Judgment By Court.- The sole appellant, namely, Chandrika Singh @ Chandrika Satnami, was put on trial for the charges under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of three persons, namely, Shyam Bai, her two sons Yamuna Prasad and Raja Babu, and also for attempting on life of Sanjay Prasad, son of the deceased-Shyam Bal Learned trial court having found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.2.1998, Kailash Prasad, P.W. 9, while was posted as Officer In-charge of Khelari Police Station, received a telephonic information at about 9 p.m. that someone at Mohalla Mohan Nagar has killed his family members. Upon it, a sanha was entered and then he alongwith other police personnel came to the place of occurrence, where the fardbeyan of one Babulal Satnami, P.W. 5, was recorded. According to Babulal Satnami, while he was taking tea in his Quarter No: 14-179, he. heard sound of knocking of the door of the quarter situated adjacent to his quarter. When he came out, he saw the appellant knocking the door of his house. Thereupon, he came back to his quarter, but after ten minutes, he heard someone weeping and upon it when he came out, he saw Vijay Prasad Satnami, P.W. 6, running away from his house. When Babulal Satnami entered into the quarters of Rati Ram Satnami, he found Shyam Bai and her six month's old child, Raja Babu, killed who were under the P901 of blood and also saw Jamuna Prasad and Sanjay Prasad (P.W. 7) injured. By that time, the villagers had assembled over there and the police had also arrived before whom the appellant confessed that he had assaulted his. stepmother, Shyam Bai, and her sons with a piece of iron ball as well as hammer, as he was not being fed properly by her stepmother. 3. On the said fardbeyan, a case was instituted under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation by Kailash Prasad, P.W. 9. The Investigating Officer, on finding Shyam Bai and Raja Babu dead, made an inquest on the dead bodies and prepared Inquest Reports (Exts. 4 and 4/1). 3. On the said fardbeyan, a case was instituted under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation by Kailash Prasad, P.W. 9. The Investigating Officer, on finding Shyam Bai and Raja Babu dead, made an inquest on the dead bodies and prepared Inquest Reports (Exts. 4 and 4/1). He also seized hammer as well as iron ball under a Seizure List (Ext. 3). The Investigating Officer also got the blood soaked in a cotton ball and prepared Seizure List (Ext. 3/1). Thereupon, dead bodies of Shyam Bai and Raja Babu were sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Saroj Kumar, P.W. 1. In course of autopsy, the doctor did find the following injuries on the person of Shyam Bal “1. Abrasions: (a) 1 c.m. on right cheek. (b) 3 c.m. x Y2 c.m. on right forearm lateral side middle part. (c) 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on left elbow sack. 2. Lacerated Wounds: (a) 13 c.m. x 9 c.m. on left fronto perieto temporal region of head. The underlying bones were broken into pieces lacerating the brain matter. Few boney fragments were driven into the brain matter. A portion of brain matter had drained out. There was presence of blood and blood clot in the cranial cavity. 3. Internal Injury: There was fracture of right humerus bone lower part.” The doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) with an opinion that the death of the deceased-Shyam Bai was due to head injury caused by hard blunt substance may be by iron hammer or iron ball. The said doctor also found the following injuries on the person of Raja Babu, six month's old child:- “(a) Bruise: (i) 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. on right side of forehead. (b) Internal Injuries: There was diffused contusion of right fronto perieto occipital scalp with crack fracture of right fronto perieto occipital bone. There was contusion of right frontal lobe of brain with presence of subdural blood and blood clot over right hemisphere of brain.” The doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 1/1) with an opinion that the death of the deceased-Raja Babu was due to head injury caused by hard blunt substance. There was contusion of right frontal lobe of brain with presence of subdural blood and blood clot over right hemisphere of brain.” The doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 1/1) with an opinion that the death of the deceased-Raja Babu was due to head injury caused by hard blunt substance. It is also the case of the prosecution that when the injured-Jamuna Prasad Satnami succumbed to his injuries, autopsy on the dead body was done by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, P.W. 8, who found the following injuries:- "Lacerated stitched wound: (i) 2 x 1% c.m. x bone deep on left parietal region of head., (ii) 1% x 1 c.m. x bone deep on left parietal region of head, 2 c.m. below the preceding injury underneath. There was contusion of whole scalp. There was mosaic fracture both tampero parietal bone with separation of coronal suture. There was presence of extra dural and subdural, blood and blood clot over both hamisphere of brain. Abrasion: (i) 3 x 1 c.m. and 1 x % c.m. on right temporal region of head." The doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 1/2) with an opinion that the death of the deceased-Jamuna Prasad Satnami was due to head injury caused by iron hammer or iron ball. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet upon which cognizance was taken and when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined as many as nine witnesses. Of them, P.W. 2, Nasib Nonia, P.W. 3, Ramdeo Ram, P.W. 4, Suresh Chouhan and P.W. 5, the informant, Babulal Satnami, turned hostile. Vijay Prasad Satnami and Sanjay Prasad, both sons of the deceased, Shyam Bai, were examined as P.Ws. 6 and 7, who gave vivid narrations of the occurrence. However, the trial court did find the evidence of P.W. 7, a child witness, to be tutored and hence discarded it but found the evidence of another child witness, P.W.6. Vijay Prasad Satnami and Sanjay Prasad, both sons of the deceased, Shyam Bai, were examined as P.Ws. 6 and 7, who gave vivid narrations of the occurrence. However, the trial court did find the evidence of P.W. 7, a child witness, to be tutored and hence discarded it but found the evidence of another child witness, P.W.6. Vijay Prasad Satnami, to be trustworthy and recorded the order of conviction and sentence in terms of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, but no order of conviction or acquittal was recorded in terms of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code but from perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the trial court did not find adequate evidence so far the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is concerned and hence, presumably the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution except P.W. 6, Vijay Kumar Satnami, a child witness, whose version has not been corroborated by any other witnesses and as such, the trial court, in absence of any corroboration of the evidence of the child witness, should not have recorded the order of conviction and sentence, as it is never safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision reported in 1998(2) East Criminal Cases 249. Learned counsel in order to impeach the evidence of P.W. 6 submits that as per testimony of P.W. 6, he after the occurrence left his house and went to someone's house but P.W. 6, in course of his evidence, did not disclose about the name of the person with whom he lived for four days at first instance, but subsequently on further cross-examination, he disclosed it and as such when the witness is vacillating in the manner, as stated above, it was certainly not safe to rely upon the testimony of P.W. 6, a child witness. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that the trial court' has recorded the order of conviction on the evidence of P.W. 6, a child witness, whose evidence did find corroboration from the objective finding of the Investigating Officer. It be stated that P.W. 6 has testified that the appellant having entered into the room assaulted his mother and other brothers with a piece of iron ball and iron hammer, which were recovered by the police in course of investigation under Ext. 3. The said materials were smeared with blood, which was noticed by the Investigating Officer and had sent it for its examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, still the prosecution did not produce any report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, but that lacuna in no manner affects the prosecution case adversely, as the evidence with respect to assault being made by iron rod and hammer appears to be unimpeachable. Further it be stated that according to the Investigating Officer, some of the blood found at the place of occurrence was soaked with cotton ball, but again no report is there but that lacuna also does not affect the case of the prosecution, as the prosecution has successfully proved that the occurrence had taken place at none other than the place of occurrence, where dead bodies were r found lying and from which place weapons, used in crime such as big piece of iron ball as well as a iron hammer, were recovered, which lend complete support to the evidence of P.W. 6. 8. Thus, in the circumstances, the evidence of Vijay Prasad Satnami, P.W. 6, a child witness, being unimpeachable, gets corroboration not only by the medical evidence but also by the objective finding by the Investigating Officer, the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence. Therefore, we find that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.