JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 24.4.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in S.T. Case No. 154-D of 1990 whereby and whereunder the Appellants have been convicted-under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian. Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The horrendous story as portrayed by the prosecution in course-of trial is as follows: Appellants Sadhu an Kadu are brothers. Sadhu and married the deceased Dalimba, who was staying in the house of the Appellants. The Appellants, however, suspected on the character of Dalimba that she had extra marital relationship with the younger brother of her husband. In 'the evening of 20.05.1990, the deceased Dalimba and her sister Saubhagini (P.W.4) were sleeping in the bed room. At that juncture, both the Appellants entered inside the said room. Appellant Sadhu started quarrelling with his wife Dalimba. In course of the quarrel, both the Appellants tied the deceased Dalimba with a rope and dragged her out of the room. Then they dealt axe blows on her, carried her outside and threw the dead body into a tank. P.W.4 Saubhagini, after seeing her sister being subjected to utmost cruelty, cried out for help, but it did not evoke any response from the Appellants. On the following morning, P.W.4 made a query about the whereabouts of her sister Dalimba, to which the Appellants impressed upon her that she had gone out for setting Potal (a kind of vegetable).. After some time, Appellant Kadu took P.W.4 to her father's house. On the way, they'-met the mother and the brother (P.W.3) of P.W.4. Appellant Kadu disclosed before them that the deceased Dalimba was missing from the previous night. On hearing this P.W.3 returned to his house where as P.W.4 and her mother went to the house of the Appellants to ascertain the actual position. On the way P.W.4 narrated before her mother that the deceased was severely assaulted-by the axe and thereafter was lifted on a cot from the house. On the next day, a rumour was afloat that a dead body was floating in the tank, locally known as "Nua Bandh". On the way P.W.4 narrated before her mother that the deceased was severely assaulted-by the axe and thereafter was lifted on a cot from the house. On the next day, a rumour was afloat that a dead body was floating in the tank, locally known as "Nua Bandh". The dead body was identified to be of the deceased Dalimba, In the meanwhile, Bikram Bariha (P.W.2), the father of the deceased, had lodged an information before the Chhendipada police-station that the dead body of his daughter Dalimba was found floating in the tank. On the basis of such information. F.I.R was. registered and the O.I.C. of the P.S. immediately swung into action. He proceeded to the lank, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Dalimba and sent the same for post mortem examination. Then he visited the spot, examined witnesses, arrested the Appellants and seized the blood-stained axe on production by Appellant Sadhu while in police custody. He also seized the wearing apparels of the Appellants as well as the deceased and a stone alleged to have been tied with the dead body while throwing the same into water. The incriminating materials were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s 302 and 201, read with Section 34, IPC was placed against both the Appellants. 3. The defence plea was one of complete denial of the occurrence. In their statement recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellants claimed to have been falsely implicated by the parents of the deceased on account of previous enmity. 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined as may as fourteen witnesses. P.W.I was the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, who was present at the time of making inquest over the dead body. P.Ws.6 and 7 were also witnesses to the inquest. P.W.2 was the informant and the father of the deceased, P.W.3 was the brother of the deceased and P.W.4 was the younger sister of the deceased. P.Ws.5, 10 and 11 were seizure witnesses. P.W.9 was the Grama Rakhi who saw the dead body of the deceased floating in the tank and sent information to the police-station. P.W.12 was also a witness to the floating of the dead body of the deceased in the tank. P.W.13 was the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body, and P.W.14 was the investigating officer. P.W.9 was the Grama Rakhi who saw the dead body of the deceased floating in the tank and sent information to the police-station. P.W.12 was also a witness to the floating of the dead body of the deceased in the tank. P.W.13 was the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body, and P.W.14 was the investigating officer. The learned Sessions Judge, on an elaborate discussion and evaluation of the evidence placed by the prosecution held both the Appellants guilty u/s 302, read with Section 34, IPC for having committed the murder of the deceased Dalimba in furtherance of their common intention, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the order of their conviction and sentence, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Mr. Biswal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, strongly contended that the trial Court has placed undue emphasis on the testimony of P.W.4 who is a child witness aged about eight years. There was every possibility of she being tutored by her relations. It was further contended that if, in fact, she had disclosed the names of the Appellants as the assailants of her sister before her mother, then why in the missing report the names of the culprits had not been disclosed. He also contended that the F.I.R. was lodged after due deliberation and consultation only with a view to rope in the Appellants with the Crime on account of previous enmity. These aspects have not been considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the order of conviction and' sentence passed by it does not stand the test of judicial, scrutiny. 6. While examining the contentions of Mr. Biswal, we have carefully considered the evidence of P.W.4. She was aged about eight years at the time of her examination in Court. She was the only witness available who claimed to have seen the incident through the gap of the door. She presented a vivid story about the manner in which cruelty on her sister had taken place. It is true that she is a child witness. But, merely because of that, no general principle can be laid down that her testimony has to be discarded, if otherwise found true and credible. She presented a vivid story about the manner in which cruelty on her sister had taken place. It is true that she is a child witness. But, merely because of that, no general principle can be laid down that her testimony has to be discarded, if otherwise found true and credible. It is found that before recording her evidence, sufficient care was taken by the learned Sessions Judge to test her power of understanding by putting some questions, and in his opinion, the witness was able to give rational and reasonable answers. From her testimony, it has been amply clear that her sister married to the Appellant Sadhu. She (P.W.4) had gone to the house of the Appellants on the Sunday preceding the date of occurrence along with her uncle Kulamani and brother Kapil (P.W.3). Her uncle and brother went back to their house whereas she stayed in her sister's house. In the evening time, while she was sleeping with her sister Dalimba, the Appellant came and picked up quarrel with the deceased. In the process of quarrel, they tied Dalimba by a rope and subjected her to utmost cruelty by inflicting blows by a Tangia (axe). She died of the injuries by such Tangia in the courtyard. Then both the Appellants took her dead body on a cot. After their return, on her query they replied that the deceased had gone to sell Potal. When she made an attempt to cry aloud; they dealt fist blows on her. On the request made by an old man, the Appellants agreed to leave her in her father's house. Thereafter Appellant Kadu took her on a bicycle. On the way, they met her mother and brother (P.W.3). Appellant Kadu impressed upon them that the deceased was missing from the house since the previous evening. Then P.W.3 went back to his house whereas she and her mother came back to the house of the Appellants to ascertain about the incident. On the way, she narrated the woes of her sister as to how she suffered the trauma meted out by the Appellants. Even though she is a child witness, she has been able to withstand the incisive and searching cross-examination made by the defence. She has stoutly denied the suggestion that she was giving false evidence as per the instructions of her parents and brother. Even though she is a child witness, she has been able to withstand the incisive and searching cross-examination made by the defence. She has stoutly denied the suggestion that she was giving false evidence as per the instructions of her parents and brother. It was also brought out by the defence during cross-examination as to how she was able to see the incident which had taken place in the courtyard. 7. Another limb of contention raised by Mr. Biswal is that if Dalimba was subjected to such extreme cruelty, either inside the room or in the courtyard, how could there be no trace of blood at the time of visit of the investigating officer? From the evidence of P.W.4 it is apparent that at the time of incident it was raining. Even assuming that there might be some blood, it must have been washed out on account of such rain. Furthermore, on the verandah of the house of the Appellants, some blood patch could be detected for which sample earth was collected. But, blood could not be detected therefrom on account of lapse of time. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that if the family members of the deceased had already known about the death of Dalimba, then why in the missing report the same, of the Appellants had not been mentioned. The missing report was lodged by P.W.2. the father of the deceased immediately after having come to know from Appellant Kadu that Dalimba was missing from the house since the preceding evening. He had no knowledge that Dalimba had been subjected to in human treatment and assault by the Appellants. It is strange to note that the missing report had not been summoned by the defence. We are at a loss to understand, if the deceased was missing in the preceding evening, how did the Appellants keep quiet during the night without keeping the police informed and one of them only went in the following morning to inform the parents of Dalimba? 9. P.W.2, the father of the deceased, has made the position further clear. He has stated that after lodging the missing report at Chhendipada police-station, he could learn at Kasala market that the dead body of his daughter was found floating in Nua Bandh. So, he along with Ors. went there and found the deadbody of his daughter floating. 9. P.W.2, the father of the deceased, has made the position further clear. He has stated that after lodging the missing report at Chhendipada police-station, he could learn at Kasala market that the dead body of his daughter was found floating in Nua Bandh. So, he along with Ors. went there and found the deadbody of his daughter floating. Thereafter he again went to Chhendipada P.S. and lodged the F.I.R. After lodging of the F.I.R., the O.I.C. came to the tank and recovered the dead body of Dalimba in presence of the Tahasildar (P.W.1) and held inquest over the same, in cross-examination, it has been further clarified that he first gave a missing report as regards non-availability of Dalimba, followed by a detailed report after having come to know about the dead body floating in the tank. P.W.3 has also narrated that the Appellant Kadu came with P.W.4 and impressed upon them about the missing of Dalimba. But, subsequently when P.W.4 presented a graphic picture, Kadu was confronted with the statement, to which he denied. Merely because he had denied, it cannot be inferred that he was innocent. 10. From the statement of P.W. 13 the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body, it is seen that Dalimba had received the following injuries: (1) Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm. on anterior aspect of left shoulder joint. (2) Incised wound 7.5 cm. x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm. on the lateral surface of left arm, 12cm. below injury No. 1. (3) Incised wound 10 cm x 2.5 cm x 5 cm on tempera-occipital region of left side of head, 5 cm. behind the ear. Underlying skull bones were cut, fractured and depressed. (4) Incised wound 5 cm x 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on the occipital bone. 3 cm. posterior to injury No. 3 Underlying bone was cut. (5) Incised wound 7.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on the front side neck directed towards left. Underlying larinx, trachea, oseophagus. large vessels of muscles were cut and lacerated. The cervical third, fourth vertebrae were grazed. (6) Incised wound 5 cm. x 5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on upper right shoulder : region cutting the scapula vertically. (7) Incised wound 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on right scapula. 4 cm. below the injury No. 6. (8). large vessels of muscles were cut and lacerated. The cervical third, fourth vertebrae were grazed. (6) Incised wound 5 cm. x 5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on upper right shoulder : region cutting the scapula vertically. (7) Incised wound 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on right scapula. 4 cm. below the injury No. 6. (8). Tip of the nose was cut and missing. (9) Upper lip was cut and missing. (10) Upper incisor canine teeth on either side were missing from gum. The teeth cavities were filed up with coagulated blood stain. On dissection, P.W.13 found that the brain matter was effused with blood turned into liquid mass. The heart was soft flabby and empty. Lungs were soft and collapse. Liver was soft and flabby. He opined that all the injuries were homicidal, grievous and ante mortem in nature and could be caused by sharp cutting weapon. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs. Injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause instantaneous death. The size and dimension of the injuries would only suggest that extreme cruelty was meted out to the deceased Dalimba. 11. Considering the gravity of the offence and also the evidence placed by the prosecution as detailed above, we have no other option but to uphold the conviction and sentence passed against Appellants. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed P.K. Misra. J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed