JUDGMENT : K.S.MUDAGAL, J. Challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.C.C.No.452/2016 on the file of 50 th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted the appellants/accused for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 3. Appellants were accused Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 4. The charge against the accused was that accused No.1 was married to one Dinesh Mandal, had two daughters in the said marriage. She developed illicit relationship with accused No.2. It was further alleged that due to such relationship, leaving behind her husband/Dinesh Mandal and the first daughter Karim Mandal, accused No.1 eloped with accused No.2 taking her second daughter Babli Mandal and they came down to Bengaluru and lived in Bengaluru like husband and wife. It was further alleged that victim child Babli Mandal, used to wake up during the nights, cry and go out of the house. Accused No.2 was complaining that he is not able to live happily because of her child. On 26.06.2016 at 12:00 midnight, victim child went outside and did not come back. Accused No.1 had to search her and bring her back. Being enraged by that, accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the victim by their hands. Accused No.1 assaulted the victim with MO.1/wooden reaper and thrashed her head against the wall. The victim succumbed to the injuries. 5. Peenya Police on registering the complaint/Ex.P2 filed by Prakash/PW1, conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. The trial Court on conducting the trial, based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and other materials on record, has convicted the appellants/accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment as aforesaid. The said judgment is challenged in the above appeal. 6. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Arvind.N, for Sri Mohan Kumar D, learned Counsel for appellants/accused: 7. PWs.8,11 to 15 and 22 were not the eyewitnesses to the incident. The said judgment is challenged in the above appeal. 6. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Arvind.N, for Sri Mohan Kumar D, learned Counsel for appellants/accused: 7. PWs.8,11 to 15 and 22 were not the eyewitnesses to the incident. They have not seen what happened inside the house of the accused. PWs.3 to 7/material witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The evidence on record shows that the child was in the habit of going outside during the night hours. During the night of the incident, similarly child had gone outside and fallen into a drain, suffered the injuries and died. The evidence on record shows that accused Nos.1 and 2, soon after the incident, narrated to the witnesses that victim died due to accidental injuries. The trial Court committed error in not accepting the defence of the victim in that regard. Even otherwise, the evidence on record itself shows that the child was a problematic child, used to go out of the house during night hours and being fed up by that, accused No.1 hit her leading to her death. Therefore, at the most only the first accused has to be convicted for the offence under Section 304 IPC as there was no intention on her part also to kill the child. So far as accused No.2, evidence on record shows that he narrated to the witnesses that accused No.1 has assaulted. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence against accused No.2 is liable to be set aside. 8. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments: i. Chunni Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 577 ii. Rajeshwari Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police station, Thoothukudi District, Crl.A(MD)No.283/2020 Dated 06.01.2023 Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II: 9.(i) The accused did not dispute that when incident took place, themselves and the victim were living together as tenants in the house of father of PW.1. They also did not dispute that the victim child had suffered 21 injuries on its body and died. If really the injuries were accidental injuries, the accused should have taken the child to the hospital or soon after the incident they should have sought the help of the neighbours. They also did not dispute that the victim child had suffered 21 injuries on its body and died. If really the injuries were accidental injuries, the accused should have taken the child to the hospital or soon after the incident they should have sought the help of the neighbours. Till morning they have not sought any help of the neighbours, only when the neighbours went and enquired, they invented the story of accidental injuries. The fact that PWs.8, 11 to 15 and 22 were the neighbours, was not disputed. On ill- fated day they found accused assaulting the victim and soon thereafter the child was found dead. The evidence of PW.21 shows that even prior to the incident, the victim was tormented by the accused and subjected to physical violence. That goes to show that the accused were the culprits. Considering that the victim had suffered 21 injuries, the theory that there was no intention or knowledge on the part of accused No.1 to cause the death of the victim, cannot be accepted. (ii) So far as accused No.2, evidence on record shows that he had also joined accused No.1 in assaulting the victim child. If he was not culprit, at least he could have rescued the child. Therefore, trial Court was justified in convicting both of them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, appeal be dismissed. 10. On considering the submissions of both side and on examining the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is “whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is sustainable?”