BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) WHEN this appeal came for hearing before a bench of this Court, on 16th of August 2004, it remanded the matter to the trial Court for recording the evidence of Master Shekar, son of the accused and deceased, as the court found that he was the prime witness in the matter. Now the statement has been recorded and submitted to this Court by the trial Court. The allegations against the accused were that in the intervening night of 21/22-12-2000 at Kotaiah Camp of Varni mandal, he committed murder of his wife named Narsavva by axing her to death. A charge was framed under Section 302 of i. P. C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in the first instance and on remand, P. W. 13 was also examined. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 of i. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also find with Rs. 2,000/-, in default, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story was that the deceased and accused were husband and wife and they were sleeping in a room along with P. W. 13 a minor child of the couple. During the night, the husband-accused hacked the deceased to death. One of the main objections taken by the learned Counsel for the defence is that the occurrence had taken place on 20-12-2000 and P. W. 13 was aged between 4 and 5 at that time. His statement was now recorded on 20th of october 2004 therefore it will not be safe to rely on his testimony to convict the accused because, whatever he had seen at the age of 4 to 5, would not perhaps be narrated by him after about 5 years. We will consider this objection after going into the testimony of other witnesses. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was her daughter and she was given in marriage to the accused about 15 years before. Accused was a resident of Chandoor village. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased lived happily and three children were born to them. Two of them died while one male child is alive. She stated that the deceased was her daughter and she was given in marriage to the accused about 15 years before. Accused was a resident of Chandoor village. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased lived happily and three children were born to them. Two of them died while one male child is alive. A year before the death of her daughter, the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other and a panchayat was held before the village Sarpanch. Accused agreed before the panchayat that thereafter he would not harass the deceased. On the day of occurrence she, her husband and deceased attended the marriage of one balraj and when they returned to their house by 9 p. m. , she and her daughter-in-law slept in one hut and the accused slept along with his wife and child in another hut. During the midnight, her grandson Shaker came to their hut. He was weeping and he informed her that the accused had hacked the deceased with an axe on stomach and killed her. Immediately she and her daughter-in-law went towards the hut of the accused and noticed that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. She went to the Police Station Varni and filed a written complaint. Police examined her and recorded her statement. Ex. P-1 was the complaint given by her to the Police. She was put to long cross-examination, but nothing worthwhile was stated by her which could be of any help to the defence. She denied the suggestion that Narsawa, the deceased had left the house of accused fora period of one year without the knowledge of accused. She also stated in her cross- examination that during that night, her husband was not in the house. He had slept in the same village in the house of his eldest daughter. ( 4 ) P. W. 2 is the daughter-in-law of P. W. 1. She also stated that they hand gone to attend a marriage. After return, she slept along with her mother-in-law P. W. 1. Deceased and accused slept in another room along with their child Master Shekar. At about 4 a. m. in the early morning, the son of deceased by name Shekar went to their room and informed them that the accused had killed the deceased. After return, she slept along with her mother-in-law P. W. 1. Deceased and accused slept in another room along with their child Master Shekar. At about 4 a. m. in the early morning, the son of deceased by name Shekar went to their room and informed them that the accused had killed the deceased. She and her mother-in-law i. e. P. W. 1 went to the room of accused and saw the dead body of deceased. Intestines had come out from the deceased s stomach. She wentto hereldersister-in-law s house, where her father-in-law was sleeping and informed him. She was examined by the Police. ( 5 ) P. W. 3 is the father of the deceased. He also stated that on the day of occurrence he had gone to the marriage along with P. Ws. 1 and 2 After return, he slept in the house of his eldest daughter in the same village. At about 2 a. m. in the night, his daughter-in-law and his wife came to the place and informed him that deceased had been killed and the accused had run away. He also rushed to the house and found the dead body. P. W. 4 is the cousin of deceased. She stated that she came to know on the next day morning that the deceased had been murdered. P. W. 5 stated that the accused had suspected the character of his wife and therefore a panchayat was held before the caste elders and panchayat had advised him to live amicably with his wife and thereafter, the accused and deceased were living together in the house of P. Ws. 1 and 3. His house is by the side of the house of accused. He stated that on the day of occurrence, the deceased and accused were sleeping in a room along with their child. His house and P. W. 1 s house were adjacent to each other. In the early morning he heard the cries of minor child shekar and P. W. 1. Then he went to the room. Then P. W. 1 and minor child Shekar informed him that the accused had hacked narsavva with an axe and ran away. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 was the Sarpanch of the village, who also tried to resolve the disputes between the deceased and the accused. P. W. 7 is a witness to the inquest. Then P. W. 1 and minor child Shekar informed him that the accused had hacked narsavva with an axe and ran away. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 was the Sarpanch of the village, who also tried to resolve the disputes between the deceased and the accused. P. W. 7 is a witness to the inquest. P. W. 8 is a witness to the recovery of axe, which was recovered at the disclosure made by the accused. Axe was produced by him under a panchanama in Ex. P-6. He identified M. O. 1 axe. P. W-9 is a photographer. P. W. 10 is A. S. I. , who received the complaint and registered the crime. P. W. 11 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem. He found the following injuries on the body of deceased;"external injuries: 1. Wound on left side of abdomen lateral to the mid line half an inch below the arch of ribs measuring 3 X 2 inches and opening into the abdominal cavity. Intestines loose with blood fat and faecial matters coming out from the wound, intestinal loobs were cut oepn and faecial matter coming out from the lumen of intestines. The wound mentioned above is a cut wound: on dissection:1. Loobs of small intestine were cut open at two places, faecial matter coming out. 2. Left loob of liver as lacerated irregularly. The injuries were antemortem in nature. The cause of death according to him, was shock and haemorrhage. P. W. 12 is the Circle inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation. ( 7 ) IN this case, we had sought the assistance of Mr. padmanabha Reddy, Senior advocate. So, we heard him also. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that even without the statement of the child witness whose statement was recorded after remand, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused. He submits that in terms of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, the statements of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 are admissible in evidence. Illustration (a) of section 6 of the Evidence Act lays down;" (A) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by slanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. Illustration (a) of section 6 of the Evidence Act lays down;" (A) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by slanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. "he submits that P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 were informed by the child about the occurrence immediately after the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5, though hearsay, is admissible in evidence and evidence of such type is an exception to the general rule of non- admissibility of hearsay. In this connection, he relies on the following judgments of supreme Court, reported in: (1) Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (2) Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In paras 9 and 10 of this judgment, the court held;"9. IN another recent judgment of this court in Rattan Singh v. State of H. P. , (1997) 4 SCC 161 : (1997 AIR SCW 587 : AIR 1997 SC 768 :1997 Crl. L. J. 833), this Court examined the applicability of section 6 of the Evidence Act to the statement of the deceased and held thus (Para 16, of AIR SCW, AIR and crl. LJ.):". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE aforesaid statement of Kanta Devi can be admitted under Section 6 of the Evidence Act on account of its proximity of time to the act of murder. Illustration a as to Section 6 makes it clear. It reads thus: (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. Here the act of the assailant intruding into the courtyard during dead of the night, victim s identification of the assailant, her pronouncement that appellant was standing with a gun and his firing the gun at her, are all circumstances so intertwined with each other by proximity of time and space that the statement of the deceased became part of the same transaction. Hence it is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 10. Hence it is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 10. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid two cases to the evidence of P. W. 2, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that his statement indicating that the injured told him that his nephew has fired at him, would become admissible under Section 6 of the evidence Act. We are, therefore, unable to accept the first submission of ms. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. (3) Rattan Singh v. State of H. P. 3. In para 16 of this judgment, the supreme Court held; "even apart from Section 32 (1) of the evidence Act, the aforesaid statement of Kanta Devi can be admitted under section 6 of the Evidence Act on account of its proximity of time to the act of murder. Illustration a a to Section 6 makes it clear. It reads thus: " (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. "here the act of the assailant intruding into the courtyard during dead of the night, victim s identification of the assailant, her pronouncement that appellant was standing with a gun and hi firing the gun at her, are all circumstances so intertwined with each other by proximity of time and space that the statement of the deceased became part of the same transaction. Hence it is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Even in these judgments, same principles have been laid down. Therefore, even if the evidence of the child witness is eschewed, even then, in our view, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. ( 8 ) FOR these reasons, we do not wish to go to the statement of the child witness although he has fully supported the prosecution story. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.