Laxman and Another vs State of Karnataka

B. Padmaraj, J.-Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State at a considerable length and carefully perused the material evidence on record with their assistance.

This appeal is directed against an order of conviction of the appellants/accused 1 and 2 under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The appellants have however been acquitted of the offence under Section 392 of the IPC. The State has not preferred any appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in favour of the appellants. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Smt. Vijayalakshmi, a housewife and her two daughters Radhika and Ashwini were done to death by drowning, while her another daughter Swapna-P.W. 6 had a providential escape, though thrown into the canal containing water along with her mother and two sisters and had survived to give a realistic eye-witness account of the incident. The dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi could only be traced from the canal while the dead body of her two daughters Radhika and Ashwini could not be recovered despite intensive search made to trace their dead bodies. The deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi is the wife of P.W. 15 and they were residing with their children at Alur Village. The appellants, who are also from the same village and were residing nearby the house of deceased Vijayalakshmi were prosecuted for the murder of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her two daughters Radhika and Ashwini and also for attempting to commit murder of Swapna P.W. 6. The learned Trial Judge who tried them, found them guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for the first count and imprisonment for a period of five years for the second count. Aggrieved thereby, they have preferred this appeal.

The prosecution case in brief can be narrated:

P.W. 15-Sudharshan is the husband of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi. He is an agriculturist. The deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi, her husband P.W. 15 and their three daughters Radhika, Ashwini and Swapna P.W. 6 were residing together in a house at Alur. The deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi besides being a housewife was also running a petty grocery shop in the front yard of their house. The houses of the accused 1 and 2 were situated nearby the house of the deceased and they were coming to the shop of the deceased for their purchases. The accused 1, Laxman was a daily visitor while the accused 2, Thimmappa was an occasional or casual visitor to the shop of the deceased. During his such visits to the shop of the deceased, it is stated that the accused 1, Laxman was indulging in some loose talks with the deceased. This, of course was not liked by P.W. 15 and his brother P.W. 14. It appears that they had also advised the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi in that regard. It may be that the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi was not quite happy with such advise or remarks made by P.Ws. 14 and 15. While this was so, it is stated on 17-11-1995, the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi along with her aforesaid three daughters left her village Alur for Mantralaya to participate in some pooja to be performed in the house of their brother P.W. 1 at Mantralayam. The deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi while leaving her house had worn on her person a gold chain, thali, earstuds, nose pin and pair of leg chains and also toe rings. She had also carried with her in a plastic bag M.O. 4, the pooja materials like chambu, plate, tumbler and a spoon, all made of silver. They left their place on that day around 3 p.m. P.W. 15, the husband of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi saw them off at the bus stop of Alur. They reached a place called Yergera around 5.30 or 6. p.m. on their way to Mantralayam. They got down from the bus at Yergera Cross and from there, they went by walk upto the bus stop of Yergera in order to go to Mantralayam catching another bus. At the bus stop of Yergera, they met the accused 1 and 2, who enquired with the deceased Vijayalakshmi as to where they are proceeding. The deceased told them that they are going to Mantralayam. The accused told her that they are also going to Mantralayam.

It is stated that at the bus stop of Yergera, they all drank tea or coffee in the hotel of P.W. 11-Siddamma. Then they boarded a bus which came from Raichur to proceed for Mantralayam. The accused 2 stated to have purchased the tickets for all of them. When the bus had stopped at Gilsugar Camp, the accused 2 got down from the bus saying that it is Mantralayam. Then all of them got down from the bus. When the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi realised that it is not Mantralayam, she asked the accused as to why they made them to get down at that place. But the accused threatened them at the point of knife and in the meanwhile the bus also left the bus stop. Thereafter, the accused took them near the canal containing water, to a depth of about 10 feet and width of about 40 feet. The accused 1, Laxman snatched the bag containing the silver items from the hands of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and pushed her into the water running in the canal. Then the accused 2 pushed her two daughters Radhika and Ashwini into the water flowing into the canal. P.W. 6-Swapna tried to escape, but she was caught by the accused 1 by her legs and thrown into the water flowing into the canal. Then the accused 1, Laxman while saying that everything is over and that they should leave the spot, he left the spot. But the accused 2, Thimmappa on finding P.W. 6-Swapna swimming in water and finding her to be still alive told accused 1, Lakshman to go and that he would follow him later. The accused 2, Thimmappa also stated to have thrown a stone towards P.W. 6, but it did not hit her. While P.W. 6 Swapna was swimming in water to reach the shore, the accused 2, Thimmappa was following her along the other side of the shore. In the meanwhile, P.W. 2-Tayanna who was residing nearby had come to the canal side to attend to the nature''s call, heard the cries of P.W. 6 from the canal and he also saw accused 2, Thimmappa. He told the accused 2, Thimmappa to pick up P.W. 6 Swapna from water which he did. But later the accused 2 disappeared from the scene. But for the arrival of P.W. 2, P.W. 6-Swapna would have also met a watery grave. P.W. 2 took P.W. 6 to his house, but at that time she was not in a position to disclose anything to P.W. 2. On hearing the voice of P.W. 2, P.W. 5-Doreswamy who was also residing nearby the hut of P.W. 2 came there and took P.W. 6-Swapna to his house. He fed her and made her to sleep in his house during the night. On the next day morning after she woke up from her sleep, she narrated the entire incident to P.Ws. 2 and 5.

Then on coming to know from P.W. 6-Swapna that she has a relative at Gandhal, P.W. 2 proceeded to Gandhal on a bicycle along with P.W. 6 and there, he handed over the child P.W. 6 to the custody of her relative Giddaiah, P.W. 3. He narrated the incident to P.W. 3 as has been narrated by P.W. 6 to him. Even P.W. 6 also narrated the incident to P.W. 3. Thereafter P.W. 3 went and informed this incident to P.W. 1, the brother of the deceased at Mantralayam. P.W. 1 also made enquiries with P.W. 6 and she narrated the entire incident to him also. It is stated that P.W. 6 also pointed out the place from where her mother and sisters were pushed into the water. Then P.W. 1 along with the other relatives started a search for the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi and her two daughters along the canal. The dead body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was found near Ballapur border, but the dead bodies of her two daughters could not be traced. When they saw the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi except the toe ring, no other ornaments were found on the dead body. After the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi was traced at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. in the night, P.W. 1 was got confirmed and satisfied about the narration of the incident to him by P.W. 6 and hence he then went to the police station at Idapnur which is at a distance of about 12 kilometers and lodged a complaint at 10.30 p.m. with the PSI, P.W. 19 as per Ex. P. 1. On the basis of such complaint Ex. P. 1, the PSI, P.W. 15 registered the case and took up investigation. He held the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi and recorded the statement of P.Ws. 5, 15 and others. He also made efforts to trace the other two dead bodies, but they could not be traced. He further apprehended the accused and produced them before the Investigating Officer, P.W. 20, who took further investigation of this case from him on 19-11-1995. P.W. 20 interrogated the accused and got recovered through the PSI, P.W. 15, the silver wares M.Os. 1 to 8 along with the bag containing them M.O. 14 at the instance of accused 1. P.W. 9 is a panch witness for the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 8 and 14 at the instance of accused 1, Lakshman. Ex. P. 8 is the panchanama drawn in that regard. P.W. 8 is a panch witness for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi and he did not find any other articles on the dead body of the deceased except the toe ring. P.W. 6 also showed the spot from where they were pushed into the water. P.W. 10 is a panch witness for the seizure of M.Os. 9 and 12, the articles found on the dead body of the deceased under a panchanama Ex. P. 9. P.Ws. 12 and 13, who are the close relatives of accused 2, before whom the accused 2 stated to have made extra judicial confession to save him from the ordeal, did not support the case for the prosecution and they had turned hostile. P.W. 16 is the carrier of FIR. He was entrusted with the FIR at about 11-30 p.m. on 18-11-1995 and delivered the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 2.30 a.m. on 19-11-1995. P.W. 18 had been deputed to trace Ashwini and Radhika, but neither the said two girls nor their dead bodies could be traced. This is the sum and substance of the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial.

The accused when examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and they claimed to be innocent.

The Trial Court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the extent of the charge under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and accepted the prosecution case as proved insofar as these two offences are concerned and consequently the Trial Court convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them as stated supra.

In the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that P.W. 6-Swapna was not at all there on the spot and she had been introduced in the case subsequently by the Investigating Agency after obtaining the complaint from P.W. 1. He also contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR to the Police and this delay according to the learned Counsel has been utilised not only for the purpose of giving a shape to the case, but also to implicate the accused falsely in the case. He also contended that there is a considerable delay in recording the statement of the only eye-witness to the incident P.W. 6, though available to the Investigating Agency earlier to the date on which her statement was recorded. He further contended that there was also a considerable delay in recording the statement of P.W. 11 and P.W. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there was a delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint to the police. He also contended that there is no mention of extortion of ornaments from the deceased Vijayalakshmi in the FIR. He contended that the presence of P.W. 6 at the spot at the time of the alleged incident is highly doubtful and it cannot be believed. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, in all probability the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi must have left the house along with her two daughters by being dejected about the attitude of her husband and his brother and jumped into the canal and died being disgusted in life. He therefore contended that it is a clear case of suicide which has been given a colour of homicide by the investigating agency. He also contended that it cannot at all be believed that the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi would have got down at Gilesugar camp on being told that it is Mantralayam, in view of the fact that she was a regular visitor to the Mantralayam and she could not have been deceived by the accused. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the entire case of the prosecution looks like a drama and it is wholly artificial. He also contended that P.W. 1 and others need not have waited till the recovery of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi and they could have as well-lodged a complaint at least for the missing of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her two daughters with the Police and this having not been done, according to the learned Counsel it speaks on the conduct of P.W. 1 and others. He also contended that the conduct of the girl, P.W. 6 is highly unnatural in not disclosing the incident on the very same night.

He further contended that the story of the prosecution that the accused 2 jumped into the water and picked up P.W. 6 at the instance of P.W. 2 is highly artificial and it cannot be believed. He further contended that there was absolutely no motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. According to the learned Counsel, when the accused 1, even as per the prosecution case had an illicit intimacy with the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi, she could have cooly carried on the illicit affair with her and there was no need for him to kill the deceased. He further contended that the case of the prosecution based mainly on the evidence of a child witness P.W. 6 cannot be believed and the appellants be acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC especially when they have been acquitted of the offence under Section 392 of the IPC. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahadevappa Sangappa Shirasangi v State of Karnataka, 1978(1) Kar. L.J. 183 (DB), wherein, it is held as under:

"While considering the evidence of child witnesses the observations should not be lost sight of the children are a most untrustworthy class of witnesses, for, when of a tender age, they often mistake dreams for reality, repeat glibly as of their own knowledge what they have heard from others, and are greatly influenced by fear of punishment, by hope of reward, and by desire of notoriety.

Generally speaking, the evidence of a child witness requires corroboration in some material particulars implicating the accused. In the Indian Evidence Act, there is no such provision and the evidence is made admissible whether corroborated or not. Once there is admissible evidence a Court can act upon it; corroboration, unless required by the stature, goes only to the weight and value of the evidence. It is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a rule of prudence and not of law.

On a scrutiny of the evidence of a child in the case, the High Court held that no reliance could be placed on her evidence and that the corroboration sought to her evidence is an evidence on which no reliance could be placed".

As against this, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has contended that though P.W. 6 was a girl aged about 11 years at the time when she gave evidence in Court, was able to understand the questions and give rational answers to them and that further she also withstood the lengthy cross-examination effected on behalf of the accused. He contended that P.W. 6 was found to be a competent witness and that being so, she was rightly relied upon by the Trial Court to convict the accused. He also contended that the reasonings of the Trial Court to acquit the accused for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC is not sound and proper, but however since the State has not preferred any appeal against an order of acquittal, the State cannot challenge the order of acquittal made in favour of the accused under Section 392 of the IPC, but at the same time the State can certainly rely upon the circumstances regarding the recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused 1 to connect the accused with the crime. He further contended that the omissions and contradictions pointed out by the other side in the evidence of P.W. 6 does not go to the root of the matter so as to discredit her evidence with regard to the actual incident. He also contended that the Trial Court which had an opportunity of seeing P.W. 6 in Court while giving evidence, found her to be competent and that being so, the verdict of the Court below should be respected. He also contended that the presence of P.W. 6 at the spot at the time of the incident cannot be doubted more so when it is spoken to by P.Ws. 2 to 5 who had absolutely no animus against any of the accused persons. He therefore contended that the evidence of P.W. 6 as has been corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 is sufficient to connect the accused persons for the above said offence and the Trial Court has rightly convicted them which warrants no interference in the appeal. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, he contended that there is no such undue delay in lodging the complaint because it is only after the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi was traced at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. in the night, it was confirmed by P.W. 1 and others that the version of P.W. 6 appears to be correct and it is only thereafter within about an hour or so, the complaint came to be lodged with the jurisdictional police station. He therefore contended that on the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no such delay so as to discard the substratum of the prosecution case. He therefore contended that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal filed by the appellants and hence it may be dismissed. The prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the appellants by adducing the evidence relating to the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her two daughters who were not only last seen alive together with the appellants, but also not seen alive thereafter anywhere and on the other hand the dead body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was recovered from the canal water and the dead bodies of her two daughters Radhika and Ashwini could not be recovered despite intensive and diligent search made in that regard, the eye-witness to the occurrence and the recovery of the gold ornaments of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the silver utensils carried by the deceased in a bag, at the instance of accused 1 and also the medical evidence in the case.

In the light of the submissions made on both sides we would now proceed to examine the evidence of the prosecution with respect to each of these materials mainly relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case, besides the other circumstances which are corroborative to the main evidence.

It is not in dispute that the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi, her husband P.W. 15-Sudharshan, their three daughters and the accused belonged to the same village. P.W. 15 was an agriculturist by profession and he was cultivating the land situated within the limits of the said village. The deceased Vijayalakshmi besides being a housewife, was also running a small grocery shop in the front yard of her house at Alur village. The evidence of the girl Swapna, P.W. 6, the only surviving daughter of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and P.W. 15, would disclose that accused 1 and 2 who were residing nearby their house used to visit the shop of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi for their day-to-day requirements. Out of the two accused persons, accused 1 Laxman was a regular visitor to the shop of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, while accused 2, Thimmappa was only an occasional or casual visitor to her shop. During his visits to the shop of the deceased, accused 1 also used to indulge in talks with the deceased, which of course was disliked by P.Ws. 15 and 16 and in that regard they had also suitably advised the deceased Vijayalakshmi. P.W. 1-Narasimhaiah Shetty is the brother of the deceased, who had been staying at Mantralayam. The deceased often used to visit him at Mantralayam. While this was so it is stated that on 17-11-1995 there was some pooja to be performed in the house of P.W. 1 at Mantralayam and for that the deceased along with her three daughters left her house at Alur to go to Mantralayam in order to participate in the said pooja to be performed in the house of P.W. 1 at Mantralayam. A reading of the testimony of P.W. 6 makes it very impressive that the young girl, who had accompanied her mother Vijayalakshmi and two sisters Radhika and Ashwini, on seeing them being thrown into the waters of the canal during the night tried to escape from the accused but ultimately caught and was also thrown into the water had a providential escape from death. P.W. 6 who is the second daughter of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, was aged about 11 years at the time when she gave evidence in Court. The evidence of P.W. 6-Swapna, insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of appreciation of her evidence in Court, reads as under:

"1. Vijayalakshmi the deceased is my mother, Sudharshan is my father. Radhika and Ashwini are my sisters, Radhika is elder sister and Ashwini is younger sister. Giddayya and Venkat Shetty are my uncles, Giddayya resides at Chintalkunta village. Venkat Shetty is an agriculturist. My father is also agriculturist, and cultivates the land. My mother was cooking attending household work having a shop in the front-yard. It was a Kirana shop. For purchases people from our village and A.1 and 2 were also coming to our shop. The houses of A.1 and 2 is situated near our house at Alur. Laxmana used to come to the shop daily and Thimmappa A.2 used to come once in a while. Laxmana A. 1 used to come to our shop daily to purchase Beedi. After purchasing the Beedi, he used to talk with my mother.

On 15-11-1995 Giddayya C.W. 15 came to my house at about 12.00 or 12.30 noon and found that my mother talking to Laxman A. 1, and told that a person who was come to fetch the Beedi after the purpose is over must go and shall not be allowed to sit. Then A. 1 Laxmana left the premises and went to his house. Giddayya advised my mother not to entertain such persons, and my mother did not say anything to the say of Giddayya. In the evening my uncle Giddayya left the house.

Next day when A. 1 Laxmana came to our shop then my father advised my mother not to talk to the person who come for purchases. Then A. 1 Laxman left the premises. On 17-11-1995 there was Satyanarayana Vrata in Mantralayam in the house of P.W. 1 collected Rs. 200/- from my father by my mother. My mother took Chambu (Silver), Plate (Silver), Silver Glass, Spoon (Uddarne). She was having earstud, nose pin, Gold Janiwara Chain, Thali, leg chains. The gold jewels were on her neck and the silver ornaments were in a bag.

We left i.e., myself, my mother, and my two sisters, left Alur at 3.00 p.m. My father had come to the bus-stand to leave for the bus. At about 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. we came to Yergera. We got down at Yergera cross from the bus. We walked to the bus-stand of Yergera to go to Mantralayam. In the bus-stand A.1 and 2 met us. Then A. 1 and 2 enquired my mother as to where we are proceeding. Then informed by my mother that we are proceedings to Mantralayam. Then on enquiry by my mother A. 1 and 2 told that they are also proceeding to Mantralayam. We had coffee along with the accused and I do not know the name of the hotel, in the bus-stand. Thereafter Thimmappa A. 2 purchased Apple for our purpose. I took Apple from him. Then the bus came from Raichur to Mantralayam. We four persons, A. 1 and 2 boarded the bus. The ticket was purchased by A. 2 Timmappa. Then my mother told that she will purchase the ticket and A. 2 told that he has already purchased the ticket. Then A. 2 got down us from the bus at the camp stating that itself is Mantralayam. We were got down at Gilesugar camp. When my mother questioned A. 1 and 2 why they have got down us and it is not Mantralayam. Then they threatened that we will be put to stabbing. Under threat from the old building side we were taken to the canal. I cannot say the distance from the place where we were got down and the canal, as it was night. I am not able to say how long we walked, upto canal. We were taken to the steps area of the canal. Laxmana A. 1 after snatching the bag containing silver articles and the ornaments on the person of my mother, by holding the hairs of my mother. A. 1 pushed my mother to the canal. Then A. 2 Timmappa pushed my sisters Radhika and Ashwini into the water. I was running away to escape. Then Laxmana came running-away and held my legs and pushed to the water of the canal.

Then Laxmana told to Thimmappa entire thing has come to an end let us go back. Timmappa A. 2 told to Laxmana A. 1 that I am still alive and therefore he can go and he will come later. Then Timmappa picked a stone and dropped on me, when I was in the water. That stone did not fell on me. I was moving swimming when I was pushed to the water. I was moving by swimming towards north. He threw the stone on me to kill me. I went ahead by swimming. Then Thimmappa followed me on the other bank side while I was swimming in the opposite bank. While I was swimming from a place of push at a distance of 35 to 40 feet, then a person found swimming told to Timmappa to remove me from the water, for which he continued to follow me without heeding to the say. Then again upon questioning Timmappa by that person whether I will be removed from the waters or not. Then Timmappa jumped to the water and lifted me. Then Timmappa handedover me to that person who was on the bank of the canal. I was taken to his house and my dress was changed, due to chill I was given coffee and biscuit. He tried to ask me but I was not able to say anything. Thereafter I was taken to another person''s house. I slept and got-up early morning. In the early morning they enquired me about my place and about the incident. I informed to them that I have got my uncle at Gandhal, and told the pushing of my mother and my sisters to the water and the incident. They revealed his name his Tayanna and Doreswami. I was taken by Tayanna on a bicycle to Gandhal Village and went to the house of Giddayya at Gandhal. Giddayya enquired me and I told to him what were all happened. Leaving me at my uncle Krishnayya, Giddayya went to Mantralayam on a scooter. He brought my uncle P.W. 1 from Mantralayam. Then P.W. 1 also enquired me about the incident. I revealed the same to him also. I was taken to Gilesugar camp by P.W. 1. I showed the place where my mother and sisters were pushed to the waters. Then they began to search for the body of my mother and sisters. Thereafter I went to the house of P.W. 1. I was sitting near the canal 18-11-1995 and other persons were searching for the bodies. At about 9.30 p.m. the body of my mother was traced. The person who was involved in the search told that the body of my mother was traced at Bullapur border. Thereafter I was left with Krishnappa to lodge the complaint, by P.W. 1. After tracing the body I returned to the house of Krishnappa uncle. Next day I was enquired by the police to point-out the placed. I showed the place to the police. I have stated before the police and I have given the statement".

