Short Note : 1. The prosecution case is this : Mst. Chahmuni (PW11) is the daughter of the deceased Jhapo Bai. Hiyaram is the son of the appellant who does service and lives in village Headkapa. Sitapati (PW 12) is the wife of Hiyaram. The appellant lived in village Uparkapa together with his wife Jhapobai and daughter Chahmuni(PW11). On the date of incident, Mst. Sitapati '(PW 12) had come to the house of the appellant. In the evening, the' appellant and his family members took liquor and ate rice. Thereafter, they all slept together inside the room The appellant caught hold of the leg of Mst, Sitapati (PW 12) who objected to it with the result that the deceased got up and a "quarrel, took place between the appellant and the deceased: The appellant picked up a Pidha and attacked Jhapo Bai. Thereafter, the appellant attempted to hide the death or his wife at his hand and declared that the deceased had died on account of Rangbad (Tetanus). Chahmuni (PW11) and Sitapati (PW12), however, informed the village Panch as that the appellant had killed his wife by assaulting her with a Pidha. Held; Pichharu (PW 3) stated that Fateshwar (PW 10) had collected Patel Uangadhar Ram and other persons. The Patel questioned the appellant who admitted that he had given two Pidha strokes to his wife Jhapo Bai. When questioned about the cause of assault, the appellant stated that he had sent his wife to fetch rice but she did not bring It and this resulted in a quarrel. Shobha (PW 5) stated that he had gone to do e house the appellant to get black smith work done. The appellant refused to do his work on the ground that his wife had died because of tetanus. He further stated that he was present when the Patel questioned the appellant who stated him that since his wife did not bring rice, he had assaulted her with a Pidha. The evidence of the above two witnesses proved the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant which appears to be voluntary and has been testified by the two independent witnesses. 2. Chahmuni (PW11), the daughter of the appellant, is aged about 10 years and thus is a child witness. She stated that she had seen her father attacking her mother with a Pidha. 2. Chahmuni (PW11), the daughter of the appellant, is aged about 10 years and thus is a child witness. She stated that she had seen her father attacking her mother with a Pidha. She further stated that there was a quarrel preceding the attack by the appellant with a Pidha on her mother. She has been consistent inspite of a long cross examination. Her evidence has been corroborated by Mst. Sitapati (PW 12) who saw the appellant attacking Mst. Jhapo Bai. The evidence of the child witness Chahmuni (P.11) is thus corroborated by the eye-witness account of Sitapati (PW 12), first information report, (Ex. P-14: and medical evidence. 3. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the appellant had the intention to kill his wife. We have perused the evidence and we find that the appellant could have no intention to kill his wife. The evidence shows that the quarrel developed suddenly and the appellant picked up the Pidha, because there was a previous quarrel between him and his wife over the non bringing of rice. The evidence of Dr. N.C. Munshi (PW 8) shows that the external injuries were not serious in nature. No doubt, the injuries were caused over the ribs which resulted in the facture of 6th and 7th ribs and this incidentally injured the lung. The appellant could be attributed the knowledge that by giving repeated strokes over the ribs he was likely to cause the death of his wife. Thus, the act of the appellant would under section 304, Part II of the Penal Code and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice. Appeal partly allowed.