JUDGMENT - J.A. PATIL, J.:---This appeal by the original accused is directed against the order dated 15th of April, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Sessions Case No. 3/1994. Learned Judge convicted the accused of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code but sentenced him only on the first count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence was passed on the second count of the charge. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 6 Laxman is a resident of village Santuk-Pimpri, Taluka Hingoli, District Parbhani. P.W. No. 10 Yamunabai is his wife and P.W. No. 1 Munja, who is the complainant, is his son. Laxman had two daughters, namely, Padmabai and Shobha. Padmabai is already married while marriage of Shobha was settled and it was scheduled to take place in a month or two after the incident. Shobha is the deceased in this case and at the time of her death she was around 13 years of age. She was studying in VIIth Standard. 3. The accused is also a resident of the same village. He happens to be the son-in-law of Laxman's sister. The name of the wife of the accused was Pushpa. According to the prosecution, about three or four months prior to the incident in question, there was a quarrel between Pushpa and Yamunabai, P.W. No. 10. Thereafter Pushpa committed suicide in about a week. The accused nourished a grudge that because of the quarrel made by Yamunabai, his wife Pushpa committed suicide. On one occasion, it is alleged, the accused had even threatened to kill Yamunabai. It appears that, apprehending danger to the life of his wife, Laxman arranged to send Yamunabai to the house of her parents at village Pardi. On the date of the incident in question, Yamunabai was residing at Pardi. 4. The incident in question took place on 2-7-1993, at about 8.30 a.m. On that day, deceased Shobha and her younger brother Munja, P.W. No. 1, both had gone to their land which is at a distance of one or two kms. from the village. There is a cattle-shed in the land. 4. The incident in question took place on 2-7-1993, at about 8.30 a.m. On that day, deceased Shobha and her younger brother Munja, P.W. No. 1, both had gone to their land which is at a distance of one or two kms. from the village. There is a cattle-shed in the land. Shobha was cleaning the cattle-shed. At that time, the accused, armed with an axe, was found present. On seeing Shobha, he asked her as to who had killed his wife. Shobha is said to have replied that Pushpa was not killed by them. It appears that the accused got enraged at the reply given by Shobha and immediately he gave a blow of axe on the head of Shobha, who fell down. Thereafter, the accused lifted Shobha and threw her upon a heap of sticks of cotton plants, near the cattle-shed. 5. On seeing this, Munja got scared and he ran towards the village. He disclosed the incident to the persons in the village. It appears that time his father Laxman was not present in the village. Therefore, Munja was taken to the local Police Patil Datta Dipake, P.W. No. 9, to whom also he narrated the incident. The Police Patil, along with other villagers, came on the spot but did not find the accused. It was, however, noticed that the heap of sticks of cotton plants was on fire. It was also found that blood was lying under the Babool tree, near the cattle-shed. It appears that there was no water to put out the fire and the flames had leapt high. 6. The Police Patil Datta Dipake, P.W. No. 9, thereafter took Munja with him to Hingoli Rural Police Station which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from the village. Head Constable Shinde, P.W. 12, who was in charge of the Police Station at that time, recorded complaint Exh. 7 of Munja and registered Crime No. 130/1993 for the offences under sections 302 and 201 of India Penal Code. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.S.I. Dhere, P.W. 13, who immediately rushed to the spot. However, by that time, the body of Shobha was found completely burnt. It was taken out of the remnants of the burnt heap of the cotton sticks. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.S.I. Dhere, P.W. 13, who immediately rushed to the spot. However, by that time, the body of Shobha was found completely burnt. It was taken out of the remnants of the burnt heap of the cotton sticks. On the basis of an earring, Laxman, P.W. 6, father of Shobha identified the body as being that of his daughter. It appears that it was not possible to remove the skeleton to Hingoli for the purpose of post-mortem investigation. Therefore, Medical Officer Dr. Kamthikar, P.W. No. 5, was requested to visit the spot and perform the post- mortem examination. Accordingly, on the same day, Dr. Kamthikar visited the spot but found that the body was totally burnt and was reduced to ashes. Dr. Kamthikar found some cracks on the parietal bone of the skeleton. Since the body was completely burnt, he found it difficult to give a definite opinion regarding the cause of death. However, collected the bones of the skeleton and sent the same to the Anatomy Department of the Medical College at Ambejogai. The said Department, later on, opined that the bones were of a human-being, above the age of 16 years, but below the age of 20 years. However, no opinion could be given about the sex of the deceased. In the course of the investigation, the accused was arrested on the next day i.e. 3-7-1993. At the time of arrest, it was found that the baniyan which the accused was wearing had stains of blood. On the same day the accused is said to have laid discovery of an axe which was found kept in his house. The same was seized. It was found that on the blade of the axe there were stains of blood. All these articles were later on sent to the Chemical Analyser. In due course, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused on 19-8-1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli, who later on, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. 7. In the Sessions Court, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied to have committed murder of Shobha. In due course, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused on 19-8-1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli, who later on, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. 7. In the Sessions Court, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied to have committed murder of Shobha. In his statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused stated that the case filed against him is false and that he had no reason to kill Shobha who happened to be his sister. The accused further stated that after the death of his first wife Pushpa, he had married her younger sister which was not liked by Laxman and his wife Yamunabai. Therefore, according to him, he is falsely involved in this case. In support of his defence, the accused did not lead any evidence nor did he examine himself on oath. 8. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 13 witnesses, including the sole eye-witness Munja, P.W. No. 1. The other witnesses include Laxman, P.W. 6, the father of Shobha, Yamunabai, P.W. 10, mother of Shobha, Police Patil Datta Dipake, P.W. 9, Dr. Kamthikar, P.W. 5. The prosecution also examined Chokhaji, P.W. 7, and Milind, P.W. 8, to whom Munja, P.W. 1, is said to have disclosed immediately after the incident that the accused had assaulted his sister Shobha. Learned Judge, upon consideration of the evidence so placed before him, came to the conclusion that Shobha died homicidal death and that it was caused by the accused. Learned Judge obviously placed reliance upon the evidence of Munja, P.W. 1, as well as the other witnesses who corroborated his version. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the accused as indicated above. 9. We have heard Shri P.S. Deshmukh, learned Advocate, holding for Shri S.B. Talekar for the accused and Shri P.B. Varale, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State. We have also gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. 10. The evidence on record shows, and it is not disputed before us, that the accused was closely related to Laxman, P.W. 6. Pushpa, wife of the accused, was the daughter of Laxman's sister. It is also not disputed before us that Shobha was a minor girl of about 13 years. The evidence of Laxman. 10. The evidence on record shows, and it is not disputed before us, that the accused was closely related to Laxman, P.W. 6. Pushpa, wife of the accused, was the daughter of Laxman's sister. It is also not disputed before us that Shobha was a minor girl of about 13 years. The evidence of Laxman. P.W. 6 and his wife Yamunabai, P.W. 10, shows that Pushpa, wife of the accused, committed suicide about four or five months before the incident in question. It is further seen from their evidence that about seven or eight days prior to the death of Pushpa, there was a quarrel between her and Yamunabai. Therefore, it was the grievance of the accused that because of the said quarrel, Pushpa had committed suicide. Both Laxman and Yamunabai have stated that accused had given a threat to kill Yamunabai. It is further seen that thereafter Laxman sent his wife to her parental home at village Pardi and she was residing there till the date of incident in question. The conduct of Laxman, P.W. 6, in sending his wife Yamunabai to her parental home, is consistent with his accusation that the accused had threatened to kill Yamunabai. Otherwise, there was practically no reason for him to keep Yamunabai away from their two minor children, namely, Munja, P.W. 1 and deceased Shobha. Having regard to this aspect, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge was right in accepting this part of the evidence of both Laxman Yamunabai. It will thus be seen that the evidence of these two witnesses establishes that the accused had a motive to entertain animus against couple. 11. Shri Deshmukh contended before us that the prosecution did not examine Tukaram, father of the accused, who was said to be a witness to the quarrel between Pushpa and Yamunabai. However, we do not think that non-examination of Tukaram in any way affects the prosecution case since it has already adduced sufficient evidence on the point of motive. 