Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Fast Track and Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 295 of 2001, whereby the appellant - accused, Bhurabhai Jinabhai Chauhan has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 and Section 203 of IPC and the sentence is imposed for life imprisonment and a simple imprisonment of two years respectively. 2. As per the Prosecution case, the accused - appellant initially declared before the Police that his wife - deceased Merunisha was suffering from sickness of heart-valve and she had also undergone the treatment. He declared before the Police that his wife Merunisha, since she had fallen down from the water tank or due to sickness, she had died. Therefore, at the initial stage the Police registered the same at Exhibit 27 as accidental death under Section 174 of CrPC. Further investigation revealed that in the body of the deceased, there were injuries on both the hands and legs with blood stain and, therefore, the dead body was, after inquest, sent for postmortem. In the postmortem Report, the cause of death was opined by the doctor as due to throttling of the neck, resulting into drastically reducing the blood circulation to the brain and consequently resulting into heart failure. Therefore, a complaint was registered by the Investigating Officer, Shri Chudasma for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for causing death of the deceased Merunisha and for making false declaration before the Police under Section 203 of IPC. The Police thereafter investigated the matter and the charge-sheet was filed. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the witnesses were examined, including the eye-witness, Bhumita - daughter of the deceased, the Medical Officer, who undertook postmortem and also other witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge ultimately convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by imposing sentence of life imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge also imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 203 of IPC. It is the said judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge in appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Ms.Sadna Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellant –accused as well as Mr. Raval, learned APP for the State. 4. It is the said judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge in appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Ms.Sadna Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellant –accused as well as Mr. Raval, learned APP for the State. 4. It appears that after the charge was framed, the Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of the prosecution case :— Sr No. Name of Witness P.W. 1. Bhikabhai Premjibhai Sondarva P.W. 1 2. Manjulaben Bhikabhai P.W. 2 3. Jitubhai Chanabhai P.W. 3 4. Bhumita Bhurabhai P.W. 4 5. Manjuben Bhimabhai P.W. 5 6. Dr. Dipakbhai Upendrabhai Dara P.W. 6 7. Anantrai Hargovind P.W. 7 8. Yusuf Husseinbhai P.W. 8 9. Yusuf Hassambhai P.W. 9 10. Mohammedbhai Ibrahimbhai P.W. 10 11. Bharatbhai Devsibhai P.W. 11 12. Danjibhai Bhikabhai P.W. 12 13. Balashanker Nanjibhai P.W. 13 14. Shantuben alias Naynaben Bhurabhai P.W. 14 15. Narendrasinh Kiritsinh Chudasma P.W. 15 5. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter has recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, wherein the accused has denied the accusation and his involvement. In the further statement, the accused has stated that he had dispute with the former wife and as the maintenance was not paid, she has wrongly deposed and she has prompted Bhumita to state against the accused and Bhumita has given deposition due to instigation by her mother. He stated that the former husband of Merunisha had made allegation for character against Merunisha and he wanted to take custody of Merunisha, but he did not get it and, therefore, he was incited and he had dispute with Merunisha. The accused had stated that he was not knowing anything about the death of Merunisha. In this manner, the accused has denied the accusation in total and has tried to indicate the responsibility of the incident against the former husband of Merunisha - deceased. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence and after hearing both the sides has found that the prosecution has proved the case for commission of offence by the accused punishable under Section 302 and Section 203 of IPC and, therefore, has convicted the accused for both the offence. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence and after hearing both the sides has found that the prosecution has proved the case for commission of offence by the accused punishable under Section 302 and Section 203 of IPC and, therefore, has convicted the accused for both the offence. The learned Sessions Judge has also heard the accused for imposition of sentence and thereafter has imposed the sentence for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced for two years’ simple imprisonment under Section 203 of IPC respectively. 7. We have gone through the depositions of each witness together with the documents produced by such witnesses as that of the complaint, inquest panchnama, panchnama of the site, postmortem report, and other documents. The evidence on record goes to show that vide Exhibit 27, as the declaration made by the accused - appellant before the Investigating Officer at the first instance it was recorded under Section 174 of CrPC. In the said declaration, he falsely stated that when he got up in the morning and tried to wake up deceased Merunisha, she did not wake up and, therefore, other relatives were called and she was stated to have died. Thereafter he had informed the Police. He falsely stated that the cause of the death of the deceased, as per his belief, was due to sickness or the injury sustained by the deceased due to down-fall from water tank. As stated earlier, since the Police found that there were injuries on the body of the deceased and as in the postmortem report the cause of the death was due to fracture in throat due to throttling, the I.O., Shri Chudasma had registered the complaint vide CR No. 27 of 2001 with Savarkundla Police Station. The said complaint is at Exhibit 13. As per the complaint, the death of deceased Merunisha was caused by the accused - appellant by causing bodily injury and the accused is also having the history of cruel nature and for causing injury to his former wife Shantaben. 8. As per the complaint filed by the I.O., initially the accused made a false declaration of cause of death of the deceased, which was registered under Section 174 of CrPC by the police. 8. As per the complaint filed by the I.O., initially the accused made a false declaration of cause of death of the deceased, which was registered under Section 174 of CrPC by the police. Thereafter in the further investigation it has revealed that there were bodily injuries on both the hands and legs of the deceased and there was also blood on both the hands and legs of the deceased and further when the dead body was sent for postmortem, as per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was ‘cardio respiratory arrest due to neurogenic shock due to pressure on carotio sinus’. It has been learnt from other persons of the nearby area as well as the former wife of the accused that the accused had beaten the deceased Merunisha and she was shouting also prior to the incident at about 3 O’clock night. Therefore, the accused has caused the death of his wife by beating her and by throttling the neck. 9. The daughter of the deceased Bhumita - P.W. 4 was at the age of ten when the deposition was record. She is the principal eye-witness of the incident. She is mature enough to understand that if false statement is made, it is treated as sin and the punishment will be imposed by Kodiyar Ma, who is deity being prayed by large number of persons in Saurashtra area, if false statement is made. She has stated that her mother Shantaben had left the accused and she, Shantaben, was staying at Rajula. The aforesaid shows that the eye-witness Bhumita, though aged ten years, is mature and was able to understand the general behaviour and also the consequence of false statement. As per the said witness, Bhumita - P.W. 4, her father (accused) has murdered Merunisha. She has narrated the incident by stating that after her father (accused) had gone for taking dinner at other place and after he came back, he had instructed her mother, Merunisha - deceased to cook vegetable. Her mother, in response thereof, said that “you had already taken food” and, therefore, her father had started abusing Merunisha. Since the dispute started, she had gone to call her maternal uncle, Jitubhai - P.W. 3 and her maternal uncle also tried to settle the dispute and thereafter he went away. Her mother, in response thereof, said that “you had already taken food” and, therefore, her father had started abusing Merunisha. Since the dispute started, she had gone to call her maternal uncle, Jitubhai - P.W. 3 and her maternal uncle also tried to settle the dispute and thereafter he went away. Again the dispute started and, therefore, her father tied down her mother Merunisha and beaten her with a log of wood. As her mother Merunish had started shouting, her father over-powered her mother by pressurizing the neck and throttled the deceased. Thereafter, her mother stopped movements and her father told her that her mother had expired. Her father also told her not to tell anybody about the incident and thereafter he went to the village. She has stated that she had witnessed the incident and she has also identified her father, who was present in the Court. She also identified the muddamal - log of wood as well and she stated that it was the same log of wood, which was in the hand of her father at the time of incident. 10. In the cross-examination of Bhumita, the aforesaid has not been contradicted, except the suggestion put forwarded is that she has stated as per the desire of her mother, Shantaben, the former wife of the accused, who was not having good relation with the accused and she is staying separately. The deposition of Bhumita is corroborated by Bhikabhai Premji - P.W. 1 that Merunisha and the children, including Bhumita had come to the Bhikabhai on account of the dispute and the accused thereafter took Merunisha and his children to his residence by insistence. The deposition of the aforesaid child-witness, Bhumita is also corroborated by Manjulaben Bhikabhai, wife of Bhikabhai - P.W. 2 that on account of the dispute between the deceased and the accused, Merunisha had come to the residence of P.W. 2 and the accused took the deceased with the children to his own residence. Jitubhai Chanabhai - P.W. 3 of whom the reference is made in the deposition of Bhumita - eye-witness has also corroborated the say of Bhumita on the aspects of dispute between the deceased - Merunisha and the accused and that he was called by the daughter, Bhumita and, therefore, he had gone and tried to compromise the dispute and thereafter he had gone away. Such has transpired in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor to the said witness, Jitubhai - P.W. 3, after he was declared hostile and the same is recorded at para 4 of the deposition by way of cross-examination. 11. Dr. Dipakbhai U. Dara - P.W. 6 who performed postmortem has certified the following external injuries on the body of the deceased :— (1) Huge swelling size 5 x 5 cm on right arm just above elbow joint? Bony injury. (2) Swelling on right forearm just below elbow joint, size 4 x 5 cm ? Bony injury (3) Swelling with superficial abrasion size 3 x 2 cm on right arm ? Bony injury. (4) Bruise with swelling size 4 x 5 cm on left elbow joint ? Bony injury. (5) CLW size 4 x 2 x 1 cm on right tibia shin just below knee joint. (6) CLW size 3 x 1 x 1 cm on middle 1/3 of right leg with swelling below ? Bony injury (6) CLW size 2 x 2 x 1 cm with swelling below it on middle of left leg ? Bony injury. The internal injury in the postmortem report, which is proved by the deposition of the aforesaid witness is mentioned as ‘Hyoid bone fracture present’. 12. The doctor has admitted the certification of the injury found on the body of the deceased as recorded in the postmortem and the cause of death is certified as under:— ‘cardio respiratory arrest due to neurogenic shock due to pressure on carotio sinus’. 13. The said witness, Dr. Dipakbhai Upendrabhai Dara - P.W. 6, has opined that the fracture of throat bone, an injury to respiratory track was sufficient enough to cause death of the person. He has also opined that all injuries on the body of the deceased could be caused on account of log of wood of babool tree. Dr. Dipak has stated that if the hand and legs of a person are tied up, such person may not be in a position to resist throttling of neck. 14. Anantrai Hargovind - P.W. 7 is the Panch Witness for inquest panchnama and also for panchnama of the site, where the offence was committed. The said witness has admitted the inquest panchnama as well as the panchnama prepared of the site. 14. Anantrai Hargovind - P.W. 7 is the Panch Witness for inquest panchnama and also for panchnama of the site, where the offence was committed. The said witness has admitted the inquest panchnama as well as the panchnama prepared of the site. The pertinent aspect is that in the panchnama, the bangles of the deceased were found in broken condition and the necklace of black and white imitated pearls were also found in broken condition. The log of wood were also found having blood stains, whose samples were taken. 15. Santaben Bhurabhai - P.W. 14, who is the first wife of the accused, has stated that in past the accused had beaten her by tying her hands and legs. She has also stated that the accused had threatened her that if she had given statement, she would be killed. The said witness has stated that the accused had a tendency of beating her and the police complaints were also filed by her in past. She has stated about one incident, which had happened before two years and four months with the accused, in which she had sustained injuries and thereafter she had left his house. In the cross-examination of the said witness, except showing enmity, the defence has not been able to reveal any contradiction to the conduct on the part of the accused with her when they were staying together. 16. Mr. Narendrasinh Kiritsinh Chudasma, P.W. 15, the Investigating Officer, has deposed for false declaration made by the accused at the first instance, recording thereof, inquest panchnama, forwarding of the dead body for postmortem, receipt of the postmortem report and lodging the complaint under Section 302 of IPC, the preparation of the panchnama for discovery of the clothes, samples of the site and other investigations pertaining thereof. In the cross-examination of I.O., nothing has revealed to disbelieve the said witness on the aspects of work down by him in his official capacity and the investigation made by him. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellant - accused first contended that Bhumita - P.W. 4 is a child-witness and, therefore, she has been wrongly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge. It has been submitted that the age of the child was ten years and, therefore, since she is the only witness and if her deposition is not relied upon, the case of the prosecution would fail. 18. It has been submitted that the age of the child was ten years and, therefore, since she is the only witness and if her deposition is not relied upon, the case of the prosecution would fail. 18. Merely because the witness is a child-witness, the same itself would not be sufficient to discard the evidence of such witness. The rationality of the answers given by such witness, can be considered and the deposition can also be believed, more particularly when the say of such child witness is corroborated by other evidence on record. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. The Courts have laid down that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than that of law. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Panchhi vs. State of U.P., reported in 1998 (7) SCC 177 , and more particularly the observations at Paragraphs 11 and 12. 19. The evidence on record upon appreciation and reappreciation of Bhumita - P.W. 4 shows that she was able to understand the question and answers and also seriousness of the answer to be given. Not only that, but her statements in the deposition are corroborated by the deposition of other witness namely; Jitubhai - P.W. 3, Bhikabhai - P.W. 1 as well as his wife Manjulaben - P.W. 2. Therefore, when the child is matured to understand the question and answer and is in a position to answer with full understanding and also knows the consequence of false statements and when the statements made by her are corroborated by the other witnesses, applying the test of practical wisdom, it would not be a case to disbelieve or discard the evidence of Bhumita - P.W. 4. 20. 20. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that the child witness herself has stated that her mother Santaben had explained her about the deposition to be given in the Court and, therefore, such witness can be said as tutored witness and, therefore, the deposition of such child witness, who is eye-witness may not be relied upon by this Court. 21. The aforesaid statement made by the said witness in the cross-examination shows that the child has answered the question about explanation given to her by her mother Santaben in a natural way. She has not stated that her mother Santaben had tutored her to make any false statement in the Court. Further, the overall deposition of Bhumita - P.W. 4 and the answer given by her in the cross-examination shows the natural way of understanding the question and answering the same by stating truth. When the defence has not been able to dislodge her capacity as eye-witness to the incident and the corroboration thereof in the cross-examination, it would not be appropriate to discard or disbelieve the deposition of such witness, though may child witness aged ten years. Mere fact that the child witness was asked to say about the occurrence and as to whether she saw, is no reason to jump to a conclusion that it amounted to tutoring and that she was deposing only as per tutoring what was not otherwise what she actually saw. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 64 . Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused cannot be accepted. 22. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that the doctor could not find any fracture of Hyoid Bone on the neck, unless X-ray was taken of the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant made an attempt to contradict the notes recorded in the postmortem report. It was, therefore, submitted that when the doctor could not opine unless the X-ray was taken, the statement made in the notes shown in the postmortem report or the deposition of the doctor based on the same cannot be accepted. 23. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant made an attempt to contradict the notes recorded in the postmortem report. It was, therefore, submitted that when the doctor could not opine unless the X-ray was taken, the statement made in the notes shown in the postmortem report or the deposition of the doctor based on the same cannot be accepted. 23. The aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the accused cannot be accepted for various reasons. One of them is that if the postmortem was not to be performed and the external position of the neck was to be kept intact and the fracture was to be dictated, X-ray may be required, but if while performing the postmortem various internal injuries, including on the bone of the neck were visible on account of the postmortem, X-ray would not be required. The reason being that the doctor himself would be in a position to see the position of the bone and may opine as to whether there is any fracture in such bone or not. Therefore, when the body of the deceased was open in the postmortem and all vital parts were to be examined and if such fracture was visible, it cannot be said that the entry in the postmortem report, which was admitted by the doctor of fracture in Hyoid Bone, cannot be believed. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused cannot be accepted. 24. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused - husband has brutally, after beating his wife Merunisha, killed her. Therefore, having committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the punishment imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Judge for life imprisonment deserves to be confirmed. 25. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is meritless and, therefore, dismissed.