JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 09.08.2001, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No. 107 (JJ)/1999 convicting the accused appellants under Section302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 2. The short prosecution story may be stated thus: three accused persons on 18.09.1999 at about 7.30 P.M. came in a group and attacked the deceased Sunil Orang by striking at the head with a sharp weapon in front of his residence. The deceased succumbed to his injuries in the following morning of 19.09.1999. His daughter was an eye witness to the incident and she could identify all the three accused persons. She saw one of the three accused persons struck the dagger. Before his death the deceased told his daughter that the accused persons had beaten him. An FIR was lodged on 19.09.1999 against the three persons namely Jibon Pao, Naren Pao and Haren Pao as accused. A case being Teok P.S. Case No. 98/1999 was registered under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused persons surrendered before the Court on 22.09.1999. The crime was investigated. The Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead body and also got the autopsy done. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused appellants under Section 341/302 IPC. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat framed charges under Section 302/34 IPC and tried the case. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. 3. The prosecution examined, in all, 6(six) witnesses, including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer to prove its case. No witness was examined by the defence. 4. PW-1, Biren Orang, who lodged the FIR, is the younger brother of the deceased. He stated that he knew the accused persons as they are his neighbours. He lives separately from his brother in a house situated at a distance of half a mile. In the morning of the day of occurrence his niece, Moni Orang (PW-3), daughter of the deceased came and informed him that her father had been killed by the accused Haren, Jibon and Naren. She told him that she had seen with her own eyes her father was being beaten by the accused. In the morning of the day of occurrence his niece, Moni Orang (PW-3), daughter of the deceased came and informed him that her father had been killed by the accused Haren, Jibon and Naren. She told him that she had seen with her own eyes her father was being beaten by the accused. Having so informed he went to the house of his elder brother Sunil Orang and found his dead body in a ditch in front of his house. He could see bleeding injuries on the head of the deceased and found his brother already dead. An Ejahar was written as told by Moni, daughter of the deceased and Monica, wife of deceased's younger brother, Palash Orang which he along with the village Gaonburah, submitted in the Police Station. 5. PW-2, Smti Monica Orang, wife of Palash Orang, younger brother of deceased, deposed that they live in two houses with a common courtyard. On the date of occurrence at about 7 P.M., while she was at home, heard the cries of Moni (PW-3) and on hearing her cries she came to her house. She found Moni's father, Sunil Orang, lying in the compound and bleeding. Moni was found standing near her injured father. They took the injured Sunil home with the help of other people. At that time, he was in a position to speak and told them that the accused Naren, Haren and Jibon had cut him. The injured persons could not be shifted to hospital as there was no other member in the house. He died in the following morning. She stated that the accused persons are her neighbours and she had no dispute with them. In cross examination she stated that her husband Prahlad was lying asleep as he was drunk. She found injured Sunil lying unconscious when they reached near him but when he was taken home and served water he regained and could speak. She did not tell anybody in the night of occurrence about what Sunil told them i.e., he was cut by the accused. She told the same to some persons in the morning only. 6. PW-3, Moni Orang, daughter of the deceased is the sole eye witness in this case. She was aged about 10½ years at the time of occurrence and about 12 years only at the time of deposition. The learned trial court put to her some general questions. She told the same to some persons in the morning only. 6. PW-3, Moni Orang, daughter of the deceased is the sole eye witness in this case. She was aged about 10½ years at the time of occurrence and about 12 years only at the time of deposition. The learned trial court put to her some general questions. She could understand the implications of the questions and differentiate between truth and falsehood. As she was found competent to give evidence she was administered oath. She deposed that at about 7 P.M. on the day of occurrence, she was at home and her father was in front of their house. On hearing sounds of beating she came out to the road and found all the three accused persons Haren, Naren and Jibon beating her father. She saw her father being attacked with a dagger and dealt with three strikes with the dagger. Her father having fallen down, she raised hue and cry. Hearing her cries her mother Mangu and aunt Monica came out. Her uncle, Prahlad did not come out as he was sleeping inside. There was no other male member at home. Her mother, aunt and others helped to bring her father home. At home, her father told that accused Haren, Naren and Jibon had beaten him. She could identify all the three accused at the dock as the assailants of her father. In cross examination, she