It appears that P.W. 6 had later identified the belongings of her mother as well as the articles carried by her on that day at the police station which are as per M.Os. 1 to 8. She would further say in her evidence that if P.W. 12-Tayanna had not arrived at the spot and got her removed from the water, she would have died due to drowning. Admittedly the girl P.W. 6 had nothing against these two accused and no reason to speak falsely to implicate the appellants and despite searching and severe cross-examination made by the defence nothing material or substantial could be brought on record to discredit her evidence in Court. Further her evidence get confirmation from the other evidence on record to which we shall make reference shortly. It is no doubt true that P.W. 6 was hardly aged about 11 years at the time when she gave evidence in Court. But under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, a child is competent to testify if it can understand the questions put to the child and give rational answers thereto. If the child is under 12 years of age, as in this case, she need not be sworn to. The Courts will ascertain by examination whether the infant understands the nature of oath or the consequences of falsehood. In the instant case, the deposition of the girl P.W. 6 would show that she underwent such examination by the Trial Court and we find from her deposition that P.W. 6-Swapna, though only aged about 11 years, was capable of understanding the consequences of falsehood. Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act all persons are competent to testify unless the Court considers that by reason of tender years they are incapable of understanding the questions put to them and of giving rational answers. All grounds of incompetency have been swept by this section under which competency of a witness is a rule and their incompetency is an exception. The unsworn testimony of a child could be relied upon if it appears to the Court that the child is capable of understanding and is able to give a rational account of what it has seen or heard or done on a particular occasion and corroborated by other circumstances appearing in the case. But corroboration of a child''s unsworn testimony need not be in the form of sworn evidence from an independent witness. The fact that the child has special knowledge which she could not possess unless her evidence was truthful may amount to corroboration. But however in this case we find that there is ample corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 6 in Court. In our view P.W. 6-Swapna to the extent of her intellectual capacity and understanding was able to give a rational account of what she has seen and experienced on that relevant day. It is only her will to survive that made her to keep swimming in water till the helping hand of the saviour came in the form of P.W. 2. P.W. 6 who had such a bitter experience, could describe it and understand the questions and answers. Her testimony which gets corroboration from the other evidence on record also, is reliable and inspires confidence. There is no bar in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness. The corroboration is only a rule of prudence and the ultimate test is whether the child can understand the questions put to it and give rational answers thereto. P.W. 6-Swapna appears to have developed sufficient understanding and was able to give rational account of what she has seen, experienced, heard and done on that relevant day. P.W. 6-Swapna being in a distressed state on that relevant night was put to bed and it is only on the next day morning she disclosed the entire incident to P.Ws. 2 and 5 and also to others. The fact that P.W. 6 was got removed from water on that relevant night is clearly spoken to by P.W. 2-Tayanna and corroborated by his neighbour P.W. 5. It has to be pointed out that the huts of both P.Ws. 2 and 5 were situated nearby the place of incident. P.W. 5 had his hut in Gilesugar Camp by the side of a road at a distance of about 100 feet from the canal in question and the hut of P.W. 2 was situated by the side of the canal. The distance between their two huts was only 50 feet. In this background if P.W. 2-Tayanna had been to open space near the canal area to attend to the call of nature at about 8 p.m. on that night and had heard the cries of the child P.W. 6 from the water in the canal, there is nothing unnatural or improbable. P.W. 2 has clearly stated that he had heard the cries of the child in the water and he also saw accused 2-Thimmappa following the child along the bank of the canal and on seeing the same he directed accused 2 to remove the child from the water. Obviously, accused 2, Thimmappa had no other option, but to remove the child and accordingly he removed the child from the water and after handing it over to P.W. 2, he disappeared from the scene. P.W. 5-Doreswamy has stated that on hearing some commotion near the canal, he came there to see what it was and on that time he saw P.W. 2 holding the child in his arms. The child P.W. 6 was later given to his custody for attending on her and accordingly, he attended on the child and made her to sleep during the night. On the next day morning, he says that P.W. 2 visited his house and on enquiry, the child told them that these two accused persons pushed her mother, sisters and herself into the water. She further told them that they have a relative at Gandhal. Then P.W. 2 took P.W. 6 along with him on a bicycle to Gandhal Village where he entrusted her to her relative Giddaiah Shetty, P.W. 3. The said Giddaiah Shetty had been examined in Court as P.W. 3. He has clearly supported the version of P.W. 2 as well as of P.W. 6. He has stated that at about 6.30 a.m. on 18-11-1995 P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 came to his house and the girl P.W. 6 told him about the incident. Then he says, he went to Mantralayam to reveal this fact to his brother P.W. 1 on a motor-cycle, reaching there around 8 a.m. he informed P.W. 1 of what he had learnt from P.W. 6 and came to Gilesugar Camp along with P.W. 1. At Gilesugar Camp P.W. 6 pointed out the place from where they were pushed into the water.

Thereafter they began to search for the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her two daughters. Ultimately they found the dead body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi near Ballapur Border and removed it from the water at about 9 p.m. in the night. It was found that some parts of the body of the deceased were eaten away by the aquatic animals. P.W. 1 further found that except the toe rings no other ornaments of the deceased were found on her person. Thereafter P.W. 1 went and lodged a complaint with the P.S.I., P.W. 19 at about 10 or 10.30 p.m. as per Ex. P. 1. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint to the police. Even otherwise the delay stands explained from the circumstances appearing the case. In fact under the cross-examination P.W. 1 has offered an explanation that he did not inform the police from morning till evening as they were involved in searching for the other two children. Further P.W. 1 admits that he is the author of the complaint Ex. P. 1 and that being so, it stands proved from the evidence of P.W. 1. The infirmities pointed out in this regard are only inconsequential and insignificant in nature. They are not capable of affecting the substratum of the prosecution case as brought out during the trial.

P.W. 4 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 19-11-1995 at about 3.30 p.m. as per the post-mortem report Ex. P. 2. He has opined that the death of the deceased Vijayalakshmi was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning and the injuries observed on the dead body were found to be post-mortem in nature. He has stated that they could be caused by aquatic animals. The stomach of the deceased contained water and both the lungs were bulky and oozing bloodstained fluid. No doubt the doctor P.W. 4 has stated that he cannot say whether drowning was a suicidal one or otherwise. But the medical evidence cannot be considered in isolation. After all the medical opinion is based on inferences drawn from various factors present. It is not as if homicide is completely ruled out by the doctor P.W. 4. Hence the evidence of the doctor P.W. 4 must be taken in conjunction with all the circumstantial evidence on record. In our view, there was no plausible reason for the deceased to go and commit suicide at such a place and that too along with her daughters. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is more realistic to conclude that it was a case of homicide by pushing her into the waters of the canal resulting in death due to drowning. Whether the accused were her murders, the evidence of P.W. 6, the lonely survivor of the incident as corroborated by the other evidence on record, stairs at them and clearly points out their involvement in the crime. No doubt the dead body of the other two daughters of the deceased Vijayalakshmi could not be traced despite intensive search made by all the concerned. But the evidence of P.W. 6 coupled with the circumstances that they were not found alive thereafter anywhere by any person could give rise to the only irresistible conclusion that they met with a watery grave at the hands of these two accused. The formidable incriminating circumstance against the appellants as far as we could see are that the deceased along with her three daughters including P.W. 6 were taken away by the deceased on that relevant day from Yergera bus stop. P.W. 11 Siddanna was having a tea shop at the bus stop of Yergera. He has stated that on that relevant night the accused came along with 4 ladies at about 6 p.m. His hotel was pointed out according to the prosecution by the accused and the evidence of P.W. 6 also shows that on that day at Yergera, they met accused 1 and 2 at the bus stop and had coffee along with accused at a hotel in the bus stop. The evidence of P.W. 11 to a certain extent lends corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 6. Even if this evidence is taken as very feeble, we have the evidence of the child P.W. 6 who is an eye-witness to the entire incident, besides being a victim. It has to be pointed out that P.W. 6 was also thrown into the water in the canal by accused 1 and 2 but she some how survived by the intervention of P.W. 2, to give evidence in Court against the accused and to reveal their criminal Act. That apart in this case we have also the evidence regarding the recovery of the ornaments of the deceased as well as the articles carried by the deceased along with her while leaving the house on that fateful day, at the instance of and in consequence to the disclosure statement made by accused 1. The circumstance regarding the recovery of these articles M.Os. 1 to 8 stands proved from the evidence of the recovery panch P.W. 9 and the panchanama Ex. P. 8. All these articles were duly identified by the relatives of the deceased including the husband of the deceased P.W. 15. The evidence of the two Investigating Officers P.Ws. 19 and 20 would disclose that accused 1 made a disclosure statement during the course of his interrogation and in consequence to which, he got recovered the articles M.Os. 1 to 8 from his house which were duly identified as belonging to the deceased and carried by her.

The incriminating circumstances enumerated above, coupled with the direct evidence of P.W. 6 unmistakably and inevitably lead to the guilt of the appellants and nothing substantial has been brought on record to make the facts proved to be in any manner in consonance with the innocence of any of these two appellants. P.W. 6-Swapna is one of the daughter of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi, who had accompanied her on that relevant day and she was a present throughout in the company of her mother and sisters till they were thrown into the water in the canal by these two accused. The said evidence of P.W. 6 is corroborated by the other evidence on record including the medical evidence and it is found to be reliable. We see no reason to discard her testimony in Court. As a matter of fact P.W. 6 had seen her mother and sisters lost, while they were thrown into the water in the canal by the accused and when she tried to escape, she was also caught and thrown into the canal. That being so, the one thing that the child of that age could have never forgotten would have been the last occasion she had seen her mother and her two sisters being thrown into the water in the canal. The recovery of the dead body of the mother of P.W. 6 from the canal, the post-mortem findings of the doctor P.W. 4 and the other proved circumstances would unmistakably corroborate the testimony of P.W. 6. The evidence of the father P.W. 15, would also amply corroborate the evidence of P.W. 6. He has stated that on 16-11-1995 his wife told him that she is intending to go to the house of P.W. 1 at Mantralayam and accordingly on the next day he gave her a sum of Rs. 200/- to go to Mantralayam. He has further stated that while leaving the house for Mantralayam she was wearing on her person certain ornaments and also carried the pooja materials along with her. According to him his wife and three daughters left Alur for Mantralayam at about 3 p.m. on that day in a private bus. He has further stated that when he met his daughter P.W. 6 at Mantralayam, she narrated the entire incident to him. He has also identified M.Os. 1 to 8 as belonging to him and his wife. In the case of State of Maharashtra v Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691, it is held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that rejection of testimony of a girl aged about 11 years solely on the ground that it was not possible for a child of that age to remember that happened three years ago by the High Court is not proper. The relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court are found at Paragraphs 31 and 32 which reads as under:

"31. P.W. 41-Kum. Archana was 11 years old when she was examined as a witness. She said that Guddi was her neighbour and they were playmates. The last occasion she saw Guddi was when they played together with some other children. During then, A. 4 Balu Joshi reached there and after a few minutes, Guddi was found walking with A. 4 Balu Joshi. P.W. 41-Kum. Archana had not seen her thereafter. The said evidence of P.W. 41-Kum. Archana has been found reliable by the Trial Court, but the High Court disbelieved her testimony on the sole ground that it is not possible for a child of that age to remember what happened three years ago.

It is rather unfortunate that the Division Bench of the High Court said so. As a matter of fact, P.W. 41 had seen Guddi last while they were playing together and later dead body of Guddi was recovered. If so, the one thing which a child of that age could have never forgotten would have been the last occasion they had played together. The reasoning of the High Court in rejecting her testimony was not only unreasonable, it reflected a poor understanding of how children would react and retain".

It is true that in a criminal case motive is one of the circumstances which assumes importance. But it cannot be said that in the absence thereof, other proved circumstances conclusively establishing the guilt against the accused would be of no consequence. That apart in this case there being a direct evidence of one of the victims P.W. 6, the motive looses its significance. Further merely because the accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 392 of the IPC, it would not make the prosecution evidence unbelievable which is otherwise found to be unimpeachable.

