Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging her conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional sessions Judge, Shahdol in S. T. No. 107/99, decided on 21. 01. 2000. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 302, 307 of IPC for committing murder of her step son Kanhaiyalal and attempting to commit murder of her another step son mukesh and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of rs. 1,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of rs. 500/- for the respective offences, by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, appellant Parvati @ Mango bai was living with Mahesh Vishwakarma as his concubine at village Bakeli, District Shahdol. On 3. 1. 99 about 10 oclock at night, appellant took her two step sons, namely, Kanhaiyalal aged about eight years and Mukesh aged about nine years out of the house and pushed both of them into the old Well of deenanath and came back. At that time appellants husband mahesh was sitting in nearby house of Maniklal Gupta. All of a sudden, when he heard shouts of his son Mukesh, he came out and saw the appellant coming, but on enquiry she did not disclose anything. When Mahesh Vishwakarma again heard the voice of his son Mukesh from the nearby Well, he rushed there and found that his son Mukesh was in the Well holding his hands upward. Mahesh Vishwakarma shouted for help, then neighbours Maniklal Gupta, Balchand, Krishnalal Vishwakarma and his brother Rajesh, Bhaiyalal etc. came there and his son mukesh was taken out of the well by Maniklal; he was taken to the house of Mahesh Vishwakarma and given some heat. When it was revealed by Mukesh, that his younger brother Kanhaiyalal was also in the Well, people again went to the Well, found and recovered the dead body of Kanhaiyalal from the Well. ( 4. ) THE FIR of the incident was lodged by one Kailash at police station Kotwali, Shahdol, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. Merg intimation was also recorded at the instance of Kailash and the merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of child kanhaiyalal was sent for postmortem examination. The other victim child Mukesh was also sent for medical examination. Merg intimation was also recorded at the instance of Kailash and the merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of child kanhaiyalal was sent for postmortem examination. The other victim child Mukesh was also sent for medical examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 and 307 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 6. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of her step son kanhaiyalal aged about eight years and attempting to commit murder of her another step son Mukesh aged about nine years, convicted and sentenced her as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 7. ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial judge erroneously convicted the appellant though no case was proved against her beyond doubt. Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 9. ) WE have gone through the entire evidence on record. ( 10. ) IT is clearly evident from the testimony of Mahesh (P. W-1), Maniklal (P. W-6), Balchand Gupta (P. W-7), and Uma bai (P. W-8) that at about 9 oclock at night, upon hue and cry they had gathered around the Well and taken out the nine year old boy, namely, Mukesh S/o Mahesh from the Well. Mahesh (P. W-1) deposed in his evidence that when he was sitting in the house of Maniklal Gupta about 9 oclock, he heard the voice of his son Mukesh and reached near the Well from where the voice was coming and found that his son Mukesh was in the Well holding up his hands and shouting for help. Then the boy was taken out of the Well by Maniklal Gupta. Maniklal Gupta (P. W-6)also corroborated this fact that upon hue and cry he had reached near the Well and found that Mukesh had fell down in the well, then he stepped into the Well and took him out. Similar is the statement of Balchand Gupta (P. W-7) and Uma bai (P. W-8 ). ( 11. Maniklal Gupta (P. W-6)also corroborated this fact that upon hue and cry he had reached near the Well and found that Mukesh had fell down in the well, then he stepped into the Well and took him out. Similar is the statement of Balchand Gupta (P. W-7) and Uma bai (P. W-8 ). ( 11. ) IT is also borne out from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that another son of Mahesh Vishwakarma, namely, Kanhaiyalal aged about eight years was also found dead in the same Well and his dead body was recovered from the Well. As per the evidence of Dr. A. P. Pathak (P. W-5), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of kanhaiyalal S/o Mahesh on 4. 1. 99, his death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. His postmortem report (Ex. P-2) is also placed on record. ( 12. ) THERE are no cogent reasons to discard the aforesaid evidence, which virtually remained unrebutted. It was thus established from the evidence on record that Kanhaiyalal S/o mahesh Vishwakarma had died as a result of antemortem drowning into the well, while his another son Mukesh aged about nine years was saved and taken out from the Well at about 9 or 10 oclock at night. ( 13. ) THE next crucial question, that remains to be examined is whether appellant Mango Bai had thrown or pushed the two boys, namely, Kanhaiyalal aged about eight years and mukesh aged about nine years into the Well with intent to kill them? ( 14. ) MUKESH (P. W-2), who is the victim and a child witness, categorically deposed that appellant Mango Bai, who was his mother, had pushed him and his younger brother kanhaiyalal into the Well and he was saved by Maniklal Gupta (P. W-6), who was called by his father. According to Mukesh (P. W-2), he had also sustained injuries in the incident. Dr. A. P. Pathak (P. W-5) on his medical examination, also found two abrasions on his legs. ( 15. ) P. W-1 Mahesh also deposed in his evidence that when he enquired his son Mukesh after he was taken out of the well as to how he reached there, he had told that when he and his brother Kanhaiyalal were asleep, appellant had taken them to the Well. ( 15. ) P. W-1 Mahesh also deposed in his evidence that when he enquired his son Mukesh after he was taken out of the well as to how he reached there, he had told that when he and his brother Kanhaiyalal were asleep, appellant had taken them to the Well. According to P. W-1 Mahesh Vishwakarma on hearing the screams of his son Mukesh, he had also seen the appellant walking and coming from the roadside. ( 16. ) BE that as it may, the child witness Mukesh (P. W-2)has categorically deposed about the complicity of the appellant. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that he had given a tutored version against the appellant. He also denied the suggestion that he and his brother accidentally fell into the Well while playing in the evening. There are no cogent reasons to discard the evidence of child witness Mukesh (P. W-2), who was saved and taken out from the Well. It is well settled that the evidence of a child witness can be acted upon if it is found reliable. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Panchhi and Others Vs. State of U. P. reported in (1998)7 Supreme Court Cases page 177 it is not the law that if a witness is child, his evidence shall be rejected even if it is found reliable, though the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is an easy prey to tutoring. ( 17. ) THE suggestion and submission made by the defence that the two boys accidentally fell into the Well in the evening while playing, has no merit. It is clearly borne out from the evidence on record that the victim boy Mukesh was saved and taken out from the Well at night. Had it been an incident of accidental fall in the evening, the boy, namely, Mukesh could not have survived till night and could not have been taken out alive from the Well at about 9-10 oclock at night. ( 18. Had it been an incident of accidental fall in the evening, the boy, namely, Mukesh could not have survived till night and could not have been taken out alive from the Well at about 9-10 oclock at night. ( 18. ) THE trial court thus rightly concluded on the basis of evidence on record that appellant Mango Bai pushed the two boys, namely, Kanhaiyalal and Mukesh into the Well with the intention or knowledge of causing their death and thereby committed offences under Section 302 and 307 of IPC for causing death of Kanhaiylal and attempting to cause death of mukesh respecitvely. As such the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court under Section 302 and 307 of IPC does not warrant any interference in appeal. ( 19. ) THUS we find no merit in this appeal. We uphold the conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to her under section 302 and 307 of IPC. Appeal fails and is dismissed.