JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death u/s 376 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case may be stated in short. The deceased is the son of the accused's husband's elder brother. The accused used to love the deceased like a son, as she herself had only 4 daughters and no son. After the first wife of the deceased died, the accused got him married to p.w. 1 just about 5 months before the date of occurrence. The husband of the accused works as a forest guard at a distant place and used to send money to the accused through money orders. The deceased was either an attester to the receipt of money or used to receive the money on behalf of the accused. The accused carried suspicion that the deceased was misappropriating a portion of the money. She used to have some quarrels with the deceased on this score. On 21-6-1968 some time before the evening she challenged the accused as misappropriating the money sent to her by her husband. The deceased got irritated and gave her a slap. She left the place promising dire consequences to the deceased. The houses of the accused and the deceased are just adjacent. The house of p.w. 2 is to the west of the house of the deceased, and the house of p.w. 3 is in front of the house of p.w. 1. The deceased was sleeping on a cot in his Bari while p.w. 1 was sleeping inside a room at a distance of about 3 feet with the door kept open. In between a Dibi light was burning. At about midnight p.w. 1 heard a groaning sound of her husband. She noticed that the accused was cutting the throat of her husband. She shouted. The accused left the place throwing the knife there and ran away towards the forest through the back side of the houses of p.ws. 1 and 2. The alarm raised by her aroused p.ws. 2 and 3. They came to the spot and found the accused running away. They pursued the accused to a distance of about 100 yards raising a hulla, but could not catch her. 1 and 2. The alarm raised by her aroused p.ws. 2 and 3. They came to the spot and found the accused running away. They pursued the accused to a distance of about 100 yards raising a hulla, but could not catch her. Some times after, p.w. 4 the daughter of the accused got up by the alarm raised, came to the spot and found the deceased her first cousin lying dead in a pool of blood. She did not find her mother inside her house. She went in search of her and found her sitting on the verandah of one Jaga Master. There the mother confessed to the daughter that she had killed the deceased and cautioned her not to disclose the matter. p.w. 4 came back and slept in the Dhangidi house. The accused went to the house of p.w. 7 some time early morning and confessed to him that she had killed the deceased. p.w. 7 called some of the villagers who tied the accused with a rope and brought her to the place of murder. Next day, that is, on 22-6-1968 p.w. 1 in the company of p.ws. 2 and 3 went to the Police Station which is at a distance of 6 Kms. from the place of occurrence, and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 3). The entire prosecution story in all vivid details was mentioned in the F.I.R. There was investigation in due course and the accused has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The defence was one of complete denial. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, on a thorough analysis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused killed the deceased. He held that the death was homicidal. The finding that the death was homicidal is not assailed before us. The Doctor (p.w. 10) stated clearly that the injuries noticed by him could be caused by the knife (M.O.I), that the death must have been instantaneous, and that the deceased was not in a position to shout as he must have been a sound sleep at the time throat was cut. After going through the evidence of the Doctor and after having heard the learned Counsel at length, we are satisfied that the death was homicidal. 4. The next question for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased. After going through the evidence of the Doctor and after having heard the learned Counsel at length, we are satisfied that the death was homicidal. 4. The next question for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased. The only eyewitness to the occurrence is p.w. 1, the widow of the deceased. It is to be noted that she has no axe to grind against the accused. In fact it is the accused who was responsible for arranging her marriage with the deceased whom she loved like a son. There is therefore no reason why she would falsely implicate the accused whom she usually addressed as mother, in such a dastardly crime committed near about midnight when everybody was fast asleep. She fully supported the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. and nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit her testimony. The only thing that has been brought out from her is that neither in the F.I.R. nor in her statement u/s 162 Code of Criminal Procedure she had stated that at the time when she made about she named the accused. According to us this is not a material contradiction, hut is a mere omission. Even assuming that it amounts to a material contradiction, it does not in the least affect her evidence that she saw the accused cutting the throat of the deceased with a knife. The Dibi light was at a distance of about 2 feet from the deceased, and from our experience we have no doubt that the deceased and his murderer would be visible to p.w. 1 with the help of the Dibi light. The accused was defended by a counsel, and absolutely no effort was made to put a question to p.w. 1 that the accused would not be visible with the help of the Dibi light. Doubtless the night was dark and cloudy. But all the same there is no reason why we would discard the testimony of p.w. 1 which she assertively makes that she could see the accused cutting the throat of the deceased. The evidence of p.w. 1 by itself is enough to affirm the conviction. She being absolutely disinterested and having no axe to grind, her evidence does not require any corroboration. The evidence of p.w. 1 by itself is enough to affirm the conviction. She being absolutely disinterested and having no axe to grind, her evidence does not require any corroboration. It is also intrinsically corroborated by the fact that the knife with which the murder was committed was lying near the dead body, and her evidence is that the accused after hearing the hulla from her ran away by throwing the knife there. This knife has been identified to be the knife of the accused by her own daughter p.w. 4. About her intelligence and power of understanding there was critical examination by the learned Sessions Judge which he has noted in the deposition. She was allowed even to be cross-examined by the mother herself. The object of allowing the mother to cross-examine must have been that if the daughter had been tutored, her feelings and sentiments for the mother must be aroused when they were confronted face to face. Despite all these she stood the test of cross-examination and clearly asserted that the knife belonging to her mother was lying near the dead body of the deceased. 