. Analysis 11. The fact that accused No.1 was married to one Dinesh Mandal and they had two daughters that victim Babli Mandal and Karim Mandal in the said marriage was not disputed. It was also not disputed that earlier the couple were living with their children in Tharapura village of Nadiya District, West Bengal. It is also not disputed that accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came down to Bangalore in the year 2011 with victim child Babli Mandal and all of them were living together. It was also not disputed that earlier the couple were living with their children in Tharapura village of Nadiya District, West Bengal. It is also not disputed that accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came down to Bangalore in the year 2011 with victim child Babli Mandal and all of them were living together. It is also not disputed that they were living in the house belonging to PW.23 and PW1 is son of PW.23. It is also not disputed that on 26.06.2016 during night hours child suffered injuries and died. 12. Based on the complaint of PW.1 as per Ex.P1, FIR as per Ex.P21 in Crime No.596/2016 was registered against the accused. On registering Ex.P21, PW20 handed over the investigation to PW25. PW.25/Police Inspector of Peenya police station on taking over the investigation, visited the spot, conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P4. During the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the wooden reaper and pillow. Then he got subjected the dead body to postmortem examination. On his instructions, his staff arrested and produced the accused before him. He interrogated and recorded their voluntary statements, collected birth certificate and school records of the victim. He recorded the statements of PW.21/Headmistress of the school of the victim. During investigation he seized clothes of the accused. On completing the investigation, he filed chargesheet. 13. Trial Court on hearing both side, framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. As the accused denied the charge, trial was conducted. In support of case of the prosecution PWs.1 to 26 were examined, Exs.P1 to P40 and MOs.1 to 6 were marked. After their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused filed their defence statement claiming that the death was accidental one and they are falsely implicated in the case by their neighbours. 14. Trial Court on hearing both side by the impugned judgment and order held that the fact of accused assaulting the victim as alleged in the charge was proved by the evidence of eyewitnesses and the said evidence was corroborated by the other evidence on record. 15. 14. Trial Court on hearing both side by the impugned judgment and order held that the fact of accused assaulting the victim as alleged in the charge was proved by the evidence of eyewitnesses and the said evidence was corroborated by the other evidence on record. 15. The case of the prosecution was based on the following set of evidence: (i) That death of victim was homicidal one; (ii) The evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.8,11 to 15 and 22; (iii) Extrajudicial confession of accused before PWs.11 to 15 and 22; (iv) Evidence of PW.21/Headmistress of the first school of the victim in Bangalore to the effect that accused No.1 used to assault the victim even earlier; (v) Medical evidence; and (vi) Evidence of the official witnesses. Reg. Nature of death, evidence of eyewitnesses and extrajudicial confession: 16. As already noted the facts that accused No.1 was the mother and one Dinesh Mandal/CW.11 was biological father of victim child, during subsistence of marriage of accused No.1 with CW.11, she came down to Bangalore along with accused No.2 and the victim child and since then they lived in Bangalore together, were not disputed. It is further not disputed that since six months prior to the incident, accused and deceased child lived together in the house of PW.23 as tenants and victim child met with an unnatural death during the intervening night of 26/27.06.2016. 17. The accused claimed that the victim child walked out of the house during the night time and fell into a drain and met with such death. Whereas prosecution claims that the accused assaulted the victim with reaper/MO.1 and their hands, thrashed the head of the child against the wall and caused her death. Apart from relying on the evidence of eyewitnesses, to prove the nature of death, prosecution relied on Ex.P23/postmortem examination report and evidence of PW.26/Head of the Department of Forensic, Sapthagiri Medical College, Bengaluru. PW.26 deposed that on the police requisition, on 28.06.2016 between 12:45 p.m. and 01:45 p.m. one Dr. Pavan P.N/Assistant Professor of Forensic Department of their hospital conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim and issued postmortem report/Ex.P33. He further deposed that said Dr.Pavan was relieved from duty on 03.01.2018 and joined some other institution. Ex.P39 is the relieving letter. Pavan P.N/Assistant Professor of Forensic Department of their hospital conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim and issued postmortem report/Ex.P33. He further deposed that said Dr.Pavan was relieved from duty on 03.01.2018 and joined some other institution. Ex.P39 is the relieving letter. In the cross-examination of PW.26 the fact of conduction of postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim by Dr.Pavan and the findings in the reports were not denied. 