Judgment R.N.PRASAD and M.L.VISA JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 1986 passed in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 15.1.1985 at about 9 p.m. the appellant went to the tea stall of Informant Shahid (PW-5) situate of Mohalla Sabzibag, P.S. Pirbahore, District-Patna, and when the Informant demanded back his money from the appellant, the appellant gave him a sum of Rs. 75/- out of Rs. 145/- which was given earlier to him for keeping in safe custody by the Informant. When the Informant demanded balance amount, the appellant becames annoyed. The father of Informant asked the appellant for returning the balance amount because it was to be paid to Mahajans (creditors). The appellant became furious and he whipped out a knife from his waist and gave 2-3 blows on the father of the Informant hitting on his abdomen and on the left side of the chest as a result of which father of Informant becames injured and fell down. The Informant raised hulla on which his phupha (husband of sister of father) Zahur Alam (PW-1) and others came to the place of occurrence and the appellant then fled away. The father of the Informant was taken to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) on a rickshaw by Zahur Alam and others. Bhaiya Pradeep Kumar Sinha (PW-7), who was posted at that time as Additional Officer-in-charge at Pirbahore Police Station received information on telephone that an incident of dagger stabbing had taken place near Shia Masjid. He then after recording Station Diary Entry No. 656 (Ext. 6) proceeded to the place of occurrence where he came to know that father of the Informant had been stabbed by a dagger and Informant also met him there and he then ordered S. I. Raghunath Mahto for recording the fardbeyan of Informant and also told that he himself would investigate the case and proceeded to PMCH because he had further come to know that the injured had been shifted to PMCH. At PMCH father of Informant died on the same day and Section 302, IPC was subsequently added to the FIR which was initially registered under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. At PMCH father of Informant died on the same day and Section 302, IPC was subsequently added to the FIR which was initially registered under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. The Police prepared an inquest report of the dead body of the father of the Informant visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC. The appellant after trial was found guilty under Section 302, IPC and was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life under this head. 3. The case of appellant before the Court below as it appear from the trend of cross-examination of Informant is that because he had not agreed to proposal of the mother of the Informant to marry her daughter, therefore he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. Jahur Alam (PW-1), Khurshid Alam (PW-2) and Azimul Haque (PW-3) have been declared hostile by prosecution. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh (PW-4) is the doctor who had held autopsy on the body of the deceased. Shahid (PW-5) is the Informant. Kamruddin (PW-6) is the formal witness who has proved his signature as well as the signature of Azimul Haque on the inquest report (Ext. 3 and 3/1, respectively) Bhaiya Pradeep Kumar Sinha (PW-7) is the I.O. of the case. 5. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh (PW-4), the doctor , in his evidence has said that on 16.1.1985 he was attached to PMCH and on that day he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) Penetrating Wounds" X 1/4" X chest cavity deep bn the left side of the chest 2" below the left nipple. Margins were clean cut. The wound was in fifth inter coastal space. The left lung at the region of wound was pierced. Left chest cavity contained 150 cc of blood along with blood clots. (ii) Penetrating wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep was found in the midline of abdomen 2" below the umbilicus. The loops of the intestine at the region of the wound were pierced through. The peritoneal cavity contained 200 cc of blood mixed with food materials. According to the doctor, the death was due to the aforesaid chest and abdominal injuries which were caused by a sharp-piercing weapon such as dagger. The loops of the intestine at the region of the wound were pierced through. The peritoneal cavity contained 200 cc of blood mixed with food materials. According to the doctor, the death was due to the aforesaid chest and abdominal injuries which were caused by a sharp-piercing weapon such as dagger. The time elapsed since dealth was between 24 hours. The post-mortem examination report, proved by him, which is marked as Ext. 1, shows that post-mortem examination commenced at 10.30 a.m. on 16.1.1985. The time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is well within the limit given by the doctor. 6 Shahid (PW-5), the Informant was aged about 11 years on the day he was examined by the Court and the Court after test of this witness certified that witness understood the questions and he was capable of giving answers to them and it thereafter examined him. He has said that on 15.1.1985 at about 9.30 p.m. the appellant came to his tea stall and when his father demanded back money from him, the appellant wanted to give only Rs. 75/- out of Rs. 145/- which he had given to the appellant on the night of previous day for keeping the same with him and when his father demanded the balance amount the appellant whipped out a dagger from his waist and gave blows with dagger on abdomen and chest of his father. He has further stated that his father was taken to hospital by rickshaw by two persons, namely, Shamim and Khurshid and he then went to Pirbahore Police Station where the Officer-in-charge told him that he would take him to hospital on vehicle. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 2). He has further stated that the appellant fled away form the place of occurrence and when he went to PMCH along with Police, he found his father dead. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 2). He has further stated that the appellant fled away form the place of occurrence and when he went to PMCH along with Police, he found his father dead. Bhaiya Pradeep Kumar Sinha (PW-7), the I.O. of the case, has stated that on the day of occurrence he was posted at Pirbahore Police Station when he received information on telephone that an incident of assault by dagger had taken place near Shiya Masjid Lane and when he went there he came to know that the deceased had been injured by dagger and he also met the Informant there and he then ordered S.I. Raghunath Mahto for recording fardbeyan of the Informant and further ordered him for sending the boy on arrival of S.I., K.P. Sinha and that he himself will conduct the investigation. He has proved fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of Informant. He has further stated that he went to PMCH because he had come to know that injured had been shifted to PMCH where he received O.D. Slip from which he came to know that the deceased had died and he then went near the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ext. 5). 7. It is true that in this case on the point of occurrence there is evidence of only Shahid (PW-5), the minor son of deceased who is Informant in this case. The Court below while discussing the evidence of Informant was quite aware of the fact that as the Informant is a child witness, his evidence requires cautious scrutiny which is apparent from the judgment of the Court below. With this view in its mind, the Court below after discussing the evidence of Informant came to a finding that it was the appellant who had given dagger blows to the deceased resulting in his death. I also find that on the point of assault by appellant with a dagger on the deceased, the evidence of Informant is trustworthy. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the Informant in his evidence has stated that after the occurrence he had gone to Pirbahore Police Station where he got his statements, about the assault by the appellant to his father, recorded and when fardbeyan was shown to him, he admitted that it was the same fardbeyan which was recorded at Police Station. But, the prosecution has not brought on record the earlier fardebyan because the fardbeyan which has now been produced by the prosecution for consideration was admittedly recorded at the tea stall of Informant and not at the Pirbahore Police Station. It is true that when the fardbeyan was shown to the Informant, his evidence was being recorded by the Court below and he stated that it was that fardbeyan which was recorded that the Police Station but this statement was given immediately after stating that the fardbeyan which was shown to him was the fardbeyan which was recorded at the tea stall. Besides this, from the evidence of Bhaiya Pradeep Kumar Sinha (PW-7), it is clear that no fardbeyan was recorded at Pirbahore Police Station and the fardbeyan of Informant was recorded at his tea stall which is the first and only fardbeyan. In this view of the matter, the question of non production of fardbeyan recorded at Police Station does not arise. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also drawn my attention towards some contradictions in the evidence of Informant on the point of amount of money which the Informant is said to have given to the appellant for keeping in safe custody, the exact location of the place where he had paid a sum of Rs. 75/- given to him by the appellant to his creditors and his ignorance about the marriage of his sister. On the basis of these contradictions, it has been argued by the learned Counsel of appellant that the evidence of Informant is not reliable as he is not speaking truth. It is true that there are some contradictions on the aforesaid points in the evidence of Informant but these contradictions are minor contradictions and admittedly the Informant was aged about 11 years when he was examined and some contradictions on minor points will not make his evidence unbelievable particularly when his evidence on the point of assault by the appellant on his father with a dagger, appears to be quite convincing and I find no reason to disbelieve him on this point because admittedly his father died of injuries caused by dagger and there was no reason for him to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant. The Court below has found the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC for intentionally causing death of the father of the Informant by giving dagger blows on chest and abdomen. It is the case of prosecution that appellant was keeping some money which was given earlier by Informant and when the appellant at the time of occurrence went to the tea stall of Informant, the money was demanded from him and he gave only a sum of Rs. 75/- out of Rs. 145/- and when balance amount was demanded he became enraged and gave dagger blows to the father of the Informant. This itself proves that the dagger blows were given in the spur of moment and there was no premeditation for committing murder of the deceased because admittedly the appellant had not gone there for that purpose. So, I find that this case squarely falls within the purview of Section 304 (Part-II) IPC. The appellant in this case has remained in custody from 19.6.1985 to 25.9.1987. I further find that on 16.6.1986 when the appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr PC by the Court below, his age was assessed at 18 years but he gave his age as 19 years. If the age of appellant as given by him is taken into consideration, it appears that on the day of occurrence he was a young boy aged about 17 years and 7 months. Taking all these facts into consideration, the appellant is convicted under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for the period already undergone by him in custody in connection with this case and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo R.I. for two years. The aforesaid amount of fine deposited by appellant will be paid to the Informant by the Court below. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine in the Court below within two months from today and if he fail to do so his bail-bonds will stand cancelled and he will be sent to jail custody to serve out the sentence imposed on him as stated above in default to pay fine. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above. 10. I agree.