Judgment 1. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellant, named above, has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The informant of the case is one Sunil Chandra Jha, Sub Inspector of Police. The said Sunil Chandra Jha in his written report dated 8th September, 1996 stated that on 8th September, 1996 at 6.45 A.M. he got rumour that a dead body of a female was lying in open field near the house of one Sheo Kumar Rai of Ram Nagar Colony. On this information, he along with a Home Guard No. 177, Bharat Kishore Mahto went to the place and saw a crowd in the field near the house of Sheo Kumar Rai. He saw a dead body of female and on enquiry from the people came to know that the dead body was of one Sugandhi Devi, wife of Jai Kishore Sharma. She was living with her husband and daughter Rinki Kumari in a rented house of Niranjan Yadav. He searched the house of the deceased and found two empty (divris) Kerosene lamps on the verandah, a match box and a number of match sticks scattered on the Verandah. He found pieces of clothe and burn Sari. He seized them and prepared a seizure list. The adjacent room in the western side of the Verandah was found to have been locked and there was smell of Kerosene oil coming out from that room through an open window. A neighbour Arun Kumar Jha disclosed that on the last night at about 11 P.M., when he was going to take meal, he heard the cry 'Bachao Bachao Jala Dia Ray' and when came out of his house saw Sugandhi Devi was burning near the stair case. A number of persons of the vicinity gathered on hearing the alarm and saved Sugandhi Devi. They slapped Jai Kishore Sharma and asked him to proceed to Hospital for treatment of the victim lady. One person from amongst the crowd also gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Jai Kishore Sharma. Thereafter, Jai Kishore Sharma brought a Tempo, took her wife along with daughter and proceeded to Hospital for treatment. They slapped Jai Kishore Sharma and asked him to proceed to Hospital for treatment of the victim lady. One person from amongst the crowd also gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Jai Kishore Sharma. Thereafter, Jai Kishore Sharma brought a Tempo, took her wife along with daughter and proceeded to Hospital for treatment. He further stated that in the morning, when he woke up on alarm, came to know that the dead body of Sugandhi Devi was lying near the house of Sheo Kumar Rai in the open field. He went there and saw the crowd; surrounding the dead body.' Jai Kishore Sharma was not present there. He further disclosed that Jai Kishore Sharma always used to assault his wife. The informant further stated that on enquiry from Rinki Kumari aged about nine years, she disclosed that on the last night there was a quarrel between her mother and father, thereafter she slept. On hearing the cry of her mother, she woke up and saw her mother burning. Thereafter, they went to Hospital on a Tempo. In the way her father advised her to say that her mother burnt of a Stove while cooking. She further disclosed that after return from the Hospital her father told that he was going to bring money, but he did not return. She also went to search him. When she returned, saw the dead body of her mother lying in the field. She further told that her real father is another person. He used to beat her and her mother due to which her mother letter (sic-left?) her father. The informant further stated that on enquiry, he came to know that the deceased was the second wife of Jai Kishore Sharma and was not legally married wife. Jai Kishore Sharma wanted to get rid of her and hence he committed murder by sprinking Kerosene oil on her body and setting her on fire. On this report, a Chas P.S. Case No. 204 of 1996 under sections 302/201, I.P.C. was registered. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 302/201 I.P.C., cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session on 4th July, 1997. 4. The accused-appellant denied the allegation and had taken plea that he was falsely implicated in this case. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 302/201 I.P.C., cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session on 4th July, 1997. 4. The accused-appellant denied the allegation and had taken plea that he was falsely implicated in this case. He also took plea that the deceased was not living with him as husband and wife, the deceased was a lady of a bad character. 5. Altogether, eight witnesses were examined. P.W. 1, Hare Ram Mishra, P.W. 3, Son pari Devi, P.W. 4, Tej Narain Singh and P.W. 7, Urmila Devi were declared hostile witnesses. P.W. 6, Dr. R.P. Sharma, conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased and submitted report. P.W. 8, Manoj Kumar Jha, a constable is the for mal witness. The case was mainly based In the sole eye witness, P.W. 2, Rinki Kumari, a minor daughter of the deceased of about nine years old (about ten years at the time of deposition) and P.W. 5, Sunil 8handra Jha, informant, a hearsay witness. 6. As pointed out, P.W. 1, Hare Ram Mishra was declared hostile having not supported the case of the prosecution. Even during cross-examination, he denied to have any knowledge of the incident and also denied to have made any statement before the police. He stated that he was not knowing the accused Jai Kishore Sharma. In this case, the I.O. was not examined. So the contradiction was not brought on the record, though the case diary was proved. 7. P.W. 2, Rinki Kumari, minor daughter of the deceased is the only eye witness. She stated that she was living with her mother Sugandhi Devi (deceased), who died on a Sunday. She, her mother, Rina Devi and Jai Kishore Sharma were living in one room. Jai Kishore was her step father. On the alleged night, there was a quarrel between her mother and Jai Kishore. The accused assaulted her mother. Thereafter, she slept. She further stated that Jai Kishore Sharma sprinkled Kerosene on her mother and set fire. When her mother cried 'Bachaa Bachaa Jala Dia Ray', she woke up and saw her mother bruning. On hearing the cry of her mother, people of the locality (Mohalla) assembled. They assaulted Jai Kishore Sharma. The accused assaulted her mother. Thereafter, she slept. She further stated that Jai Kishore Sharma sprinkled Kerosene on her mother and set fire. When her mother cried 'Bachaa Bachaa Jala Dia Ray', she woke up and saw her mother bruning. On hearing the cry of her mother, people of the locality (Mohalla) assembled. They assaulted Jai Kishore Sharma. She further stated that Jai Kishore Sharma tutored her to say that her mother burnt by a Stove while cooking. She further stated that no food was cooked on the fateful night and they slept without taking meal. P.W. 2, Rinki Kumari during her cross examination disclosed that Jai Kishore Sharma was not her own father, but was her step father. Shankar was her real father who used to assault Sugandhi Devi. Jai Kishore had told her mother that he will keep her happily arid lured her. On the assurance Of Jai Kishore, they left Delhi along with Jai Kishore while she was minor. She further disclosed that her mother was not married with Jai Kishore, though she was living with him. During the cross-examination, PW-2, Rinki Kumari, remained firm on her statement and said that she had seen the accused sprinkled Kerosene oil on her mother and set her on fire. At one stage, she stated that while she was coming, her grand-father and Wakil Sahab (Advocate) told her to tell the things which she had stated. 8. P.W. 3, Sonpari Devi having not supported the case of prosecution was declared hostile. But she stated that Jai Kishore Sharma was her neighbour and she knows his daughter Rinki. She further stated that mother of Rinki (deceased) was not alive, died about 1 1/2 years back. She denied to have made any statement that she stated before the Police that the accused-appellant burnt his wife. 9. P.W. 4, Tej Narain Singh stated that Sugandhi Devi died as a result of burn, but did not support the case of prosecution that the accused appellant burnt her. He deneid to have made any statement before the Police. So he was declared hostile. 10. P.W. 5, Sunil Chandra Jha, Sub Inspector and the informant of the case supported the case as was made out by him in his written report. He proved the written report (Ext. 1), formal F.I.R. (Ext. 2), and the signature on formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3). So he was declared hostile. 10. P.W. 5, Sunil Chandra Jha, Sub Inspector and the informant of the case supported the case as was made out by him in his written report. He proved the written report (Ext. 1), formal F.I.R. (Ext. 2), and the signature on formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3). He stated on 8th September, 1996 he heard rumour that dead body of a female was lying in the open field near the house of Sheo Kumar Rai in the Ram Nagar Colony. On hearing such rumour, when he proceeded, found the dead body of the deceased lying in the open field near the louse of Sheo Kumar Rai. There was little blood on the forehead of the deceased. He gathered information that the deceased was Nife of Jai Kishore Sharma and her name was Sugandhi Devi. They were living as a tenant in the house of Niranjan Yadav on rent and she has a daughter whose name s Rinki Kumari, aged about nine years. When he searched the house of the deceased, found two empty Kerosene lamps (Divris) on the Verandah and a match box. Match sticks were scattered on the Verandah. He found pieces of. clothe and Sari. The adjacent room was locked and smell of kerosene oil was coming out of the room through the open window. Neighbour Arun Kumar Jha disclosed that on the last night at about 11 P.M., he heard the cry of Sugandhi Devi 'bachao bachao jala dia ray'. On hearing 'the cry, when he came out, saw Sugandhi Devi, was burning under the staring case. A number of persons of the locality came there and saved Sugandhi Devi. Arun Kumar Sharma also deprecated the action of Jai Kishore Sharma and asked him to proceed for treatment. One amongst the crowd also gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to Jai Kishore Sharma. Thereafter, Jai Kishore Sharma brought a Tempo and proceeded for hospital along with his wife and daughter for treatment. In the morning, when he woke up on alarm, saw that the dead body of Sugandhi Devi was lying in the open field near the house of Sheo Kumar Rai. He went there and saw the crowd, but Jai Kishore Sharma was not present there. The informant also reiterated the information he gathered from Rinki Kumari and reiterated the version of F.I.R. 11. P.W. 6, Dr. He went there and saw the crowd, but Jai Kishore Sharma was not present there. The informant also reiterated the information he gathered from Rinki Kumari and reiterated the version of F.I.R. 11. P.W. 6, Dr. R.P. Verma conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Sugandhi Devi. He stated that this was a case of ante mortem dry flame burn injury covering almost and about 99% of the body surface causing epidemical and demio epidermal burn injuries. As to the cause of death, it was stated that the cardio respiratory failure took place due to hypovolacmic shock and exclusive burn injuries. He proved the post mortem report marked as Ext. 4. 12. P.W. 7, Urmila Devi having not supported the case of prosecution, she was declared hostile. 13. P.W 8 who is constable has proved the case diary. 14. The counsel for the appellant mainly took the following grounds: P.W 2, Rinki Kumari is a minor and a tutored witness. Her statement should not be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty; During the cross examination, P.W 2 Rinki Kumari accepted that she was tutored by her Nana (maternal Grand father) and Wakil Sahab (Advocate) who asked her to give such statement. 15. It is true that a child witness is prone to tutor and hence the Court should look for corroboration particularly when the evidence betrays traces of torturing. A preliminary examination is required to determine the competency of witness [Supreme Court decision in Arbind Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1995 (Supp.) 4 S.C.C. 416]. 16, However, if the preliminary question is put to a child witness and he satisfies by answering questions intelligently without any fear and whatsoever, in a searching cross examination, if such child witness withstands the same, the statement of such witnesses can be accepted. (Baby Kandayanathil vs. State of Kerala, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2275). 17. In the examination-in-chief, P.W 2 Rinki Kumari narrated the occurrence in detail. She stated that her mother Sugandhi Devi was lured by Jai Kishore Sharma and brought her from Delhi to reside-with him. She made it clear that Jai Kishore Sharma was her step-father. She also made it clear that Sugandhi Devi was not the married wife of Jai Kishore Sharma. She stated that her mother Sugandhi Devi was lured by Jai Kishore Sharma and brought her from Delhi to reside-with him. She made it clear that Jai Kishore Sharma was her step-father. She also made it clear that Sugandhi Devi was not the married wife of Jai Kishore Sharma. Her age was about 9 (nine) years, but she disclosed the story of the fateful night when her mother quarrelled with Jai Kishore Sharma. She heard the cry of her mother 'Bachao Bachao Jala Dia Ray' and saw her mother burning. She explained how Jai Kishore Sharma was advised by the neighbours to take her mother to Hospital, but she was brought back and why the dead body was found in the open field near the house of one Kumar Rai. Even during the cross examination, P.W. 2 withstood the statement as was made during the examination-in-chief. During the cross examination, she made it clear that the accused sprinkled Kerosene oil and burnt her mother. 18. One could have doubted the statement of P.W. 2, Rinki Kumari as a tutored witness, she having said that her Nana and Wakil Sahab told her to say certain things. But no reliance can be placed on such minor contradiction because the P.W. 2, Rinki Kumari made similar statement before the informant (P.W. 5), more than a year back when the F.I.R. was lodged. As such her statement cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the witness is a tutored witness or she being a child witness is prone to tutor. In fact, the statement of P.W. 2 is corroborated by the informant (P.W. 5) and the post mortem report. 19. In the aforesaid circumstance, I find no ground made out to doubt the case of the prosecution or to differ with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 20. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. Lakshman Uraon, J.- I agree.