S. Haque, J.— Basen Hasda was murdered in the night of 27.6.1986. Accused Dhanu Maji @ Mardi had been convicted under section 302, IPC for causing death of Basen Hasda vide judgment dated 23.6.89 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 37 (N) 88. Hence this appeal. There was no dispute on the fact of death of Basen Hasda in the house of accused Dhanu Maji in the night of 27.6.86 at about 8 PM. PW 6 Dr. Upendra Nath Thakuria held post mortem examination on the dead body of Basen Hasda. Six lacerated cut wound found on the person of the deceased. All the wounds are placed on the bead and face. The skull on temporal region and forehead fractured causing injury to the membrane and brain. Bones underlying cheek and eye-brow also fractured. The wounds were ante-mortem. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. The nature of the injuries clearly indicate that heavy weapon like axe had been used with full force. The trial Court accepted the opinion of the doctor. We fully endorse the views taken by the trial Court in view of the nature of the injuries and accept the opinion of the medical expert. The prosecution relied on the evidence of three witnesses. They are PW 2 Mahendra Hajda, son of the deceased and PW 1 Ram Murmu, an indepen­dent person and PW 3 Smti Phulmani Mardi, wife of the deceased. The prosecution case was that accused Dhanu came to the house of the deceased Basen and took him to his house. PW 2 son of Basen accompanied father. Accused dealt blow with an axe on Basen and PW 2 ran away seeing his father being assaulted with an axe and reported his mother PW 3. After sometime accused visited house of PW 1 and reported him that he killed Basen Hasda at his house. PW 1 came and saw the dead body lying with injuries. PW 2 Mahendra was aged 10/12 years at the time of occurrence. He deposed straight forward before the trial Court that he accompanied his father to the house of the accused where he saw accused dealing blows with an axe on bis father. He saw one or two blows and then ran away and informed his mother. PW 2 Mahendra was aged 10/12 years at the time of occurrence. He deposed straight forward before the trial Court that he accompanied his father to the house of the accused where he saw accused dealing blows with an axe on bis father. He saw one or two blows and then ran away and informed his mother. His mother fully corroborated this fact that Mahendra reported her about the occurrence in the house of the accused. PW 1 deposed that accused visited his house at night, after the occurrence, and told him that he killed Basen by heating with an axe. Ail the material evidence deposed by the three witnesses are found free from contradic­tion and consistent at every stage. There was no denial of the fact of accused taking Basen Hasda to his house in that evening. In the First Information Report it was mentioned that one San Bichaku informed PW 3 and that one Sona Murmu also accompanied with the deceased. Both of them bad not been examined in the case. Mr. R.P. Sharma submits that non examination of these two witnesses was fatal to the prosecution case. There is nothing in evidence of PW 2 that Sona Murmu remained present while blows were given on his father in the house of accused. Furthermore there is nothing in record to show that Sun Bichaku was an eye witness of the occurrence. Therefore their non examination would not be fatal to the prosecution case. PW2 was a child aged about 10/12 years at that time. Child with such age can be a competent witness having intellectual capacity and capability of giving rational account of what he has seen or heard. The trial Judge was the best to decide because the witness deposed before him. There is no rule of law that evidence of a child witness cannot in any circumstances be acted upon without any corroboration of direct nature, but corroboration of the independent type, if found reliable, is sufficient. In the instant case the child witness was capable of giving account reasonably as found from his straight forward deposition and his version was consistent at the investigation stage and at the trial. The trial Court had the opportunity to see him, recorded his evidence and accepted his testimony. He deposed straight forwardly without any significant contradiction on the material facts. The trial Court had the opportunity to see him, recorded his evidence and accepted his testimony. He deposed straight forwardly without any significant contradiction on the material facts. There can be no reason to take a different view than that of the trial Court. This eye witness immediately reported the incident to his mother who corroborated on that fact. The accused made extra judicial confession before PW I who had no reason to manufacture false story for falsely implicate the accused. Corroboration as required under the law was available in the case and those are convincing and reasonable. Therefore, the evidence of PW 2 Mahendra and the extra judicial confession of the accused have been accepted and are sufficient to base conviction. The accused took the deceased to his house and dealt as many as six blows by an axe on the vital parts breaking the head and bones of the face. Deliberate intention to cause death had been exposed by his acts. The trial Court rightly convicted him under section 302 IPC. There is nothing to interfere. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Send down the record.