A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) PEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-3-1998 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Sehore Camp ashata in Sessions Trial No. 77/97 convicting the appellant under Sections 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI of six months, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2 ) IN brief, the case of prosecution is that complainant-Durga Bai is the wife of appellant and got married to him 4-5 years prior to the date of incident. Jasoda Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') is the mother of complainani-Durga Bai and used to go to the house of her daughter Durga bai frequently. The appellant was having certain doubt about the character of his wife as well as of deceased. The appellant was insisting his wife not to go to the house of her mother. ( 3 ) TWO days earlier to the incident, appellant brought an axe, embedded wooden stick in it and kept it in the house. On the date of incident when appellant went to his work place as he is a labourer, he warned the complainant-Durga Bai that today her mother (deceased) will not be spared. On the date of incident i. e. 22-7-1995 in the evening at 6/6-30 appellant came to his house and after staying for some time, picked up the axe and went away. The action of appellant going from his house with axe was told by complainant-Durga Bai to her neighbours saurabh Bai and Rukma Bai. These ladies were talking to each other, at that time younger sister of complainant-Durga Bai came and informed that appellant has killed the deceased by axe. Durga Bai when came to the place of occurrence found that inside house, her mother was lying dead. ( 4 ) FIRST information report Ext. P/2 was lodged by Durga Bai and the matter was investigated by the prosecution agency. ( 5 ) AFTER completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the competent Court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session and fromwhere it was received by trial Court for trial. ( 4 ) FIRST information report Ext. P/2 was lodged by Durga Bai and the matter was investigated by the prosecution agency. ( 5 ) AFTER completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the competent Court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session and fromwhere it was received by trial Court for trial. ( 6 ) THE trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 302, IPC which was denied by the appellant, as a result of which, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses had placed certain documents on record. ( 7 ) THE defence of accused is of maladroit implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. However, he did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence. ( 8 ) LEARNED trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, came to hold that the charge levelled against appellant under Section 302, IPC is proved as a result of which, convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned herein above. ( 9 ) HENCE, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. ( 10 ) WE have heard Sri S. K. Nema, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri r. S. Patel, learned Additional Advocate general for respondent/state. ( 11 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the sole eyewitness is Sunita who is a child witness having age of seven years when the incident took place. She has specifically stated that at 8. 00 in the evening when she was playing nearby her house, at that juncture, appellant by carrying an axe entered inside the house and dealt blow of axe on the head of the deceased and thereafter he ran away towards mosque. Her mother died immediately. Thereafter this witness after closing the door straightway went to the house of her sister complainant-Durga and narrated the entire incident to her. Thereafter her sister Durga came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying in injured condition, she was dead. This witness though a child witness but despite there being a roving cross-examination over her, remained embedded in her version. Thereafter her sister Durga came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying in injured condition, she was dead. This witness though a child witness but despite there being a roving cross-examination over her, remained embedded in her version. In para 5 of her cross-examination she has also stated that appellant came out from her house in her presence and thereafter ran away towards mosque. This witness found the deceased besmeared with blood. Nothing has been crept out from the statement of this witness in order to disbelieve her. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 : (2004 Cri LJ 19)has laid down the law that the evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected, but the Court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the earlier decision Suryanarayana v. State of karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 : (2001 Cri LJ 705 ). ( 14 ) APART from the statement of Sunita (P. W. 2), the evidence of complainant-Durga bai (P. W. 1) is also quite relevant who is the sister of eye-witness P. W. 2 Sunita and elder daughter of the deceased. According to the statement of Durga Bai, appellant used to say to her that he will kill the deceased and was restraining her to go to the house of her mother. She has further stated that on the date of incident in the evening at 6-6-30 she asked the appellant where he is going but he did not give any answer and thereafter he went to the hotel of ramchandar, again came back to the house and picked up axe and again went away. Thereafter Sunita (P. W. 2) who is her younger sister came to her and told that appellant has killed the deceased by axe. Thereafter he went to the place of occurrence and found that appellant sustained injuries on her head and temporal region. This witness lodged the first information report Ex. Thereafter Sunita (P. W. 2) who is her younger sister came to her and told that appellant has killed the deceased by axe. Thereafter he went to the place of occurrence and found that appellant sustained injuries on her head and temporal region. This witness lodged the first information report Ex. P/2 and proved the same, ( 15 ) THE other witness is Rukma Bai (P. W. 5) who has also stated that Sunita who is younger sister of Durga Bai came and told in her presence to Durga Bai that appellant has killed the deceased. According to us, the evidence of P. W. 5 Rukma Bai and P. W. 1 durga Bai so far as narrating the incident by Sunita (P. W. 2) to them that appellant dealt axe blow and killed the deceased is relevant and admissible under Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act. This Section envisages two categories of statement of witness which can be used for corroboration. First is the statement made by a witness to any person "at or about the time when the fact took place. " The second is the statement made by him to any authority legally bound to investigate the fact. According to us, the statement made by eye-witness Sunita Bai (P. W. 2) immediately after the incident to p. W. 1 Durga Bai and P. W. 5 Rukma Bai that appellant dealt a blow of axe to the deceased and killed her was made contemporaneous with the occurrence has a greater value as res gestea and then it is substantive evidence. But if the said statement would have been made only after some interval of time, the statement loses its probative utility as res gestea, still it is usable, though only for a lesser use. What is meant by the expression "at or about the time when the fact took place"? There can be a narrow view that unless such a statement was made soon after the occurrence it cannot be used for corroboration. A broader view is that even if such statement was made within a reasonable proximity of time still such statement can be used for corroboration. The legislature would not have intended to limit the time factor to close proximity though a long distance of time would deprive it for its utility even for corroboration purposes. A broader view is that even if such statement was made within a reasonable proximity of time still such statement can be used for corroboration. The legislature would not have intended to limit the time factor to close proximity though a long distance of time would deprive it for its utility even for corroboration purposes. See the decisions of Supreme Court State of Tamil nadu v. Suresh, 1998 Cri LJ 1416 (paras 27 and 28) and Smt. Chander Kala v. Ram kishan, AIR 1985 SC 1268 (para 9 ). Thus, the evidence of P. W. 1 Durga Bai, P. W. 5 rukma Bai is relevant and admissible as p. W. 2 Sunita who is an eye-witness immediately after the incident, told the incident to them. ( 16 ) THE evidence of eye-witness Sunita (P. W. 2) is further corroborated by the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Bharat Arya (P. W. 8) who conducted post-mortem and his post-mortem report is Ex. P. 13 in which the doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : " (i) Incised wound on face left side, size 3" x 1" x 1" Skin, muscle and zygotic bone cut. (ii) Incised wound right side posterolateral 3" x 1 x brain deep. Brain material coming out with its all contents. " According to the doctor, cause of death was due to shock on account of injury to the vital organ brain with excessive bleeding from incised wound over head by sharp and cutting object. The doctor, however, stated that death was homicidal in nature. On going through the injury, it is gathered that brain material was coming out with its all contents and one could imagine that what was the force used by the appellant while giving the blow of axe on the head of the deceased. Thus, according to us, the appellant has not committed any lesser offence, except the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. ( 17 ) WE have also given our anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasonings assigned by learned trial Judge and we find them to be quite cogent as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and hence, by this judgment, we hereby extend out stamp of approval to the said reasonings. ( 18 ) RESULTANTLY, this appeal is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed. .