12. Before turning to the evidence of Munja, P.W. 1, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Shri Deshmukh to the admissibility of the evidence of this witness. Admittedly, Munja, P.W. 1, is a boy of 9 years and the learned Judge recorded his evidence after giving him oath. 12. Before turning to the evidence of Munja, P.W. 1, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Shri Deshmukh to the admissibility of the evidence of this witness. Admittedly, Munja, P.W. 1, is a boy of 9 years and the learned Judge recorded his evidence after giving him oath. Shri Deshmukh contended that Munja, P.W. 1, being a child below 12 years, no oath ought to have been administered to him. He further submitted that recording of the evidence of Munja on oath is not in keeping with the “procedure established by law” as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the whole evidence of Munja is vitiated and rendered inadmissible. 13. It must be noted that competency of a person to be a witness is one thing and his eligibility to testify on oath is another. Under section 118 of the Evidence Act all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them of from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. It is, therefore, obvious that a child who can understand the questions put to him or her and who can give rational answers to he same, is a competent witness. Giving oath to such a child witness, before recording his evidence, however, depends upon the question whether he/she understands the sanctity of oath. In this connection reference may be made to section 4(1) of the Oaths Act, 1969. 14. Section 4(1) of the Oaths Act, 1969, reads as under : 4. Oaths or affirmations to be made by the witnesses, interpreters and jurors.---(1) Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons namely :- (a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any Court or person having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence: (b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses; and (c) jurors. Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the Court or persons having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth.” 15. On careful perusal of the above provisions, it will be clear that there is no prohibition to administer oath to a child witness. In fact, all witnesses who are examined before the Court in a criminal trial are required to be given oath unless the Court is of the opinion, in the case of a child witness under 12 years of age that he/she does not understand the nature of oath. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has made a note that he had put some questions to the child witness Munja and, according to him, the witness gave proper answers to the same. Learned trial Judge, therefore, appears to have concluded that Munja understood the sanctity of oath and, therefore, he proceeded to record his evidence after administering him oath. 16. The record, however, does not show as to what exact questions were put to Munja, P.W. 1, by the learned trial Judge. In this respect, we wish to emphasise, for the guidance of all the trial Judges/Magistrates, that whenever there is an occasion to decide whether oath should be given to a child witness before recording his/her evidence, it is desirable that they should not only put certain questions to such child witnesses to ascertain whether they understood the sanctity of oath or not, but also incorporate, at the top of deposition, the questions put by the Court and the answers given by the child witnesses. This enables the Appellate Court to verify whether the opinion recorded by the Court, as to the fact that the child witness is capable of understanding the sanctity of oath, is correct or not. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has made only a note that the child witness understands the sanctity of oath. This enables the Appellate Court to verify whether the opinion recorded by the Court, as to the fact that the child witness is capable of understanding the sanctity of oath, is correct or not. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has made only a note that the child witness understands the sanctity of oath. This is done after putting some questions to the witness. In our opinion, the learned Judge has complied with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Oaths Act, 1969, and, therefore, the submission of Shri Deshmukh will have to be rejected. 17. In the instant case, Munja is a boy of 9 years who was taking education in a school. It is, however, well settled that the testimony of a child witness has to be cautiously accepted since children are amenable to the influence of elderly persons in whose custody they remain. Besides, they are likely to be tutored. In this respect, we may refer to some decisions which were cited before us by Shri Varale, learned A.P.P. In (Lalu Chaudhari v. State)1, 1988 Cri.L.J. 1301, the Calcutta High Court observed that child witnesses are easily susceptible to tutoring and to telling imaginative stories and their evidence must, therefore, be scrutinised with extreme care and caution before being acted upon as true and dependable. The test laid down by the learned Judges for appraising the evidence of a child witness is whether there is any evidence of tutoring. If this test is found to be positive, the Court should not convict the accused on a serious charge like murder, relying solely upon the evidence of a child witness, unless it is corroborated in material particulars, connecting the accused with the crime. It was further observed that this precaution should be taken even if there is no infirmity in the evidence of a child witness. 18. In (Prakash v. State of M.P.)2, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 65, it was observed, in the particular set of facts, that the evidence of the child witness, who happened to be the younger brother of the victim, could not be discarded on the ground of likelihood of his being tutored. In that case the child witness was 14 years of age and their Lordships observed. In that case the child witness was 14 years of age and their Lordships observed. “We do not think that a boy of about 14 years of age cannot give a proper account of the murder of his brother if he has an occasion to witness the same and simply because the witness was a boy of 14 years it will not be proper to assume that he is likely to be tutotred.” 19. Shri Varale also relied upon the decision in (Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra)3, 1998 Bom.C.R.(Cri) (S.C.)138, wherein it was observed: “The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand but, however, as a rule of prudence the Court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record.” 20. Bearing these principles in mind regarding caution to be taken while assessing the evidence of a child witness, we now proceed to deal with the ocular version of Munja, P.W. 1. He stated before the Court that on the date of incident, he went to the field and that his sister Shobha came there later on. Munja further stated that both of them were cleaning cattle-shed and, at that time, the accused came there and enquired with Shobha as to who had killed his wife. Munja further stated that Shobha replied that they never killed her. Upon that the accused gave a blow of an axe on the head of Shobha who then fell down Munja had stated that thereafter the accused took Shobha to the heap of sticks of cotton plants and threw her on the said heap. He further stated that he got scared and ran towards the village. In the examination-in-chief Munja stated that he was just near the accused and Shobha. But, in the cross-examination, he stated that he was at a distance of about 100 feet from the hut i.e. cattle-shed. He further stated that he got scared and ran towards the village. In the examination-in-chief Munja stated that he was just near the accused and Shobha. But, in the cross-examination, he stated that he was at a distance of about 100 feet from the hut i.e. cattle-shed. Shri Deshmukh laid emphasis on the admission of Munja in the cross-examination, which is to the effect that the person working in the cattle-shed is not visible to the person who is outside. Therefore, according to Shri Deshmukh, Munja could not have been in a position to see the actual assault on Shobha. On a careful reading of the cross-examination of Munja, we, however, find that there is no force in the submission. It is nowhere say of Munja that the actual assault took place inside the cattle-shed. In the cross-examination he has stated that the accused was sitting on the heap of cotton sticks, which was adjacent to the cattle-shed. He further stated that the accused first took Shobha from the cattle-shed to the Babool tree, which was at a distance of about 150 feet and assaulted her under that Babool tree. 21. The version of Munja finds sufficient corroboration. In the first instance, the F.I.R., Ex. 7, fully corroborates his version as regards the incident. It is material to note that the F.I.R. was lodged at 12.30 p.m. on the same day at Hingoli Rural Police Station, which is about 10 kms. from village Sentuk-Pimpri. It is also material to note that Munja was not at that time accompanied by his father Laxman or any other close relative. Therefore, the possibility of filing a complaint as tutored by the interested relatives is ruled out. Secondly, the subsequent conduct of Munja lends assurance to his version. Immediately after seeing that the accused gave an axe blow to his sister Shobha and threw her upon a heap of sticks of cotton plant, Munja rushed to the village. He disclosed to some of the villagers that the accused had assaulted his sister. In this respect the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, namely, Chokhaji, P.W. 7, and Milind, P.W. 8, is relevant and both of them have uniformly stated that Munja came running and told that the accused had assaulted his sister Shobha in the field. The third factor which corroborates the version of Munja is finding of blood-stains near the Babool tree. In this respect the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, namely, Chokhaji, P.W. 7, and Milind, P.W. 8, is relevant and both of them have uniformly stated that Munja came running and told that the accused had assaulted his sister Shobha in the field. The third factor which corroborates the version of Munja is finding of blood-stains near the Babool tree. As already seen, according to Munja, the assault on Shobha was made near the Babool tree. The evidence of Chokhaji, P.W. 7, and Milind, P.W. 8, shows that both of them had been to the spot and found that there were blood-stains under Babool tree. It is important to note that Milind, P.W. 8, was not at all cross-examined on behalf of the accused with the result that his entire version has gone unchallenged. 22. There is one more factor which inspires confidence about the version of Munja. In the first instance, his presence on the spot appears to be quite natural and probable. Shobha being his elder sister, it was quite natural for him to have accompanied her to the field which is at a distance of about 1 km. from their house. Their father Laxman, P.W. 6, was out of station while mother Yamunabai, P.W. 10, was staying at village Pardi. Therefore, Munja must have accompanied Shobha to the field. What is more important is that Munja has refrained from making any exaggeration. He has deposed to only those facts which he had actually seen. Although he stated that the accused lifted Shobha and threw her on the heap of sticks of cotton plants, Munja refrained from saying that the accused set fire to the heap. He could have stated that fact if he was bent upon things which he had not seen. However, he did not do so which gives him credit and inspires confidence that he is a truthful witness. 23. Shri Deshmukh pointed out one omission in the evidence of Munja, P.W. 1. Before the Court he has stated that the accused enquired with Shobha as to who had killed his wife, however, in his F.I.R, there is no such statement. It cannot be ignored that Munja is a boy of 9 years and, therefore, it is just possible that he might have forgotten to state this fact when his complaint was recorded. Before the Court he has stated that the accused enquired with Shobha as to who had killed his wife, however, in his F.I.R, there is no such statement. It cannot be ignored that Munja is a boy of 9 years and, therefore, it is just possible that he might have forgotten to state this fact when his complaint was recorded. However, the omission pointed out is not so material as to create doubt about his veracity. There is absolutely no contradiction in the evidence of Munja, P.W. 1, so far as the actual incident is concerned. Shri Deshmukh then pointed out from the evidence of Laxman, P.W. 6, that before the Court he stated that his son Munja also told him that the accused had assaulted Shobha under the Babool tree with an axe and threw her on the heap of cotton sticks. However, from the evidence of the Investigation Officer, P.S.I. Dhere, P.W. 13, it is seen that Laxman did not make any statement before him. In our opinion, this contradiction loses its importance in view of the fact that Munja had disclosed the fact of assault by the accused to other independent witnesses, namely, Chokhoba, P.W. 7, and Milind, P.W. 8. Therefore, it is not improbable that after Laxman, P.W. 6 returned to the village, Munja disclosed to him the incident. In fact, it was but natural and probable for him to have disclosed the incident to his father Laxman. Although Laxman, P.W. 6, did not state this fact in his statement before the Police, there is no reason to raise any undue doubt about it. 24. The evidence on record shows that after Munja disclosed about the assault, the villagers, including the prosecution witnesses, came to the spot and found that the heap of cotton sticks was on fire. Subsequently, after fire was extinguished, a human skeleton was recovered, Laxman, P.W. 6, has stated that on the basis of the earring and the height of Shobha, he could identify that it was the skeleton of his daughter Shobha. There is no necessity to doubt the identification of the skeleton as being that of Shobha because shortly before it was recovered, Munja had seen the accused throwing the dead body of Shobha on the heap of cotton sticks. It is obvious that after Munja left the place the accused must have set the heap on fire. There is no necessity to doubt the identification of the skeleton as being that of Shobha because shortly before it was recovered, Munja had seen the accused throwing the dead body of Shobha on the heap of cotton sticks. It is obvious that after Munja left the place the accused must have set the heap on fire. The report of the Associate Professor of Anatomy, Exh. 34, shows that the bones of the skeleton sent to him were of human being above the age of 16 years and below the age of 20 years. Although sex of the deceased could not be determined, solely on the basis of the bones, still the above mentioned facts leave no doubt in mind that the skeleton found in the embers of fire was that of Shobha. 25. P.S.I. Dhere, P.W. 13, has stated that the accused was arrested on the next date and his clothes were seized. The evidence of Panch Manchak Kolpe, P.W. 4, as well as P.S.I. Dhere, P.W. 13, shows that on the same day the accused led discovered of an axe which was found kept in his tin shed in the village. The same was seized under panchanama Exh. 14-B, which states that stain of blood were seen on the blunt end of the blade. The Chemical Analyser's report Ex. 32 is, however, negative in this respect. Therefore, the discovery of axe is of no consequence. 26. We have thus carefully re-examined the evidence on record and on consideration of the same we agree with the learned Judge that the ocular version of the child witness Munja, P.W. 1 does not suffer from any infirmity and that the same is absolutely unimpeachable. Learned trial Judge was, therefore, in our opinion, quite right in placing reliance upon the same and holding the accused guilty on both the counts. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and the same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----