With regard to the delay in filing the FIR, as has been rightly contended by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that there has been no such undue delay so as to create a doubt on the prosecution case. It has come in the evidence that as soon as the girl P.W. 6 was rescued from being drowned in the water of the canal, she was not in a position to tell anything to P.Ws. 2 and 5. By blaming P.W. 6 for not disclosing the entire occurrence to P.Ws. 2 and 5 on the very same night, we are reaching neither here nor there. We cannot shut our eyes to the reality that for P.W. 6 who was a girl hardly aged about 10 or 11 years, it was her mother and two sisters as well as herself were thrown into the water of the canal during the night time. If P.W. 6 had taken some time to regain her composure to disclose the occurrence to P.Ws. 2 and 5 it only sounds normal conduct of a girl of that age who underwent such trauma and ordeal at the hands of the accused. We find no justification to doubt the testimony of P.W. 6 merely because she did not disclose the incident immediately to P.Ws. 2 and 5. So far as P.Ws. 2 and 5 are concerned, they were residing nearby the canal and having heard the cries of a child from the canal, it is quite natural to expect that they were attracted by the cries and came near the canal and P.W. 2 having found the child drowning in water and the accused 2 walking along the bank of the canal, asked him to remove the child from the water and accordingly the child was removed by the accused 2 and handed over to P.W. 2, who in his turn handed over the child P.W. 6 to P.W. 5.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was inherent incredibility in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 as normally the accused could not have been present at the spot after commission of the offence, cannot be accepted. It is quite likely that on seeing P.W. 6 struggling for life in water, the accused 2 thought of eliminating the last evidence of their crime by staying back, but unfortunately for the accused before he could accomplish in his such venture or design, the hands of the saviour came in the form of P.Ws. 2 and 5 and the girl P.W. 6 had been saved. Recollection of P.Ws. 2 and 5 as well as the victim P.W. 6 about the accused and in particular of P.Ws. 2 and 5 about the accused 2 walking along the bank of the canal when the girl was drowning, was natural. P.Ws. 2 and 5 are from a different village and they were not knowing either the accused or the deceased. They had nothing against these accused and there was no reason for them to speak falsely to implicate the appellants and despite searching cross-examination made by the defence, nothing could be brought out to discredit their evidence. P.W. 2 had clearly identified the accused 2 as the one who was walking along the bank of the canal on that night. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of P.W. 2 to save the drowning child and console her and when he was so attending on P.W. 6, the accused 2 made good his escape. Thereafter P.W. 2 handed over the child to P.W. 5. Immediately on the next day morning, when the child, P.W. 6 woke up from her sleep, she narrated the entire incident to P.Ws. 2 and 5 and told them about the relative of her residing in the nearby village. P.W. 2 took the child along with him and delivered her to the custody of her relative P.W. 3. On this aspect of the case, there is consistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 and they mutually corroborate with each other. Their evidence would further lends corroboration or assurance to the evidence of P.W. 6. Thereafter P.W. 3 went and informed the said fact to P.W. 1 at Mantralayam who in his turn came along with others to Gilesugar camp and made a search to trace the bodies of the deceased persons by going along the canal and it is only when the dead body of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi was traced, they were confirmed of what they have been told about the occurrence by P.W. 6 and then within an hour or so, the complaint came to be lodged at the jurisdictional police station situated at a distance of about 12 kilometers. Therefore by blaming P.W. 1 or P.W. 3 or P.Ws. 2 and 5 for not lodging the complaint immediately to the police, we are reaching neither here nor there. As we have already stated, we cannot shut our eyes to reality that P.Ws. 1 and 3, the relatives of the deceased were anxious to know whether the other three persons are still alive or dead and also they wanted to confirm the fact that was narrated to them by P.W. 6 before going to the police station and accordingly instead of lodging a complaint to the police, they undertook a search for the missing persons in the water of the canal before it is too late. In that situation if P.W. 1 had taken a couple of hours to go and lodge the complaint to the police, it sounds as normal conduct of a worried relative of the deceased, who had been told of such a ghastly incident by P.W. 6. We find no justification for the defence to use such delay for denouncing the core of prosecution case. Even if there be a delay, it has been satisfactorily explained from the circumstances appearing in the case.

The delay in giving FIR to the police by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Time and again it has been pointed out by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that knowing the Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have either witnessed or told of the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times, being grief sticken because of the calamity, it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report to the police. After all it is but natural in the circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving a report. Of course in cases arising out of acute factions in the village, there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons, the Court should be cautious to scrutinise the evidence of such witness with greater care and caution and separate the grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so, the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence, merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the names of the accused were consistently mentioned throughout. There was absolutely no ground to hold that the FIR was brought into existence subsequently during the investigation and hence the mere delay in lodging the report by itself could not be given scope for an adverse inference leading to the rejection of the prosecution case. The evidence of the sole eye-witness P.W. 6, who is also a victim is consistent and corroborated by the other circumstances appearing in the case. In our view, there was no inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the FIR to the Police and there was no indication of any fabrication. That being so, the case of the prosecution as brought out at the trial cannot be discarded merely on the ground of delay. Further, as we have already stated, the delay, if any in lodging the FIR by itself cannot be a ground for disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 6 especially when her evidence stands corroborated from the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5, who have no reason to falsely implicate or depose against the accused. We find no valid reason to disbelieve either P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 or even P.W. 6. The adverse comments made by the learned Counsel for the appellants against them merely on account of certain minor discrepancies or unnatural conduct, are neither sufficient nor those discrepancies could themselves be sufficient or said to be enough to detract from the truthfulness or genuineness of their deposition.