stated that she could not ascertain who amongst the three accused had stabbed her father with dagger as the occurrence took place at night but she saw the dealing of dagger blow on her father's head. He fell down unconscious and could speak after he was taken home. 7. PW-6, Mangu Orang, wife of the deceased, stated that she knew all the accused as their neighbours. She could identify accused Jibon Pao only but she could not identify the other accused Haren, Naren in the dock. She did not see her husband Sunil being beaten by the accused as she was at home at the time of occurrence. She came out when she heard hue and cry and saw her husband lying in front of their house with injury in his head. When her injured husband was brought home, he was in a position to speak and told them that accused Haren, Naren, and Jibon caused injury to him. She came out when she heard hue and cry and saw her husband lying in front of their house with injury in his head. When her injured husband was brought home, he was in a position to speak and told them that accused Haren, Naren, and Jibon caused injury to him. At 8/9 P.M. her husband could not speak and died the following morning. In cross examination, PW-4 deposed that her injured husband told her that he was beaten by the accused but he did not tell her how the accused persons had beaten him. She did not tell anybody about her husband being beaten by the accused. She did not go out to call for a doctor due to fear of being attacked. 8. PW-5, Dr. Kumud Nath, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body stated that he found the following injuries: A wound on the parietal region of the scalp of the right side found with sharp edge, bone deep anterior posteriority situated, size approximately 4" x 2", smeared with clotted blood. On examination of the skull I found fracture on the right parietal bone of the scalp parietal lobe of the brain also lacerated. The above injuries were antemortem. In his opinion the death was due to coma as a result of the injuries. These injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In cross examination, PW-5 stated that injuries were caused by one weapon having sharp edge. 9. The Investigating Officer, PW-6 stated that on visit of the place of occurrence he had drawn the sketch map of the village path and held the inquest over the dead body. He found the dead body in the house of the deceased with injuries in his head and after recording the statements of the witnesses he sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He collected the post mortem report and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Section341/302/34 IPC. In cross examination, he stated that the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 10 k.m. and the road was motorable during dry season. He visited the place of occurrence on the very day of the receipt of the Ejahar. He saw no blood marks at the place of occurrence when the dead body was found inside the house of the deceased. He visited the place of occurrence on the very day of the receipt of the Ejahar. He saw no blood marks at the place of occurrence when the dead body was found inside the house of the deceased. 10. Mr. Baishya, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as, it has depended entirely upon the evidence of the child witness whose evidence has not been corroborated by any independent witness. Moreover the prosecution, although it was possible on its part to adduce independent eye witness, as the occurrence took place outside the house of the deceased, surrounded by neighbouring houses, failed to produce such witnesses and as such it has belied the prosecution story. The accused appellants are entitled to order of acquittal. 11. There is no denying of the fact that the impugned conviction and sentence has been recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence of sole child witness, (PW-3). Before going to consider whether the conviction and sentence on the basis of sole child witness is really sustainable, we propose to examine the status of the child witness. PW-3 is a minor daughter of the deceased. She is, therefore, a natural witness. She heard the sound of beating of her father by somebody and quite naturally she was the first person to come out to see her father. She is not a chance witness to be tested as to what made her to move around or how she happened to be at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. She found her father being beaten and striken with dagger by the accused and it made her to make hue and cry. Before arrival of other persons at the scene, the assailments had already left and saw this witness alone, who could see the assailants whom she could recognize unmistakably as they are from the same locality or neighbourhood. Soon came her aunt (PW-2), Monica Orang and her mother PW-4 to see the deceased in an injured condition and shifted him to home with the help of others present at the place of occurrence. The child witness, PW-3, acted and conducted herself intelligently like an adult normal person. 12. Having found that PW-3 is a natural witness. Soon came her aunt (PW-2), Monica Orang and her mother PW-4 to see the deceased in an injured condition and shifted him to home with the help of others present at the place of occurrence. The child witness, PW-3, acted and conducted herself intelligently like an adult normal person. 