JUDGMENT 1. The appellant Mst. Bhagwati has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran vide his judgement dated 15-3-1973 for an offence under section 302 I. P. C. for murdering her three children and sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of the payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. She has further been convicted for the offence punishable under section 309 I. P. C. for attempting to commit suicide and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by her conviction and sentences as aforesaid the appellant has preferred this appeal, through jail. Shri G. K. Garg was appointed as amicus curiae to represent the appellant. 3. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 4. The appellant is the wife of Bhagwati P. W. 1, Kumari Bundoo aged about 8-9 years is the sister of P. W. 1 Bhanwara i. e. sister-in-law (Nanad) of the accused. The deceased Hajarat Singh, Choua and Bunti were the young children of the accused and Bhanwara. The age of Hajarat Singh, Choua and Bunti was about 6 years, 4 years and 2 years respectively at the time of incident. Hajarat Singh and Choua were sons and Kumari Bunti was the daughter. It is alleged by the prosecution that about 2 days prior to the incident, there was some verbal altercation on some minor domestic matter between the accused and Kumari Bundoo, sister-in-law of the accused. Bhanwara, the husband of the accused, asked both of them not to quarrel each other. On this Mst. Bhagwati told her husband that he accuses her rather than Bundoo whom she levelled as the wife of her husband. Thus she used filthy abuse calling his sister as his wife. This shows the sentiment and enraged state of her mind. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i. e. on 16-6-72 Bhanwara and his sister Bundoo left the house and went to jungle to collect Tendu leaves. Thus she used filthy abuse calling his sister as his wife. This shows the sentiment and enraged state of her mind. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i. e. on 16-6-72 Bhanwara and his sister Bundoo left the house and went to jungle to collect Tendu leaves. At their back at about mid-day, the accused went to the river Jalonia with her two sons Hajarat Singh and Choua and one daughter Kumari Bunti. She drowned all the three issues into the river water and thus killed them. Thereafter, she tried to commit suicide by drowning herself in the river. She was hanging herself into the water of the river by catching the branches of a tree which was standing near the bank of the river. The depth of the water in the river at that place was about 8. At some distance Badam P. W. 3, and Toran P. W. 4, and Mst. Gyano P. W. 5 were taking bath in the river. The attention of Badam and Toran was attracted towards the accused and they informed Gyano, whereupon Mst. Gyano along with Badam and Toran went towards the place where Mst. Bhagwati was holding a branch of the tree and was in the process of drowning herself. Mst. Gyano asked the accused to come out of the river but the accused refused and told that she would die. When asked about her sons and daughter the accused confessed to them that she had already killed them. Badam, Toran and Mst. Gyano went to village and informed Bhanwara, the husband of the accused. Bhanwara came to the river. When he met the accused, he asked about the whereabouts of Hajarat Singh, Choua and Kumari Bunti. The accused confessed that she had killed them by drowning them into the river water. He found the dead body of Bunti floating in the river. He pursuaded Mst. Bhagwati to accompany him to the house and also brought the dead-body of Kumari Bunti from the river water. After taking them to the house he again went to the river and brought the dead bodies of Hajrat Singh and Choua to his house. Thereafter, he went to the police station at Kishangarh and lodged the report Ex. P. 4. During investigation the police prepared a site plan. After taking them to the house he again went to the river and brought the dead bodies of Hajrat Singh and Choua to his house. Thereafter, he went to the police station at Kishangarh and lodged the report Ex. P. 4. During investigation the police prepared a site plan. Autopsy of the dead bodies of Hajarat Singh, Choua and Bunti was performed by Dr. S. N. Chakrawati P. W. 7. After necessary investigation the accused was challenged for the offence under section 303 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses. In her statement under Section 342 Cr. P. C., 1898, the accused denied having committed any offence. She has stated that she had gone to the river to wash clothes, due to strong blowing of the wind the children fell down into the river. She also got down in the river to rescue them. She has also admitted the subsequent arrival of Mst. Gyano at the scene of occurrence and she has stated that she asked her to inform about this in the village. At one place of her statement she stated that her children had of course died of drowning in the water. While she was stretching the clothes in the sun to dry, the children jumped into the water and died; she cannot say how it happened. Thus her case is that it is a case of unfortunate accident rather then a case of intentional murder of children. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Hajarat Singh, Choua and Mst. Bunti died of drowning in river Jalonia on 16.6.72. This fact has been proved by the prosecution witnesses Bhanwara P. W. 1, Gangaram P. W. 2, Badam P. W. 3, Toran P. W. 4, Gyano P. W. 5, Bundoo P. W. 6. Besides the admission of this fact by the accused herself. This fact is further corroborated by the statement of Dr. S. N. Chakrawarti P. W. 7, who performed the autopsy of dead bodies of Hajarat Singh, Choua and Bunti. According to the Medical Officer P. W. 7 the cause of death of all the three children was drowning. The post-morem report of the dead bodies of these three children are Ex.P. 1 to Ex. P. 3. S. N. Chakrawarti P. W. 7, who performed the autopsy of dead bodies of Hajarat Singh, Choua and Bunti. According to the Medical Officer P. W. 7 the cause of death of all the three children was drowning. The post-morem report of the dead bodies of these three children are Ex.P. 1 to Ex. P. 3. Thus, it has clearly and undoubtedly been established by the prosecution that Hajarat Singh, Choua and Bunti died of drowning into the river water Jalonia on 16.6.1972. 7. The main point for consideration in this case in whether these three children were killed by means of drowning by the accused and whether the accused is liable for murder of the children? The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that it was a case of unfortunate accident and not a case of intentional killing of the children. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has carefully and critically examined this point and came to the conclusion that it was a case of murder of these three children on the part of the accused Mst. Bhagwati and was made liable for their murder. 8. It is true that so far the incident relates to the drowning of these children in the river water is concerned, there is no direct evidence. This part of the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the circumstances established on the record must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. They should lead inevitably to the conclusion that it was the accused and accused only who committed the crime and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. 9. It may also be mentioned that three child witnesses in this case. The age of Badam P. W. 3, Toran and Bundoo are 8, 6 and 9 years respectively. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while examining them had made a note that the witnesses do not understand the sanctity of oath and therefore they were not administered oath. They were, however, capable of understanding the questions and replying them properly. As regards their demeanour the learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly observed that Badam and Toran, though are child witnesses, were both straight forward in giving answers. They took little time to understand the question and for giving straightforward reply thereto without hesitation. They were, however, capable of understanding the questions and replying them properly. As regards their demeanour the learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly observed that Badam and Toran, though are child witnesses, were both straight forward in giving answers. They took little time to understand the question and for giving straightforward reply thereto without hesitation. Their demeanour was such that it excludes any tutoring. Although the testimony of a child witness is a piece of good evidence but it should be accepted after close, scrutiny and corroboration. 10. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon following circumstances:- 1. Verbal altercation between the accused and her sister-in-law Bundoo about two days prior to the incident which supplied the accused a ground for committing suicide and before she does such an act, her intention to done away with the children of tender age. 2. Extra-judicial confession of the accused. 3. Attempt to commit suicide by the accused as seen by P. W. 3, P. W. 4, and P. W. 5. 4. The conduct of the accused at the time of incident. In order to establish these circumstances, the prosecution has examined Bhanwara P. W. 1, Badam P. W. 4, Toran P. W. 4, Mst Gyano P. W. 5, and Mst. Bundoo P. W. 6. 11. As regards the first circumstance Bhanwara P. W. 1. and Bundoo P. W. 6 have clearly deposed that about three days prior to the occurrence there had been some verbal altercation between the accused and Bundoo in connection with some domestic work. Bhanwara asked them not to quarrel. Bundoo P. W. 6 has further deposed that the accused told Bhanwara, -" rw rsjh yqxkbZ ls dqN ugha dgrk esjs ls gh dgrk gSA eq>s esjs HkkbZ dh yqxkbZ gksuk crk;kA "The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused is that there is discrepancy in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is alleged that the verbal altercation between the accused and Kumari Bundoo took place 3 days prior to the occurrence while in the first information report it was mentioned that this took place a day before. It may be said that in the facts and circumstances of this case such a discrepancy is not material and this discrepancy does not go to show that no verbal altercation prior to the incident took place between the accused and Mst. It may be said that in the facts and circumstances of this case such a discrepancy is not material and this discrepancy does not go to show that no verbal altercation prior to the incident took place between the accused and Mst. Bundoo which led Bhanwara to ask the accused, not to quarrel and the accused in turn, rebuked her husband in an unwarranted manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution on this circumstance. This shows that the accused was hot-headed and was very much enraged to go to the extent of blaming the sister of her husband as his wife. This shows the state of her mind and such domestic quarrels in India sometimes prepare a ground for suicide as in this case. 12. Whether the children Hajarat Singh, Kumari Bunti and Choua died by an accident or they were drowned by the accused in order to kill them, is the important question for decision in the case. Though there are no eye-witnesses who have seen Mst. Bhagawati killing her two sons and one daughter yet P. W. 3 Badam, P. W. 4. Toran and P. W. 5 Mst. Gyano were taking their bath in Jalonia river at the relevant time. Badam and Toran have deposed that they were taking their bath in the river water at some distance from the place Smt. Bhagwati was there towards the down stream. They saw Mst. Bhagwati holding a branch of tree and taking dips in the river. They immediately brought this fact to the notice of Mst. Gyano and all the three went to the place near Mst. Bhagwati accused in the river water boding a branch of tree. Mst. Gyano asked the accused as to why she has come there. Upon this Mst. Bhagwati replied that she has come there to kill herself. On inquiry as to what has happened to her children, the accused replied that she has already killed them. Smt. Gyano tried to persuade the accused to get out of water but the accused refused and told that she would kill herself. 13. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae is that Badam and Toran are child witnesses of tender age and their statements should be read with caution. The court has to satisfy that their statements are true and are not the result of tutoring. 13. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae is that Badam and Toran are child witnesses of tender age and their statements should be read with caution. The court has to satisfy that their statements are true and are not the result of tutoring. The learned Amicus Curiae tried to point out some minor discrepancies in their statements to show that their evidence needs to be cautiously read. We have perused their statements with caution and care and we find that they are truthful witnesses. Moreover, their testimony is fully corroborated by the statement of P. W. 5 Mst. Gyano who is aged about 40 years. Their testimony further gets substantial support from the admission made by the accused herself Mst. Bhagwati accused has herself admitted the fact of her taking dips in the water when these witnesses reached near her. The presence of these witnesses, therefore, at that time cannot be doubted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has believed their testimony and we also do not find any sufficient reasons to disbelieve the same. 14. From the testimony of these above mentioned witnesses, it has come on record that the accused admitted that she has killed her two sons Hajarat Singh and Choua and daughter Kumari Bunti by drowning them in the river and that she was also trying to kill herself. An extra judicial confession to the same effect was also made by the accused before her husband Bhanwara. In the first information report lodged by Bhanwara this extra-judicial confession also finds its place. The contention of the learned amicus curiae is that it is extra-judicial confession which has been retracted and the court has first to satisfy itself that it is also corroborated in material particulars. His submission is that this alleged confession is ambiguous and it might be capable of explanation. As she took the children with her while she went for washing clothes on the river and due to heavy blowing of the wind tin children got drowned, in that circumstance she might have taken herself to be guilty for their drowning because had she not taken them to the river, they would not have died. This probable explanation on the part of the accused furnished by the learned amicus curiae is merely based on his own conjectures. While retracting her confession she has not assigned any such explanation. This probable explanation on the part of the accused furnished by the learned amicus curiae is merely based on his own conjectures. While retracting her confession she has not assigned any such explanation. Moreover, there is no evidence on record that there was any heavy blow of wind at the place of occurrence at that time so that these children might have been swept away by the wind in the river water. No question to this effect was put in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused to Badam, Toran and Mst. Gyano whose presence at the bank of the river down stream at some distance from the place where the accused was there, cannot be disputed. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the extra- judicial coir fission was voluntary as no threat, inducement or promise was given to her to make such a confession and ordinarily the husband would not speak lie to implicate his own wife. Moreover, this is further corroborated by the conduct of the accused. As pointed out above, the plea of the accused was that it was accidental death due to strong blow of the wind which swept away the deceased into the river water but that fact has not been established. Moreover, it was pleaded by her that she went for washing of the clothes but no clothes for washing were found on the spot Moreover, there is `Chat' made for washing of the clothes and taking bath but the accused did not go there but went to a lonely place near the river. She did not make any hue and cry for help and was not found even weeping when Mst. Gyano went near the accused and asked as to what had happened to her children. Besides this, Mst. Gyano, Badam and Toran themselves saw the accused attempting to kill her by drowning and she also confessed that she is doing this act in order to kill herself. The mere fact that the accused retracted the confession or denies having made it, or there was a possibility of their having been some inducement is not sufficient to attract section 24 of the Evidence Act. The mere fact that the accused retracted the confession or denies having made it, or there was a possibility of their having been some inducement is not sufficient to attract section 24 of the Evidence Act. Before a confession can be rejected there must be on record some circumstances from which the Court can legitimately arrive at the conclusion that the confession appears to have been made as a result of some inducement held out by a person in authority. 16. Taking the conspectus of all the circumstances of the case and believing this extra judicial confession to be voluntary, truthful and reliable, we also hold that the accused made extra judicial confession confessing the murder of her three children and also her attempt to commit suicide. Looking to the circumstances under which the confession was made, the manner in which it was made, the persons to whom it was made and also keeping in view the real state of mind of the accused, we are convinced that it has been rightly relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. In Magharsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 S.C. 1320 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the evidence furnished by extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required, it is only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. 18. In Darshan Bal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1975 S.C. 898 the only evidence to connect the accused with the death of his wife was extra judicial confession made by the accused to the uncle and the cousin of his wife and to the Inspector and the Commandant that he had killed his wife with knife, the uncle and the cousin of his wife not being persons in authority, confessions made to them only were free from legal infirmity and under the circumstances were found to be reliable. 19. As regards her attempt to commit suicide and about the conduct of the appellant at the relevant time, the evidence of Badam, Toran and Gyano is there and it has been discussed above and found reliable, cogent and trustworthy. 19. As regards her attempt to commit suicide and about the conduct of the appellant at the relevant time, the evidence of Badam, Toran and Gyano is there and it has been discussed above and found reliable, cogent and trustworthy. 20. Thus looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held the accused-appellant guilty of the murder of her three children and for attempt to commit suicide. From the conspectus of all the circumstantial evidence on record, it can be conclusively said that the prosecution evidence admit of no other conclusion except that the accused was guilty of the murder of her three children and also for attempt to commit suicide. Under the circumstances, there is reason for this Court to differ from the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. The circumstances on record leave no room for doubt that it was the accused who was responsible for the murder of her three children, and that she is also guilty of attempt to commit suicide. The appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences she has been charged with by the Additional Sessions Judge. Her conviction and sentences are, therefore, maintained.The appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******