It is no doubt true that P.W. 6 had suffered certain omissions in her evidence, but they are not so vital as to discredit her version in Court regarding the occurrence and more so when her presence at the spot is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5. The accused 2 could not explain as to why he was present at that hour of the night near the canal, nor the accused 1 could explain as to how she came into possession of the articles of the deceased especially when the recovery at the instance of accused 1 stands proved in the case. These circumstances also lend corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 6 in Court. Mere non-mention of the ornaments being removed or taken away from the possession of the deceased by P.W. 1 in the FIR and the acquittal of the accused under Section 392 of the IPC by the Trial Court will not be sufficient to detract from the truthfulness of the deposition of P.W. 6 as well as P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5. So also the mere delay on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the girl P.W. 6 will not be sufficient to discredit her evidence in Court, which is otherwise found to be reliable and acceptable. The delay in recording the statement of P.W. 6 by the Investigating Officer will only speaks of the negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer and nothing more. In case of defective investigation, it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively. It has to be remembered that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to the accused, the victim and the society at large so that law and order is maintained. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent person is punished. A Judge also presides over criminal trial to see that guilty does not escape. It is to be remembered that the name of P.W. 6-Swapna as well as the other material witnesses had already been disclosed in the FIR and further even according to the complainant P.W. 1, he had lodged the complaint only on the basis of the information furnished to him by P.W. 6. That being so, merely because the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the girl P.W. 6 immediately, though she was available to him, will not discredit her evidence in Court especially when it is corroborated by the other circumstances in the case. There is nothing to indicate that there was a delay in order to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, in our view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the delay in recording the statement of P.W. 6 by the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case cannot be accepted. With regard to the motive for the accused to commit the crime, we cannot fathom the mental disposition of the accused nor we could rule out the possibility of some immediate cause for the accused to commit such ghastly crime. It would be known only to the accused or to the deceased lady, who is not alive to disclose as to what was the immediate provocation and the accused did not disclose it to us. Insofar as P.W. 6 is concerned, she has clearly stated the circumstances under which the accused pushed her mother and her two sisters as well as herself into the water. Further when the accused 1 was arrested and interrogated, he had stated to the Investigating Officer regarding the existence of the ornaments and silver articles of the deceased, which were recovered from the house of accused 1. What is significant about the recovery is that most of the articles bear the name of the deceased and some others were usually worn by the deceased and they were duly identified by the husband, P.W. 15 and other relatives of the deceased. The accused have no explanation to offer in that regard and they have simply denied all the incriminating circumstances in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. When the articles of the deceased and her family were found in the possession of accused 1, it was for him to explain as to how he came in possession of those articles and failure to explain the same is certainly a circumstance which goes against the accused especially when the recovery has been proved. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Damu Gopinath Shinde, wherein it is held as under:

"34. When A2 Guruji was arrested and interrogated, he stated to P.W. 44-Investigating Officer regarding a "Kalash" (Pitcher) which was recovered by P.W. 44-Investigating Officer from the house of A2-Guruji. What is significant about the recovery is that when Chemical test was made on the pitcher, blood was found sticking on the outer side of the vessel. Of course, the chemical analyst could not determine the origin of the blood as it was disintegrated by that time. But the learned Judges of the High Court did not attach any value to the circumstances on that sole reason. At the first blush, the approach of the High Court may appear to be sound. But when we considered the answer which A2 Guruji had given to the questions put on him under Section 313 of the Code regarding the said circumstance, he simply denied even the recovery of "Kalash" as stated by P.W. 44-Investigating Officer. When we know that there was blood on the pitcher it is for A2 Guruji to explain how it was. But when he denied even the seizure of the pitcher, such a denial, in this context, is not inconsequential. In another case, a similar denial was treated by this Court as sufficient to provide a "missing link" to the chain of circumstances. State of Maharashtra v Suresh, (2000)1 SCC 471: 2000 SCC (Cri.) 263.

The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the Prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the Legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well-settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact is envisaged in the section. The decision of Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottayya v Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67: (1947)48 Cri. L.J. 533 (PC), is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.

No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by P.W. 44 is that A3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motor-cycle.

How the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which P.W. 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the formation from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motor-cycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motor-cycle upto the spot.

In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motor-cycle upto the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the above mentioned extent".

Some inconsistencies of a minor nature in the evidence of P.W. 6 can be regarded as natural and giving more details while deposing before the Court either by P.W. 6 or others, are not improvements of such a nature as would create any doubt regarding her trustworthiness. The presence of P.W. 6 at the spot at the time of this incident cannot at all be doubted especially when it is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 and also by the evidence of P.W. 15, who saw her (P.W. 6) off along with her mother and sisters while going to Mantralayam in the bus. So P.W. 6 was a companion of the deceased lady and hence a very natural witness. No doubt, P.W. 6 being the daughter of the deceased, she is a close relative. But a close relative of the deceased in a murder case who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested person. It has to be stated that in this case but for the disclosure or revealation made by P.W. 6 regarding the occurrence, P.Ws. 2 and 5 could not have traced P.W. 3 and who in his turn could not have informed P.W. 1 and even the dead body of the deceased could not have been searched by them and traced in the canal. That being so, the presence of P.W. 6 at the spot cannot be doubted and it stands fortified from the circumstances. P.W. 6-Swapna had absolutely no animus against any of these two accused persons to involve them falsely in the case. Both the accused were known to P.W. 6 and they were often visiting the shop of her mother for their requirements and they were also residing nearby the house of P.W. 6 at Alur Village. The incident in question was so dastardly and gruesome, that it must have made a definite and lasting impact on the memory of P.W. 6 that made her to remember the incident with such grotesque details. Moreover it is not a case of giving photographic or dramatic details at all, but the witness P.W. 6 as well as P.Ws. 2 and 5 have merely described and stated what they actually saw and felt at the spot. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the entire case of the prosecution is like a dramatic scene is untenable. It is manifest that P.W. 6 being the companion of the deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi has stated what she actually saw and observed by her senses and so also P.Ws. 2 and 5. There is nothing unnatural in their evidence so as to discredit their version.

@BODY-LSP = 16. Therefore, for all these reasons stated supra, we have no hesitation to confirm the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The deceased Smt. Vijayalakshmi and her three daughters including P.W. 6 meekly followed the accused either on account of her familiarity with the accused or on being threatened by the accused, but the appellants seem to have acted in conspiracy with each other or with the prior concert and killed the deceased Vijayalakshmi and her two daughters by throwing them into the water of the canal and they also attempted to kill the third daughter P.W. 6, but she had a providential escape. It has to be stated that even if the offence is committed at the spur of the moment, the prior concert can develop at the spot. The act committed by both the accused besides being premeditated and deliberate, was a result of or in furtherance of their common intention. Hence, their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC is clearly justified from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, we find no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. The appeal filed by the appellants is thus devoid of merits.

In the result, therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed.