Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The sole appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Jadunath Kisku on 19th June, 1989. 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that at about 8.00 a.m. on 19.6.1989 the informant, Chinta Mani Kisku, along with her father Jadunath Kisku had gone south of the village to tend their cattle and when the cattle were grazing and her father was sitting in a field, Somai Soren, the appellant attacked him with a Tangi from behind upon which her father stood up and protested against being attacked by him but without caring for it, the appellant dragged him to a nearby ditch and hit him by Tangi (axe) again, killing him on the spot. On seeing the assault, the informant raised hulla, on hearing of which Gosai Ram Karmkar (PW 4) who was also grazing his cattle in the nearby field saw the deceased being attacked by the appellant. The informant thereafter ran to the house of the Chowkidar and informed him about the occurrence who came along with her at the place of occurrence and saw bleeding injuries on the body of her father. The police came to the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on the basis of which formal FIR was drawn up and registered at the parent police station, Chakulia. The IO, after making necessary investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on the basis of which Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, took cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellant. Being aggrieved thereby, he has filed this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, has raised the following submissions: (i) There are only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence one of whom namely PW 4 has, in his cross-examination, admitted that he has neither heard the hulla, nor did he see the deceased being attacked by the appellant and the other eye-witness (PW 5) is a child witness of tender age whose testimony should not be relied upon, specially in view of the fact that it consists of contradiction and omissions. In this connection, it has been submitted that in her fardbeyan PW 5 has stated that the cause of murder of her father by the appellant is the dispute about the land but no such statement has been made in her testimony recorded before the Court. It is also pointed out that in the fardbeyan she has stated that after her father was hit from behind by the appellant, he stood up and protested but nothing of the kind was said by her in her testimony. (ii) PW 5 was not present on the place of occurrence because PW 4 in his testimony has said that when he went to the deceased for taking chewing tobacco (Khaini) he was alone and none else was present over there, and (iii) Non-examination of Chowkidar, who accompanied the informant to the police station and translated her statement from Santhali to Hindi on the basis of which her fardbeyan was recorded, has caused serious infirmity in the prosecution case. For the reasons given below, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 4 The prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW 1 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. PW 2 is the witness on the seizure list. PW 3 is another witness on the seizure list and has been tendered. PW 4 is the eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 5 is the informent who has also seen the occurrence and PW 6 is the IO. 5. PW 4 was aged about 70 years at the time when his evidence was recorded by the Court. He has said in his testimony that he is hard of hearing and has weak eye-sight. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he has neither heard the hulla at the time of attack on the deceased, nor did he see the deceased being attacked. In view of his statement in his cross-examination, the evidence of this witness cannot be relied upon for the purpose of recording conviction under Section 302, IPC. 6. The main witness in this case is the informant (PW 5) who is the minor daughter of the deceased, Jadunath Kisku. At the time of occurrence in June 1989, she was aged about 9 years and when her testimony was recorded in the Court she was about 10 years old. 6. The main witness in this case is the informant (PW 5) who is the minor daughter of the deceased, Jadunath Kisku. At the time of occurrence in June 1989, she was aged about 9 years and when her testimony was recorded in the Court she was about 10 years old. In her fardbeyan, she has clearly stated that the appellant came from behind and attacked her father with Tangi and thereafter dragged him to nearby ditch and then he killed him with Tangi. In her testimony recorded before the trial Court, she has reiterated what was stated by her in the fardbeyan. She successfully stood cross-examination by the defence when searching questions were put to her. The prosecution case and the testimony of the informant are supported by the medical evidence also. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body, has found the following injuries: (i) Abrasion 2" x 2" x 1/8" over the left knee joint. (ii) Abrasion 2" x 1" x 1/8" over the left side of forehead. (iii) Incised wound 2.1/2" x 1/2" x 2" on outer the left side of lower part of neck cutting the mussles and tissues left carotid artery and left jugular vein with blood clots. (iv) Incised wound 2.1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the back side of upper part of neck cutting the mussles and tissues of neck. The Doctor has opined that the injury No. (iii) could be caused by Tangi and the injury Nos. (i) and (ii) may be caused by dragging of the deceased. 7 The testimony of a child witness is admissible in evidence on the basis of which conviction can be recorded. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and others V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 , the Apex Court as regards evidence of the child witness has laid down as under: "5. ...A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words, even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. In other words, even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. 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 mir.d while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a 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...". The same rule has been reiterated in Panchhi and others V/s. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 : 1998 (2) East Cr C 924 (SC), by the Apex Court holding as under : "11. ...But we do not subscribe to the view that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievable stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring...". "12. Courts have laid down that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law (vide Prakash V/s. State of M.P.; Baby Kandavanthil v. State of Kerala; Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar and Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra)." 8. From perusal of the testimony of the informant (PW 5), it is clear that she was not tutored. She has fully supported the prosecution case and has stood successfully the searching cross-examination by the defence Counsel. Her testimony and the prosecution case are also supported by the medical evidence. From perusal of the testimony of the informant (PW 5), it is clear that she was not tutored. She has fully supported the prosecution case and has stood successfully the searching cross-examination by the defence Counsel. Her testimony and the prosecution case are also supported by the medical evidence. The contradictions and omissions pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant are of trivial nature not affecting the substratum of the prosecution case. 9. PW 4, who is an old man and woman about 70 years old at the relevant time, has himself said in his testimony that he is hard of hearing and has weak eye-sight. He has denied seeing the assault by the appellant on the deceased. According to his testimony, he had gone to the deceased for getting tobacco much before he was attacked and killed. He may not have seen the informant who was grazing her cattle in the nearby field due to weak eye-sight but on that account the presence of the informant at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. She has been cross-examined at length and there is nothing in her testimony costing doubt on her presence on the place of occurrence at the time of attack by the appellant. This PW has neither said, nor could he say about the presence of the informant on the place of occurrence at the time of attack on the deceased because he was not present over there, according to his own statement. 10. The Chowkidar is not the eye-witness. His non-examination does not affect the prosecution case in any manner. His only contribution was that he accompanied the informant to the police station where he translated her statement from Santhali to Hindi in which her fardbyan was recorded. It is not the case of the appellant that the Chowkidar did not translate informants statement before the police correctly. The fact that the Chowkidar correctly translated her statement is proved by the testimony of the informant which has corroborated the prosecution case. 11. In view of the clear and unimpeachable testimony of PW 5 who has fully supported the prosecution case which is also corroborated by the medical evidence, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant. 12. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. A.K.Prasad, J. 13 I agree.