5. As has already been stated, the evidence of p.w. 1 does not require any corroboration, and the conviction can be based on her sole testimony. But in this case there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence corroborating her version. The most pre-eminent of these circumstances is the evidence of the daughter p.w. 4. She stated that she was aroused from sleep and on coming to the place of occurrence found the knife of her mother lying near the dead body of the deceased at a little distance with stains of blood. She searched for the mother who was absent from the house at that deadly hour. She went inside the village in search of the mother and found her sitting on the verandah of Jaga Master. There the mother made an extra judicial confession before her that the former killed the deceased. This extra-judicial confession has been subsequently retracted, but it has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of p.w. 1 and the fact of the knife lying near the dead body. As p.w. 4 is a child of 12 years age, the learned Sessions Judge took caution in testing her power of understanding. Girls in Orissa at the age of 12 are very precocious. As p.w. 4 is a child of 12 years age, the learned Sessions Judge took caution in testing her power of understanding. Girls in Orissa at the age of 12 are very precocious. Though technically they are child witnesses, strictly speaking in most cases they have full power of understanding. The girl (p.w. 4) stood the test despite repeated warnings by the learned Sessions Judge that she would not be afraid of anybody and she must be prepared to tell the truth. She stated in unequivocal terms about the extra-judicial confession made by the mother and the identification of the knife belonging to the mother. She had been examined u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate, First Class, on 1-7-1968 about 9 days after the occurrence. Her statement made therein fully corroborates her evidence made in Court. It is elementary that the statement u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure does not constitute substantive evidence. It can be used either for corroboration u/s 157 or contradiction u/s 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case the statement u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure of p.w. 4 fully corroborates her testimony in Court. 6. Besides the extra-judicial confession made before p.w. 4, the accused is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession before p.w. 7, who is closely related to her. According to him, his elder brother has married the daughter of the accused's husband's sister. The accused went to the house of p.w. 7 at about dawn on 22-6-1968 and told him that the she killed the deceased. Absolutely nothing has been suggested against p.w. 7 why he would falsely implicate a near relation of his in such a dastardly crime. Doubtless certain statements made by him in Court bad not been made before the police. But those statements are of very insignificant character and do not affect the veracity of this witness. 7. As has already been stated, p.ws. 2 and 3 neigh hours of the accused and the deceased came to the spot after hearing the shouts of p.w. 1. Both of them depose that they found the accused running away towards the forest and they pursued her upto a distance of about 100 yards, but were unable to overtake her. 7. As has already been stated, p.ws. 2 and 3 neigh hours of the accused and the deceased came to the spot after hearing the shouts of p.w. 1. Both of them depose that they found the accused running away towards the forest and they pursued her upto a distance of about 100 yards, but were unable to overtake her. There is some discrepancy in the evidence of p.w. 2 inasmuch as certain statements made now before the Court had not been told in the statement u/s 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if those statements are excluded from consideration as being a somewhat embellishment, we find no reason why both of these witnesses should not be believed and why they would falsely implicate the accused. We accept their testimony that soon after the occurrence they came to the spot and found the accused running away from the spot. The accused is the allot of the deceased, and if she had been inside her house at the time of murder she would have been the first person to come to the spot and show her sympathy for the deceased. 8. All these aforesaid pieces of evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the murder. The learned Sessions Judge reached the correct conclusion. 9. Mr. P.V.B. Rao very vehemently argued that the accused is a Kondh by caste and as such death sentence should not be imposed. No such hard and fast rule can be laid down that if a person belongs to the aborigin class in no circumstances death sentence can be imposed. While imposing a sentence of death, various factors are taken into consideration. Where the offence committed is vindictive, pre planned and cold blooded, ordinarily death sentence should be imposed. In this case there was some quarrel before evening on 21-6-1968. Things passed on smoothly. All of a sudden the accused in dead of night out the throat of the deceased while the latter was fast asleep. The crime was therefore vindictive, pre-planned and cold blooded. Death sentence is the only fitting sentence in such cases. We accordingly confirm the sentence of death. 10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed, and the Death Reference is accepted. The sentence of death is confirmed. Ray, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed