her mother to the backside varenda of the house. He saw the incident from his bed. Time and again, P.W.1, the child categorically has stated that he saw his father killing his mother. Faced with cross-examination, P.W.1 being a child reiterated the circumstance that he had seen his father killing his mother on the date of the incident. He saw the incident from his bed. Time and again, P.W.1, the child categorically has stated that he saw his father killing his mother. Faced with cross-examination, P.W.1 being a child reiterated the circumstance that he had seen his father killing his mother on the date of the incident. This evidence of the P.W.1 could not be shaken by the defence in any manner whatsoever. We have verified the statement of P.W.1 as recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. as extracted here-inabove. True it is, the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence but it will be used for contradiction and corroboration. Having perused the evidence of P.W.1, during the course of trial and his statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., we find no discrepancies or inconsistencies in the two separate statements recorded at two different stages. There is no attempt of any improvement or exaggerations in his statement before the Trial Court. The defence has made an attempt to persuade this Court that after the date of the incident, P.W.1 had started to reside with his grandparents and there was a chance of being tutored. But, we were unable to consume such apprehension on behalf of the appellant for the reason that the child (P.W.1) being the son of the appellant has not deviated from his earlier statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. which he made before the CJM immediately after the incident. 45. We have given our thoughtful considerations that the evidence of a child witness has to be dealt with cautiously. We are conscious of the settled proposition of law. The law is already settled that a child witness if found competent to depose and reliable one, such evidence could be the basis of conviction, in other words, even in the absence of oath, the evidence of the child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the question and able to give rational answers thereof. Furthermore, the evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof could depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in every case, the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before a conviction could be allowed to stand, but as a rule of prudence, the Court always finds it desirable to have corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record. [Datta Ramrao Sakhare and ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 ] (para-5). 46. Here we find enough corroboration in the statements of P.W.1 recorded before the Trial Court during his depositions as well as in his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. In addition, the rope which was tied around the neck of the mother of P.W.1 and by which the deceased was pulled by the appellant as deposed by P.W.1. was seized by the police. All the prosecution witnesses who went to the house of the appellant just after the incident in the morning had deposed before the Court that they had seen one part of the rope being tied around the neck of the deceased and another torn part of the rope was hanging from the bamboo fixed with the roof of the varenda. After post mortem, P.W.9 opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia followed by compression of neck leading to death which was homicidal in nature. She explained that the meaning of homicide as mentioned in the report was that the victim did not die herself. P.W. 9 further clarified that though she mentioned the history of the deceased suggested hanging, but, the said deceased died before being hanged. This statement of P.W.9 had been corroborated by P.W.14, the scientific officer who after making observations of the nature of injuries in and around the neck of the deceased came to the finding that there was the possibility of antemortem hanging and she opined that the victim died before hanging. P.W. 14 further explained that on examination of the place of occurrence, there was enough material to suggest that the scene of the crime was arranged for hanging. 47. P.W. 14 further explained that on examination of the place of occurrence, there was enough material to suggest that the scene of the crime was arranged for hanging. 47. In view of this, and keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Datta Ramrao Sakhare (supra), according to us, the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and trustworthy. To buttress our reliability upon P.W.1, there is yet another relevant circumstance that supports the prosecution case. It is the statement made by P.W.1 just after the incident to the persons who had arrived at the house of the appellant immediately after the incident. P.W.1 specifically stated to her grandparents, P.W.2 & P.W.4 that his father had killed his mother by tying a rope around her neck. This statement was made by him in front of other prosecution witnesses like P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7, and P.W.12. Under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, this statement is very much relevant as it has been disclosed immediately after the occurrence. We are of the considered view, that this statement of P.W.1 corroborated by other prosecution witnesses was made substantially contemporaneously when the crime was committed and the P.W.1 did not get any opportunity to be tutored by any one of his close relatives. The evidence of res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being an exception of hearsay evidence is admissible in evidence under either Section 6 or under Section 157 of Evidence Act. 48. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramratan and ors v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1962 SC 424 had an opportunity to deal with the provisions as contemplated under Section 157 of the Evidence Act at para-8, which have been reproduced hereunder:- “Section 157 is in these terms:- ",In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, or at about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.” 49. In the instant case, the statement made by P.W.1 in regard to the fact that it was his father (the appellant) who had killed his mother has been supported by other prosecution witnesses who had arrived at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence and reiterated the same fact during their depositions before the Court. In the instant case, the statement made by P.W.1 in regard to the fact that it was his father (the appellant) who had killed his mother has been supported by other prosecution witnesses who had arrived at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence and reiterated the same fact during their depositions before the Court. Further, this statement of P.W.1 is found to be consistent with the statement made by him under Section 164 Cr. P.C, which was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the legally competent person as well as the statement made to the investigating officer during the investigation. 50. In view of the above analysis, according to us, such corroboration of facts and circumstances, fortifies the reliability and credibility of P.W.1 regarding the relevant fact that it was none but his father who killed his mother. 51. Further, the appellant has tried to make out a case in his quest to prove his innocence that his deceased wife had a tendency to commit suicide and for that purpose, he had referred to an incident of consuming poison by his wife in the year 2012. According to us, the fact of consuming poison in the year 2012 and the fact in issue in regard to the incident that had taken place in the year 2016 are two separate and isolated incidents and the circumstances that loomed large around the two incidents should not be weighed in equal parameters. Evidence leading to the two incidents has to be construed on their own merits. As such, we are unable to connect the incident that occurred in the year 2016 with the incident occurred in the year 2012 as elicited here-in-above. 52. In the present case, the post mortem doctor, P.W.9 categorically opined that the cause of death was asphyxia following compression of neck which was homicidal in nature. Putting further stamp on the said statement of P.W.-9, the scientific officer (P.W.-14) who visited the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident opined that the possibility of ante mortem hanging could not be ruled out and the scene of occurrence was actually arranged to give a show-off that it was a case of hanging. According to her observation, there was nothing to relate regarding the hanging of victim on her own. 53. According to her observation, there was nothing to relate regarding the hanging of victim on her own. 53. Another most important circumstance, is that the appellant himself admitted that there was none, but, only he, his son (P.W.1), and his wife in the room where they slept on that night. So, he had special knowledge about the incident. It was upon him to explain as to how his wife had gone out of the room and prepared herself to commit suicide by hanging. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was incumbent upon him to come out with a possible and plausible explanation as to how the incident had occurred, which he miserably failed. In this situation, the evidence of P.W.1, his son that he had seen the appellant to pull her mother by a nylon rope appears to us more stronger than his statement that when in the morning he woke up on nature's call and went outside the room, at that time, he had seen his wife hanging at the "varanda" adjacent to the kitchen room. 54. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances as stated and discussed here-in-above, the evidence is galore against the accused-appellant that it was not a case of suicide as tried to be projected by the appellant, but, all circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused alone and none else. Thus, we have answered all the questions that had been formulated at the earlier part of the judgment. 55. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge against the appellant, and the same is maintained. The appeal is dismissed.