JUDGMENT A.K.Shrivastava, J. -- 1. The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 547/2002 (Brindawan v. State of M.P.) since both the appellants have been convicted by common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.9.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.162/2000 convicting appellants under sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal No. 54712002 has been preferred by the appellants under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Sans unnecessary detail, the facts lie in narrow compass. Suffice it to say that as alleged by the prosecution, appellant Ramkishun was having illicit relationship with the wife of his brother Harisingh which was being highly objected by the deceased Guddi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who had been his wife. Making this allegation as a point, the appellant Ramkishun was cruelsome against her and was causing marpeet to her. Earlier to the night of the incident, on 17.12.1999 in the evening appellant Ramkishun brought the deceased along with his children from her parental house to village Achalpura. In the same night of 17.12.1999 at 4:00 a.m. with the help of co-appellant Brindawan he first murdered his own wife and to hide his crime, he poured kerosene and set the fire on the dead body. 4. The matter was reported by village chowkidar Ajbel Singh in the police station and on the basis of such report, a marg was registered and investigation was conducted by the investigating agency. During the investigation it was found that appellant with the help of co-appellant Brindawan committed murder of the deceased and in order to hide the crime, set the dead body to fire. 5. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court, which committed the case to the Court of Session where the appellants were tried. 6. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the allegation made in the charge-sheet, framed charges under sections 302/34 and 201, of IPC against the appellants, which both the appellants denied and requested for the trial. 7. 6. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the allegation made in the charge-sheet, framed charges under sections 302/34 and 201, of IPC against the appellants, which both the appellants denied and requested for the trial. 7. In order to prove the charges, prosecution, examined as many as eleven witnesses and placed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/9, the documents on record. The defence of the appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded under section 313 of CrPC and in support of their defence they examined one Gopal Singh as DW-1. 8. Learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence placed on record, came to hold that charges are proved against the appellants, eventually convicted them and passed the sentence, as mentioned in the impugned judgment. 9. In this manner, this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal No.547/2002 have been preferred by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. 10. Vehemently, it has been contended by Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused persons, that if the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence placed on record is taken to be true in its true perspective and spirit, it would reveal that the sole eye-witness Pramila (PW-8) is not a reliable witness and because the appellant was making demand of Rs. 10,000/ from his in-laws, therefore, he has been falsely roped. It has also been put forth by him that all the witnesses are highly interested being the relatives from the paternal side of the deceased and, therefore, their evidence should not be relied upon. 11. On the other hand, Shri Gupta and Shri Dixit, learned Public Prosecutors for the respondent/State, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the unimpeachable testimony of Pramila (PW-8), who is the daughter of the deceased and appellant Ramkishun, there cannot be any hair escape to hold that appellant is an innocent person. Further it has been propounded by them that looking to the conduct of the appellants that after killing the deceased, her dead body was brought in the open courtyard where it was burnt, but the doctor did not find that the hair were burnt as well as on the back side of her body there was no bum injury. Further it has been propounded by them that looking to the conduct of the appellants that after killing the deceased, her dead body was brought in the open courtyard where it was burnt, but the doctor did not find that the hair were burnt as well as on the back side of her body there was no bum injury. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to Panchayatnam (Ex. P/4) of the deceased and submitted that the deceased was lying dead and the anterior portion of the deceased from chest downwards was found to be burnt but the rest portion as well as the posterior region of the deceased was intact. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the postmortem report (Ex. P/1) as well as the testimony of the Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. K.D. Singh (PW-I) since the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to throttling, therefore, learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants under section 302/34 as well as under section 201 of IPC. 12. Further it has been canvassed by learned Public Prosecutor that it is borne out from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that appellant was having illicit relations with his brother's wife, which was being highly objected not only by the deceased, but by her parents also, this made a cause to the appellant to kill her. On these premised submissions it has been argued by learned Public Prosecutor that this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal No. 547/2002 being sans substance be dismissed. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal No. 547/2002 deserve to be dismissed. 14. True, Pramila (PW-8) who is the star witness, is a child and there is solitary statement of this child witness. But it is equally true that she is the daughter of deceased and appellant Ramkishun and, therefore, so far as the love and affection and the relationship of this witness with them is concerned, it is equal on both the sides. This witness is a child witness and is totally illiterate which is borne out from her testimony. On bare perusal of her testimony, we find that appellant Ramkishun went to his nuptial house and requested the deceased's parents to accompany the deceased with him. This witness is a child witness and is totally illiterate which is borne out from her testimony. On bare perusal of her testimony, we find that appellant Ramkishun went to his nuptial house and requested the deceased's parents to accompany the deceased with him. Thereafter, in the evening appellant, Ramkishun alongwith deceased and his children came to village Achalpura and in the night appellant with the help of co-appellant Brindawan by throttling the neck of the deceased by pressing it by his leg killed her and thereafter set the fire on the body of the deceased. Specifically, this witness is saying that in the light of the electric bulb she visualized