Reliable child-witness testimony, corroborated by last-seen evidence and concealment, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A five-year-old boy, Dusa, was found dead in the village Minor Irrigation project pond on 15 September 2007, with a stone placed over his submerged body.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants had taken the deceased near the pond after meeting him on his way to school, and that the deceased was subsequently seen in their company near the pond.

The post-mortem examination found that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning; injuries on the deceased’s lips were opined to be ante-mortem and capable of being caused by forcibly pressing the mouth.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to imprisonment for life with fine.

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal rather than accidental drowning?

2. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for the deceased’s death on the basis of circumstantial and last-seen evidence?

3. Whether the appellants’ conduct and the concealment of the body constituted an offence under Section 201 IPC?

4. Whether the evidence established that the appellants acted in furtherance of their common intention, attracting Section 34 IPC?

The court applied Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code: Section 302 punishes murder; Section 201 applies where a person causes disappearance of evidence or gives false information with the intention of screening an offender; and Section 34 attributes joint criminal liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied to treat relevant subsequent conduct—particularly absconding or attempting to conceal evidence—as corroborative evidence.

Relying on Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, 2001 (9) SCC 129, the court held that a child witness’s testimony is admissible if the witness is competent and withstands scrutiny, though it must be carefully examined and the possibility of tutoring excluded.

Under Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, corroboration by multiple witnesses is not mandatory where the testimony of a single witness is otherwise reliable.

The court also applied the principle in Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 532, that an alleged confession made after apprehension by a mob must be assessed for voluntariness and freedom from coercion.

The court found that the injuries on the deceased’s lips, which could have resulted from forcibly pressing his mouth, together with the placement of a stone over the submerged body, excluded accidental drowning and supported a homicidal death.

PW-3 was found competent by the trial court, and her testimony that both appellants took the deceased with them remained substantially consistent during cross-examination; the isolated statement that she had come to depose against Iswar did not establish tutoring.

PW-7 corroborated the last-seen circumstance by placing the deceased in the appellants’ company near the pond at about 11:00 a.m.; the deceased’s clothing further supported his identification.

The medical estimate placing death within 12 to 30 hours before the post-mortem examination supplied temporal proximity between the last-seen evidence and death.

The non-examination of Santamani was not fatal because the evidence already adduced was reliable and sufficiently corroborative.

Although the alleged extra-judicial confession was rejected as potentially coerced, the appellants’ attempt to flee, the concealment of the body under a stone, the prior altercation, and the coordinated conduct of both appellants cumulatively formed a complete chain inconsistent with their innocence.

The convictions under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Appellant No. 1, already in custody, was directed to continue serving the remaining sentence; Appellant No. 2, who was on bail, was directed to surrender and be taken into custody, with her bail bonds cancelled.