18. As per Ex.P33 on the dead body, the following 21 injuries were found: 1. “Contusion, 2x2 cm x bone deep, present over the left forehead over the frontal prominence. 2. Contused abrasion, 2x1.5 cm x bone deep, present over the right forehead, 6 cm above the supra-orbital margin and 4 cm from the midline. 3. Laceration, 1 x 0.5 cm x bone deep, present over the root of the nose. 4. Contusion, 4x3 cm x bone deep, present over the bridge of the nose. 5. Contusion, 2 x 2 cm x muscle deep, present over the prominence of the left cheek. 6. Multiple abrasions, varying in sizes from 0.5 x 0.5 cm to 1.5 x 1 cm present over right cheek and chin. 7. Contusions of varying sizes and muscle deep have coalased to forma large contused area involving the posterior and lateral aspect of the right arm and forearm. 8. Multiple and parallely placed contusions measuring 1.4 x 5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep over the anterior surface of the right wrist, forearm and elbow (finger impressions) 9. Contusion, 3 x 3 cm x muscle deep, present over the right thenar eminence. 10. Two contusions, 3 x 2 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep and 2 x 2 cm x bone deep, present over the outer aspect of left lower arm and elbow. 11. Two contusions, 5 x 6 cm x bone deep and 7 x 5 cm x bone deep, present over the back of the middle and lower third of the left forearm and wrist. 12. Abrasion, 1 x 0.5 cm present over medial aspect of the proximal phalanx of the left ring finger. 13. Two contusions, 3 x 3 cm x bone deep and 4 x 4 cm x bone deep, present over the front of the right leg at the upper and the middle thirds respectively. 14. 12. Abrasion, 1 x 0.5 cm present over medial aspect of the proximal phalanx of the left ring finger. 13. Two contusions, 3 x 3 cm x bone deep and 4 x 4 cm x bone deep, present over the front of the right leg at the upper and the middle thirds respectively. 14. Contusion, 6 x 3 cm x bone deep, present over the dorsal surface of the right foot and toes. 15. Abraded Contusion, 15 x 12 cm x bone deep, present over the left gluteal region. 16. Contusion, 10 x 4.5 cm x muscle deep, present over the left mid-thigh at its back. 17. Two contusions, 2 x 2 cm x bone deep and 4 x 3 cm x bone deep, present over the front of the upper and lower third of the left leg. 18. Contusion, 8 x 6 cm x muscle deep, present over the left mid-leg at its back 19. Contusion, 8 x 6 cm x muscle deep, present over the dorsal surface of the left foot and toes. 20. Abrasion, 8 x 2.5 cm present over the left loin. 21. Multiple abrasions and contusions of varying sizes noted over the back. (ii) Further on detection, following internal injuries (c), (d) and (j) were found: (c) Chest and Abdomen Walls and Cavities: Ribs: Right side: 4 th , 5 th and 6 th ribs fractured at the costo- vertebral junctions in the para-vertebral gutter. Pleural cavity on both sides is devoid of fluid or blood. Peritoneal cavity is devoid of fluid or blood. However, large areas of blood extravasation noted in the lower abdomen and pelvic cavity retroperitoneally. (d) Cardiovascular system: Heart-Contusion, 2.5 x 1.5 c m x cardiac muscle deep, present over the posterior surface, Aorta- Intact. (j) Head: Scalp- On reflection, diffuse extravasation of blood in the form of thick clots noted all over. Temporalis muscles on both sides are contused. Skull-intact. Brain – multiple patches of sub-dural and sub- arachnoid haemorrhages noted over both cerebral hemispheres and base of brain. (iii) Summary of anatomical findings of the doctor were as follows: 1. Multiple abrasions and contusions of varying sizes, shapes and depths noted all over the body. 2. Ribs: Right side: 4 th , 5 th and 6 th ribs fractured at the costo-vertebral junctions in the para-vertebral gutter. 3. (iii) Summary of anatomical findings of the doctor were as follows: 1. Multiple abrasions and contusions of varying sizes, shapes and depths noted all over the body. 2. Ribs: Right side: 4 th , 5 th and 6 th ribs fractured at the costo-vertebral junctions in the para-vertebral gutter. 3. Large areas of blood extravasation noted in the lower abdomen and pelvic cavity retroperitoneally. 4. Heart- Contusion, 2.5 x 1.5 cm x cardiac muscle deep, present over the posterior surface. 5. Scalp- On reflection, diffuse extravasation of blood in the form of thick clots noted all over. Temporalis muscles on both sides are contused. Skull-intact. Brain-multiple patches of sub-dural and sub- arachnoid haemorrhages noted over both cerebral hemispheres and base of brain. Fracture dislocation of the left elbow joint noted. Abrasions are red in colour. Contusions are reddish blue in colour. Fractured bone ends show extravasation of blood. All injuries are antemortem in nature. 19. Further, the doctor opined that death was due to shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained. The evidence of PW.26 further shows that after postmortem examination, the clothes/MOs.5 and 6 found on the dead body were handed over to the police and weapon/MO.1 was referred for doctor's opinion. On examination of the weapon, Dr.Pavan issued Ex.P36 stating that the injuries found on the dead body could be caused by the said weapon and multiple injuries led to the death of the victim. 20. The defence of the accused during cross-examination of PW.26 was that such injuries could be caused if the child fell into a drain or some pit and some of the injuries were more than 10 days old. But in the evidence of other witnesses, more particularly PWs.8, 11 to 15 and 22, there was no whisper that the child had suffered any injuries about ten days prior to the incident. The sole contention of accused was that during that night, child fell into the drain and suffered those injuries. If at all child had suffered such injuries or many injuries 10 days prior to the incident, what action they had taken for treating those injuries, was not elicited either in the evidence of any of the witnesses or by way of their defence statements. Both the accused have filed their defence statements before the trial Court on 26.09.2018 i.e. after the evidence PW.26. Both the accused have filed their defence statements before the trial Court on 26.09.2018 i.e. after the evidence PW.26. But in that defence statement there is no whisper that the child had suffered some injuries about 10 days prior to the incident. Therefore the theory that there were some past injuries cannot be accepted. 21. Substance of evidence of PWs.8, 11 to 15 and 22 is that they are the neighbours of the accused. Happenings in the house of the accused could be heard and seen by them. During the night of the incident, they found accused No.1 and the child outside the house and accused No.1 beating the child and dragging her into their house. Then they heard galata in the house of the accused and accused beating the child and child screaming. They further stated that in the morning, they found the child dead and on enquiry, accused No.1 told that the child had fallen into the drain and met an accidental death. On noticing the injuries, they suspected and informed the police and on police coming to the spot and enquiring, both accused confessed that they assaulted the victim and accused No.1 hit the child with MO.1/reaper and thrashed the head of the child against the wall. Thereafter the child died. 22. In the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses, nothing could be elicited to show that they had any motive against the accused for false implication. Nothing is elicited to show that the implication of the accused in the case confers any benefits on the aforesaid witnesses. Their statements were recorded soon after the incident. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in accepting the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses about the overt acts of the accused and the accused making extrajudicial confession before them. 23. Further death has taken place in the house of the accused. There were 21 external injuries on the dead body of the victim child who was aged just 8 years. The accused only say that the child fell into drain. How such falling could cause 21 injuries was not explained. If at all the injuries were accidental one, why they did not inform the neighbours immediately and did not make any efforts to take the child to the hospital was also not explained by them. Therefore the trial Court was justified in holding that the accused were the authors of those injuries. If at all the injuries were accidental one, why they did not inform the neighbours immediately and did not make any efforts to take the child to the hospital was also not explained by them. Therefore the trial Court was justified in holding that the accused were the authors of those injuries. 24. Further the fact of seizure of the clothes/MOs.3 to 6 of the accused and deceased was proved by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Though panch witnesses for seizure of MO.1 have not supported, FSL Report/Ex.P22 and the evidence of PW.24 shows that the clothes of the accused and the deceased were stained with ‘A’ blood group. If the injuries were accidental injuries, how the clothes of the accused were also stained with blood was not explained. The other evidence which links the accused to the crime is that they tried to put up a false proposition that the injuries were accidental one, quite contrary to the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Under the circumstances, that becomes additional link in connecting the accused to the crime. Thus the trial Court was justified in holding that accused Nos.1 and 2 were the authors of the injuries. 25. So far as accused No.2, admittedly child was in the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. If at all accused No.1 alone was the aggressor and author of the injuries, he could have intervened and protected the child. Whereas the evidence of eyewitnesses shows that he also hit the child and both of them dragged the child inside and closed the door. If at all accused No.1 alone was the author of the injuries and accused No.2 was innocent, he should have informed the police about the same or he should have filed the complaint against accused No.1. That goes to show that he has shared the common intention with accused No.1 and both of them were the perpetrators of the crime. 26. The other theory which was seriously urged before this Court was that accused No.1 had no intention to cause injuries leading to the death and out of frustration as the child was causing troubles, she has assaulted the child. The said theory could have been accepted if the accused had dealt with single blow or one or two blows. The postmortem report shows that the victim child was dealt with multiple blows leading to 21 injuries. The said theory could have been accepted if the accused had dealt with single blow or one or two blows. The postmortem report shows that the victim child was dealt with multiple blows leading to 21 injuries. The head was crushed. There were injuries on the head, nose, cheeks, chin, both hands, fingers, legs, thigh and the back of the child. Ribs of the child were fractured. There were multiple haemorrhages in the brain due to head injury. Therefore, it cannot be said that out of frustration one or two blows were dealt with to control the child. It cannot be said that such injuries were inflicted without knowledge or intention on the part of the accused that may lead to death. It is disheartening to notice that accused Nos.1 and 2, more particularly accused No.1 supposed to be the protector of the child, turned to be its predator. 27. Reading of the judgment in Chunnibai's case referred to supra shows that there accused had taken up defence that at the time of the offence she was possessed by some invisible power. The Court found that there were no motivating factors compelling the accused therein to commit crime. The Court felt that she had no knowledge of what was doing or she had no knowledge of what had happened and how it happened and that she was under the influence of some invisible power. Reading of para 10 of the said judgment shows that in her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused therein claimed that she had no knowledge of what had happened and how that happened and at that time she was under the influence of some invisible power. 28. In the present case, no such defence either in the cross-examination of witnesses or in the defence statement, or in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is taken. In that case the Court felt that the accused had some mental health condition but she was not able to express the same and she found that condition as she being under the influence of invisible power. But in the present case, it was consistent defence of the accused that victim suffered those injuries accidentally. Therefore, the said judgment does not advance the case of the accused. 29. But in the present case, it was consistent defence of the accused that victim suffered those injuries accidentally. Therefore, the said judgment does not advance the case of the accused. 29. Reading of para 6 of the judgment in Rajeshwari's case referred to supra shows that the mother of the accused therein had assaulted the victim child, which was aged 13 years, out of the frustration that the child, without informing her parents and the school authorities had ran away from the residential school in the midnight. On the next day she was not prepared to go to the school. She was upset. In fit of anger she had splashed kerosene towards the child and set her on fire. The child died after four months of the incident. Such defence is not taken in the present case. Therefore said judgment also is not applicable to the case on hand. 30. At the cost of repetition, it has to be said that to conceal the evidence of offence and to save themselves, the accused have taken up the defence that injuries were accidental. For tender aged child of 8 years, infliction of 21 injuries which are shown in the postmortem report that too by mother and step father is highly brutal. Under the circumstances, we are not persuaded to accept the contention that there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that the injuries inflicted would lead to the death of the victim or they had no intention to commit murder. Children are not the responsibility of just the parents, they are the property of the society. But they are highly vulnerable. The present incident shows that their vulnerability not only out of their house, but even in their own houses they are not safe. Such vulnerability of the children has led to enacting special legislations like Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’ for short), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 etc. The present incident shows that their vulnerability not only out of their house, but even in their own houses they are not safe. Such vulnerability of the children has led to enacting special legislations like Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’ for short), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 etc. In fact Section 75 of JJ Act provides for punishment for cruelty to child, which states any person who is in charge of or control of child, assaults the child, is punishable with imprisonment for the term which may extend to three years and the Third proviso to Section 75 of JJ Act says that if such assault incapacitates the child or render the child unfit to perform regular tasks or causes risk to the life and limb of the child, the punishment shall be rigorous imprisonment not less than three years, but which may extend upto 10 years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. Despite such special provisions and enactments, such incidents happen. 31. In fact, in the present case, the acts of the accused not only constituted the offence under Section 302 of IPC, but also Section 201 of IPC, i.e. suppressing the material fact to screen themselves from the offence of projecting the injuries in other manner to save themselves and also to be sanctified. Neither the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 201 of IPC and Section 75 of JJ Act, nor the prosecutor argued that the charges should be framed for those offences nor the trial Court noticed those provisions. Therefore, it is found necessary to sensitize all the stakeholders in such matters to take appropriate action to achieve the objectives of JJ Act and take steps in that direction. On re-appreciation of the evidence and applicable law, this Court does not find any error in the findings or conclusions reached by the trial Court. The appeal deserves no merit. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused is hereby confirmed. Registrar (General) shall circulate copy of this judgment to the trial Courts and Secretary to Home Department for needful.