JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his brother's wife and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 400/- as fine. This is an appeal against this conviction and sentence. 2. PW 1 Vakil S/o Deepa Ram lodged a FIR with Police Station, Raisingh Nagar on 26.8.1989 at 4.30 p.m. that on the same date he was at home suffering with a fever and his wife Roshani and son Xian had gone to their field for plucking vegetable. At about 4.30 p.m. his son came frightened and crying and told him that Uncle Shishan had killed his mother with a Kassi. Vakil ran to the field and saw that his wife was lying in the field with injury on head and throat. She was not able to speak. On being asked by the informant Vakil as to whether Shishan had hit her she gave a nod in affirmation. He brought her home but she died. Vakil also stated in the FIR that his son Xian had seen Shishan inflicting injuries on his wife. 3. At the trial PW 4 Xian the only eye-witness supported the prosecution case. Vakil PW 1 also supported the prosecution case. 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable. It was submitted that PW 1 Vakil Chand has stated in the FIR that he had asked his wife as to whether Shishan was responsible for causing injury to her and she has nodded in affirmation, but in the statement before the Court he said that he had only asked as to who had assaulted her and had not asked anything else. In our opinion, this small omission or contradiction in the statement does not make the witness unreliable. As regards PW 4 Xian it was submitted that he was a child witness, according to whom his statement was recorded immediately after the incident in the night itself by the police, but the statement Under section 161 exhibited by the Investigating Officer is of the next day i.e. 27.8.1989. It was also submitted that this witness was examined Under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. It was also submitted that this witness was examined Under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. and his statement before the Court was a tortured version based on statement Under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code When we read the testimony of PW 4 Xian though he is of 11 years age, he appears to be quite mature for his age. He has not fumbled on any point and has given a clear-cut version of the incident. He clearly stated that when they had finished plucking of vegetables and were cutting fodder, his uncle Shishan came in the field and abused his mother Roshani. His mother protested and the deceased started back, Shishan pushed the deceased from behind, the head-load she was carrying fell down and Shishan gave Kassi blow on the head of the deceased on the back side of the head, another blow was given on the throat. The witness then ran home and told his father about the incident who came running in the field and he asked the deceased as to who had given her the blows, she showed by gesturing that her husband's younger brother had hit her. Then Vakil asked the deceased whether Shishan caused the injuries, she gestured in affirmative, then she was taken home and she died. In the cross-examination nothing of consequence come up. The witness had only said that in the night policeman had inquired from him. This cannot amount to saying that his statement Under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded by the police in the night. PW 5 Ramphool has explained in his statement that he had gone to the house of Vakil in the night of 26.8.1989 PW 4 Xian was sleeping then. He was awakened but he started weeping and was drowsing. He therefore, did not take statement but took the statement next day. There appears to be nothing wrong with this and the witness cannot also be discredited for his statement having been recorded Under section 165 Criminal Procedure Code. This is not a case where the prosecution had no faith in the witness and, therefore, he was bound down by statement Under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. Looking to the age of the witness it was natural that the police thought that it would be better to get him examined before the Magistrate Under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Looking to the age of the witness it was natural that the police thought that it would be better to get him examined before the Magistrate Under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that the FIR appears to have been lodged after the investigation had begun. There is no basis for this submission. The FIR has been lodged at 6.00 p.m. on 26.8.1989, and the incident is of 4.30 p.m. of the same date and the distance from the Police Station or the place of the incident is 25 kilometers, we do not see any possibility of concoction because if something was to be cooked up nothing prevented Vakil Chand frombecoming an eye-witness himself and there was no reason why he would show his minor son as the only eye-witness. 6. From the overall evidence we are satisfied that the finding of guilt is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 7. The learned counsel alternatively argued that the matter should fall within the ambit of Exception I to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as it is brought on record that there was previous enmity between the parties and it appears that the deceased had abused the appellant which provided a grave and sudden provocation. We do not agree as there is nothing on record to show that there was any grave or sudden provocation given by the deceased to the accused. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the conviction and the sentence deserves to be confirmed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******