(16) A bare perusal of the aforesaid statement of the appellant would show that on the date and time of the offence, he alongwith his children had gone to the forest for cutting vegetables (charota) . Apart from it, the second aspect which the learned trial Court ought to have consider that appellant’s son, namely, Teejlal has been examined as DW-01, wherein he has clearly stated that on the date and time of the offence, he alongwith his other brothers/sisters and father (appellant herein) have gone to forest for cutting vegetable (charota) and when they return to the house, his mother (deceased) was lying in the cot in unconscious condition and, thereafter, his father (appellant) checked his mother (deceased) and called for 108 ambulance but before it could reach, her mother (deceased) died. As such, if the above-quoted explanation/statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of CrPC is read with the aforesaid statement of Teejlal (DW01), it is quite established that on the date and time of the offence, i.e. on 14.11.2015, at about 07:00 PM, the appellant alongwith his children, including his son- Teejlal (DW-01), had gone to the forest for cutting vegetable (charota), which the learned trial Court has failed to consider. It is settled law that the Court should give equal treatment to the evidence of prosecution and defence witnesses, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Sharma and others v. State of Jharkhand3 , wherein it has been observed in Para-15 as under:
