JUDGMENT 1. 1. The accused appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 59/94. The charge against the accused appellant was under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of his own wife. 2. The trial court after examining seventeen prosecution witnesses and thirty one prosecution documents and five defence documents, found the accused appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergon six months imprisonment. 3. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined five eye- witnesses. Out of these five eye-witnesses, P.W. 7 Shiv Narayan, P.W. 8 Laxmi Mai and P.W. 13 Chandan Mai were not believed. These three eye-witnesses were not believed by the trial court and the reason given by the trial court for not believing these eye-witnesses is that their names were not given in the first information report as eye-witnesses and their statements were recorded by the police nearly after three weeks of the occurrence. The other two eye-witnesses were P.W. 12 Miss Sonu a minor daughter of the deceased and the accused and P.W. 17 Girdhari Lal the first informant. In the written report Ex.P. 26 which was lodged at the Police Station Nagaur at 3 P.M. and given to the S.H.O. Nagaur in the Hospital at 2.35 RM. on 17.8.1994, P.W. 17 Girdhari lal wrote that at about 2 P.M. he had gone to the house of Phool Chand Soni at that time noise was heard at the shop of Chhaganji Sunar. He came out of the house and saw that deceased Kesi Devi and her daughter Soni were standing outside the shop and Ram Niwas accused came out of his shop with a stick. No sooner he came outside the shop he hit deceased Kesi on her head. Kesi fell down on the ground. The witness states that when he shouted as to why he is assaulting his wife the accused exhorted that today there is a chance i will kill her and then he gave 2-3 more blows on the head and face of the deceased. The girl was shouting. Kesi fell down on the ground. The witness states that when he shouted as to why he is assaulting his wife the accused exhorted that today there is a chance i will kill her and then he gave 2-3 more blows on the head and face of the deceased. The girl was shouting. It has further been written in the written report that when he reached near the accused ran away with the stick which he was carrying. Kesi had become unconscious, she was escorted to the hospital and treatment has been started. The S.H.O., Nagaur having received this report at 2.35 P.M. sent the same for registering a regular F.I.R. at the Police Station. At the Police Station the report was received at 3 P.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged. The formal F.I.R. was exhibited as Ex. R 27. 5. P.W. 17 Girdhari Lal the first informant in his Court statement has stated that while he was sitting at the house of Phool Chand, he heard noise outside. When he went outside he saw that there was a huge crowd collected and the people were saying, that Ram Niwas is hitting his wife. He came forward and saw that Ram Niwas had stick in his hand and was hitting his wife. The name of wife of Ram Niwas was Kesi. The witness states that when he shouted Ram Niwas ran away. Ram Niwas hit Kesi on her head and other parts of the body including the mouth. He admitted that he has given the written report Ex.P 26 to the police. In his Court statement, he, however, states that he cannot say as to whether RW. 12 Sonu was there or not because there was a big crowd. He admitted that he had given the written report Ex.R 26 but he says that he had given this report on the saying of others and that he had given the name of Ram Niwas in the first information report on the saying of those who were present there. 6. P.W. 12 Sonu, who is the daughter of the deceased and the accused appellant, says in her Court statement that when she and her mother came to the shop of her father her father hit her mother on the head with stick as a result of which her mother fell down and when people arrived his father ran away. 6. P.W. 12 Sonu, who is the daughter of the deceased and the accused appellant, says in her Court statement that when she and her mother came to the shop of her father her father hit her mother on the head with stick as a result of which her mother fell down and when people arrived his father ran away. In her cross-examination, it has been asked by the defence that what are the school timings of this witness. In reply there to she states that she goes to the school at 10 A.M. and the school ends at 4-5 in the evening. This has also come in the cross-examination of this witness that on the date of occurrence she had gone to the school. 7. The learned Trial Court, after considering the entire case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that though P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 13 are not believable eye-witnesses but P.W. 17 Girdhari Lal the first informant and P.W. 12 Sonu are reliable witnesses and believing on the testimony of these two eye-witnesses the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 9. The case of the accused appellant before this Court is that P.W. 12 is not a witness of sterling worth. She is a child witness and on the sole testimony of a child witness the conviction could not be based and it should be examined very cautiously as the child witnesses are the witnesses who live in make believe world. Further this child witness has admitted that she went to school on the date of occurrence. Therefore, she cannot be expected to be present at the scene of occurrence on the date of occurrence. Further in the written report it was stated that she was present at the time of occurrence but the first informant in his Court statement has stated that he does not know whether she was present at the scene of occurrence or not. Therefore, the presence of this witness is doubtful. In this back-ground this witness should not be believed. 10. Therefore, the presence of this witness is doubtful. In this back-ground this witness should not be believed. 10. Regarding P.W. 17 Girdhari Lal, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has urged that he resiled from the first information report in his Court statement that he had given the report on being suggested by those who were present. He had not himself identified the accused as the assailant then how it can be believed that the accused has caused the injuries when he himself has not identified the accused as the assailant. Therefore, he cannot be said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness and no conviction can be sustained on this statement. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has urged that the first information was lodged within 35 minutes of the incident, the name of the accused has been mentioned in the first information report and the mode of occurrence has been described. P.W. 17 Girdhari Lal, who was present on the scene of occurrence had given clear details of the incident. Whatever he has stated in the written report he has stated in his statement before the Court. In this back-ground may be that he does not claim to have seen the accused but immediately after the occurrence he was present at the scene of occurrence and he has written the report. Therefore, the contents of the first information report can be read against the accused. 12. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that P.W. 12 Sonu, who is a girl of the age of understanding, was an eye-witness of the incident. There is no reason for her to speak against her own father. It is not a case where the child witness does not understand. The learned Trial Court after examining the understanding of the witness has recorded her statement and when she deposed against her own father then it cannot be said that she is not speaking the truth. A reading of her statement clearly shows that there is intrinsic worth in the statement of this witness and when there are no inherent infirmities in her statement then it cannot be said that this witness is not a witness of worth and cannot be relied upon for basing the conviction of the accused appellant. 13. A reading of her statement clearly shows that there is intrinsic worth in the statement of this witness and when there are no inherent infirmities in her statement then it cannot be said that this witness is not a witness of worth and cannot be relied upon for basing the conviction of the accused appellant. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor also urged that in between the parties i.e. deceased and the accused appellant there were criminal cases pending under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 125 Cr.P.C. also. P.W. 12 Sonu has stated that the appellant had threatened the deceased that he will bring a second woman. Therefore, there was always a reason for the appellant to commit the crime because he was aggrieved by the deceased on account of criminal litigation instituted by her and had also a desire of bringing another woman in his fold. Therefore, there was every reason for him to commit the crime. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the record. 15. In this case, the testimony of P.W. 12 Sonu is of great significance. She is the minor daughter of the appellant. Her testimony is sought to be discredited on the ground that she might not be present on the scene of occurrence. The defence has not enough courage to ask this witness about her presence at the scene of occurrence. It is only on account of a particular part of her statement that the defence wants that she should not be believed. Her statement is that she goes to the school at 10 and remains in school up to 4-5 in the evening and on the date of occurrence she had been to the school. Therefore, the defence wants this Court to infer that she was not present on the scene of occurrence. This would be too presumptive for this Court to accept this argument of the defence in the absence of a positive stand If the defence was positive then it should have been bold enough to ask her that she was not present at the scene of occurrence. Had this question been put to the witness she could have explained about her presence at the scene of occurrence. Had this question been put to the witness she could have explained about her presence at the scene of occurrence. Thus, merely on reading a part of her statement it cannot be said that her presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. 16. The defence stand that she was not present at the scene of occurrence cannot be believed. Further her name is mentioned in the F.I.R. which was recorded just after 35 minutes of the occurrence. The first information though has stated that he cannot say whether she was present at the scene of occurrence or not but he has admitted that he has written the report correctly and once he admits the correct reporting of the incident then it can safely be said that this witness was present at the scene of occurrence. Her name being mentioned in the F.I.R. her presence cannot be doubted at the time of occurrence at the scene of occurrence. 17. If Sonu is held to be a witness present at the scene of occurrence then there is no reason to disbeliever her testimony, that her mother was hit by her father. Whatever the age of the child but when she speaks against her own father then there remains a little scope of doubt, because of the tender age, no child would falsely implicate a parent. She had given a clear description of the event and she can be relied upon as a witness of the occurrence. She had given reasons for his father being annoyed with her mother as he wanted to bring a second wife. That being the situation the accused had enough motive to commit the crime. 18. The statement of P.W. 12 Sonu finds corroboration from the statement of P.W. 17 Girdhari Lal the first informant. Girdhari Lal P.W. 17 states that at the scene of occurrence he was informed by the persons who were present there that the accused had caused the injuries and he has narrated in the F.I.R. what he has perceived at the scene of occurrence. Where the wife is murdered and the husband is named as the assailant unless there is any other possibility of a criminal being involved and there is the testimony of a child against his own parent then irresistible conclusion is that the accused is the one who is deposed to be. Where the wife is murdered and the husband is named as the assailant unless there is any other possibility of a criminal being involved and there is the testimony of a child against his own parent then irresistible conclusion is that the accused is the one who is deposed to be. Therefore, the testimony of P.W. 12 Sonu can safely be believed that it was the accused who was responsible for causing injuries on the head of the deceased and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that Smt. Kesi was assaulted by accused appellant Ram Niwas by a stick. 19. The defence argument that if the appellant is believed to be assailant then it cannot be said that offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is made out because there was no intention to kill the deceased. This argument of the defence is devoid of any merit. The case of the accused appellant is not covered by any one of the exceptions of Section 300 I.P.C. Unless the case is covered by any of the exceptions of Section 300 I.P.C. it cannot be said that the accused had committed homicide which does not amount to murder and, therefore, it can safely be said that the accused is guilty of offence described under Section 300 I.P.C. and his act falls under clause thirdly. 20. In the result, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused had rightly been found guilty of causing such injuries which resulted in death of the deceased and, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. were rightly recorded. 21. In the result, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are maintained.Appeal dismissed. *******