the entire episode. This witness was cross-examined at length, but she remained embedded in her earlier version despite there being a roving cross-examination over her. The defence unsuccessfully tried to dismantle her testimony by suggesting that she is a tutored witness and has been tutored by the parents of the deceased as well as her maternal uncle. From every angle the suggestions were put, but firmly she denied that she has been tutored by any person and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that this witness cannot be relied upon. 15. The Supreme Court in Ratansingh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, 2004 (1) MPWN 131 = (2004) 1 SCC 64 has held that if there is no inherent defect in the testimony of a child witness, merely because the witness is a child, her testimony cannot be disbelieved. According to us, in order to rely the testimony of a child witness it is to be gathered by scrutinizing his or her testimony as to whether he or she is a tutored witness and is concealing the reality or not and if on both the tests the hallmark of the testimony of child witness is proven, there is no bar under the law to disbelieve his or her statement on account of the fact that the witness is a child. In this context rightly reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, on the latest pronouncement Rameshbhai Chaudubhai Rathod v. State of Gujrat, 2009 (3) Supreme 585 , wherein in para 12 and 13 it has been held as under : "12. In this context rightly reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, on the latest pronouncement Rameshbhai Chaudubhai Rathod v. State of Gujrat, 2009 (3) Supreme 585 , wherein in para 12 and 13 it has been held as under : "12. Even earlier than that, this Court in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and others v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341 , has held that there is no rule of practice that the evidence of a child witness needs corroboration in order to base conviction on it. However, as a rule of prudence the Court insists it is desirable to have corroboration from other dependable evidence. 13. In Suryanarayana v. State of Kamataka (2001) 9 SCC 129 , this Court held that corroboration of the testimony of a child is not a rule but is a measure of caution and prudence." 16. On bare perusal of the testimony of the mother of the deceased, namely, Mainibai (PW-9) we find that deceased told her that appellant is having illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother which is being objected by the deceased, as a result of which, the appellant Rarnkishun was causing marpeet to her. Similar type of statement has also been stated by Lalsingh (PW-2) who is the uncle of the deceased. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that merely because these witnesses are having blood relations with the deceased, their evidence should not be relied upon. The law in this regard is well settled that if the witnesses are thickly related through blood and are highly interested, their testimony cannot be thrown like a waste paper in the dustbin, but, it should be scrutinized with great care and caution. By keeping all these principles in our mind we have closely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses and we find that from the evidence it is borne out that appellant Ramkishun was having illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother Harisingh, which was being objected by the deceased and this made a cause to appellant Ramkishun to kill the deceased and co-appellant Brindawan shared his common intention to kill the deceased alongwith appellant Ramkishun. 17. 17. It is borne out from the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witness Pramila (PW-8) that appellant Ramkishun pressed the neck of the deceased by his leg and there after she was burnt. At this juncture, it would be condign to go through the statement of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. K.D.Singh (PW-1), who has categorically stated that cartilage of cornea of the neck was broken and the lungs were found to be cogested. It is gathered from the testimony of Autopsy Surgeon that no carbon particles were found in the trachea or in the lungs of the deceased because if they would have been in the trachea or lungs, it would have been so stated in the postmortem report. Hence, it can be inferred that after killing the deceased, her dead body was burnt. We would like to quote the injuries which the deceased sustained and which was noticed by the Autopsy Surgeon during the postmortem which reads thus :- "Body of an young female laying supine in position over PM examination Table wearing blouse half burnt shari blackish yellowish shadows burnt peticoat yellowish. Golden ring in the nose and ear ring silver. Rigor mortise present PM staining over back. Burn over anterior part of chest and abdomen present. Burn over, Rt arm and forearm and palm anteriorly present I degree burn over Lt. upper (antearm present) Burn over anterior aspect neck and chin present. Burn & charring over anterior aspect Rt thigh present scalp hair not burnt. Lip cynosid tongue between teeth, eye open and congested-Neck swallow on cut subcutaneous blood clot present on Rt. Side of the level of adm. about I 1/2" length & similarly on Lt. side subcutaneous blood clot present over neck below mandible. On cut trachea congested and cricuid cartilage ruptured (cornea) containing bloody forth, further on dissecting hyoid bone also present in broken stage chest and abdomen thigh healthy on cut of uterus 22-24 weeks a dead female fetus found." 18. One important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that not only the Autopsy Surgeon has opined that firstly the deceased was killed and thereafter her body was burnt, but if we visualze the seizure memo. (Ex. P/4) of the dead body which has been proved by Brijendra Singh (PW5), we find that the dead body of the deceased was lying, her mouth was open and teeth were exposed. (Ex. P/4) of the dead body which has been proved by Brijendra Singh (PW5), we find that the dead body of the deceased was lying, her mouth was open and teeth were exposed. Right hand was folded and was lying on the chest while left hand was bent from elbow region. Both the legs were folded from the knee towards interior side. Face, neck, chest, abdomen and thigh region were found to be burnt, but hair were not burnt. On turning the dead body, it was not found to be burnt. Hence, we have no scintilla of doubt in holding that firstly the deceased was killed by pressing her neck with the aid of leg by appellant Rarnkishun and co-appellant Brindawan shared his common intention to kill the deceased and thereafter the dead body of deceased was burnt. 19. We have gone through the reasoning assigned by learned trial Court convicting the appellants under section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and we do not and any illegality in it and further we do not want to deviate ourselves from the reasoning assigned by learned trial Court. 20. For the reasons stated hereinabove we do not find any merit in this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal No. 547/2002. The same are hereby dismissed.