12. Having found that PW-3 is a natural witness. We now proceed to examine how she made her deposition as has been stated earlier, she has been able to answer the preliminary questions intelligently. The learned trial Court found her fit to give evidence. Her deposition was very clear as regard the witnessing of beating and dagger strike by the assailants on her deceased father, and also the identification of the accused persons as perpetrators. There is even no contradiction in her statement. She boldly faced and withstood the searching cross examination by the defence counsel and, infact, the defence failed to shatter or demolish her evidence in any manner in cross examination. She was found clear and consistent in her statement and it can be termed as of sterling quality on the basis of which conviction can be ordered. 13. In the case of Surya Narayan v. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 CriLJ 705, the Apex Court held that if the child witness withstands the cross examination and if her testimony inspires confidence so as to rule out possibility of tutoring it can be relied upon as the sole basis in convicting the accused. In the said case, the witness was only 4 (four) years old girl at the time of occurrence and 6 (six) years at the time of her deposition and she was not even given oath. Yet her deposition was accepted and relied upon for conviction of the accused. Here in the present case the PW-3 was 10½ years old at the time of occurrence and about 12 years old at the time of deposition who was given oath and examined and cross examined by the defence thoroughly. A minor daughter of 10½ and half years old who saw with her own eyes the dagger attack by the accused needs no tutoring by anybody to depose before the Court because she can never forget the scene of the ghastly crime and death of her dearest father. A minor daughter of 10½ and half years old who saw with her own eyes the dagger attack by the accused needs no tutoring by anybody to depose before the Court because she can never forget the scene of the ghastly crime and death of her dearest father. It is, further, held that evidence of child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the Court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about quality of the child witness. 14. We have scrutinized the evidence of child witness, PW-3, very closely and found them as much clear, cogent and convincing on the basis of which conviction can be recorded unhesitatingly. Added to that, inspite of elaborate cross examination nothing fragile in her testimony has surfaced. The evidence of PW-3 is found truthful and trustworthy. This is more so because her evidence find adequate corroboration with the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. The factum of deceased receiving injury by weapon having sharp edge has been proved by medical evidence as well as oral evidence of the Doctor, PW-5. The place of occurrence being in front of the house of the deceased is also not disputed. The cause of death being due to coma as a result of injury sustained by the said sharp edge weapon having been proved by the medical evidence, the same also remains undisputed. The evidence of PW-3, so much so, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 thus, remain unimpeached inasmuch as the defence failed to demolish them in cross examination. The defence also failed to show major contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. We find that the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused persons on the basis of evidence of child witness corroborated by other prosecution witness. 15. As regards the conviction under Section 34 IPC, we may fold back to the scenario of the occurrence. All the three accused appellants came together to the place of occurrence and they attacked the deceased conceitedly, one of them dealt the dagger blow on the head of the deceased which caused death to him. From these circumstances, it is infallibly inferable that the accused appellants came pre-arranged or preplanned with meeting of minds to commit the offence. There was active participation by all the accused persons in attacking the deceased. From these circumstances, it is infallibly inferable that the accused appellants came pre-arranged or preplanned with meeting of minds to commit the offence. There was active participation by all the accused persons in attacking the deceased. It hardly matters who among them actually gave the fatal dagger strike causing the death to the deceased. The principle of joint liability in causing death to the deceased under Section 34 IPC is well attracted in this case. This case is covered by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. as reported in 2004 CriLJ 1388, wherein it is held that acts of all the accused need not be same or identical must be actuated by same common intention and even the accused who has not caused any injury to the deceased, if some overt act is shown to have been committed by him in furtherance of the common intention to cause death, he would be liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. According to this ruling the prosecution is not required to prove who, among the accused assaulted the deceased with the sharp edged weapon and thus we find that all the accused appellants are jointly and equally liable to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 16. Having considered the evidence on record and the settled position of law as discussed above, we find no infirmity in the impugned Judgment dated 09.08.2001 warranting interference by this Court. 17. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellants as recorded by the learned trial court are upheld and confirmed and accordingly this appeal stands dismissed. LCR may be sent down. Appeal dismissed