JUDGMENT Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 4th October, 2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 10/2000 convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. In short, facts of the case are that Appellant was the son-in-law of Rukhma Bai, the deceased. Rukhma Bai, along with her four children resided in village Noniya Karbal. Appellant resided in the neighbouring house of deceased. His wife namely Radha Bai had already died. Since Appellant frequently used to come drunk and quarrel with other family members, deceased used to ask her to leave the house. On 1.12.1999 in the morning at about 10:30 o'clock when Rukhma Bai was coming back to her house after answering the (2) Cr.A. No. 2669/2000 call of nature, when she passed from front of the house of Appellant, he dealt blows by pointed spear like iron rod to her. She shouted and fell down. When her daughter Maya Bai (PW-1) went to save her, Appellant ran after her to assault with the iron rod. On Maya Bai's crying, Bhagrathi Bai (PW-2), Parwati Bai (PW-4), Subi Bai and other people of the neighborhood reached there. Appellant taking his son and the iron rod ran away on his bicycle. Maya Bai narrated the incident to other persons. 3. Appellant himself went to police station, Chhindwara on the same day and lodged first information report Ex.P/1 at 11:30 a.m. On his report, marg intimation Ex.P/2 was also recorded. Police reached at the spot, conducted inquest proceedings and recorded memorandum Ex.P/5. There were injuries on the head, neck and the hand of deceased. On the same day, police arrested the Appellant and on his information Ex.P/3 recovered and seized a ballam vide seizure memo Ex.P/4 from the drain of the field of Chokhe Jain. Blood stained earth, clothes of deceased and Appellant were seized from the spot and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. 4. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-6) in district hospital, Chhindwara, who vide his postmortem examination report Ex.P/12 found five injuries on the body. He also examined the pointed iron rod sent to him, which was recovered from the Appellant and opined that injuries found on the body of deceased could have been caused by it. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-6) in district hospital, Chhindwara, who vide his postmortem examination report Ex.P/12 found five injuries on the body. He also examined the pointed iron rod sent to him, which was recovered from the Appellant and opined that injuries found on the body of deceased could have been caused by it. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. 5. During trial, Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. According to him, when he came back to his house, he saw Rukhma Bai lying on the passage in front of his house. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found Appellant guilty of intentionally causing death of Rukhma Bai, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 I.P.C. as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. It was no longer disputed that deceased Rukhma Bai died of injuries found on her body. It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-6) that dead body of Rukhma Bai was brought to district hospital, Chhindwara by police constable. On postmortem examination, he found following injuries on her body: (i) Incised wound 3" x 1/2"x bone deep on scalp placed obliquely over fronto parietal plane on head. On removal of scalp skull bone was found fractured. Fracture was about 7" long of fronto parietal bone of skull, obliquely placed, corresponding to incised wound line of scalp. (ii) Abrasion with incised wound over front of right upper arm. (iii) Contusion 1/2" x 1/4", 1/2" x 1/2" on right side of neck. (iv) Two contusions 1/2" x 1" and 1/4" x 1/4" on left side of neck. (v) Incised wounds were spindle in shape. Their edges were sharp cut. These injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Injuries were sufficient to cause death of deceased and were homicidal in nature. In the opinion of doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fracture of skull bone caused by hard and sharp pointed object. 9. Their edges were sharp cut. These injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Injuries were sufficient to cause death of deceased and were homicidal in nature. In the opinion of doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fracture of skull bone caused by hard and sharp pointed object. 9. Apart from above evidence, Maya Bai (PW-1), Bhagrathi Bai (PW-2), Ramesh (PW-3) and Parwati Bai (PW-4) deposed that they saw injuries on the body of Rukhma Bai which were caused by (4) Cr.A. No. 2669/2000 the Appellant. Inspector Mithlesh (PW-5) went at the spot, prepared inquest memorandum Ex.P/5 and recorded the injuries found on the body of deceased. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination to district hospital. Postmortem examination report Ex.P/12 written and signed by Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-6) is also placed on record. It was, thus, clearly evident that deceased Rukhma Bai died of homicidal injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of Maya Bai (PW-1), Bhagrathi Bai (PW-2) and Parwati Bai (PW-4). Maya Bai being a child of about 12 years of age, was not a reliable witness. Trial Court failed to consider that Appellant was falsely implicated. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the Appellant. 11. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. Maya Bai (PW-1) categorically stated that deceased was her mother and Appellant was her brother-in-law. He lived in the neighborhood in the house which belonged to her father. On the day of occurrence at about 11:00 a.m. when she was standing in her courtyard and her mother was coming after answering the call of nature, as soon as her mother reached near the door of the house, Appellant brought a spear like weapon and dealt its blows on her hand, head and neck. Her mother fell down and blood oozed out from the wound. When she rushed to save her, Appellant ran after her to assault. Hearing her cries, Subi Bai, Bhagrathi Bai and Parwati Bai also reached at the spot. Appellant taking his son with him ran away on a bicycle. Her mother died at the spot. According to her, she also narrated the incident to Bhagrathi Bai and Parwati Bai. When she rushed to save her, Appellant ran after her to assault. Hearing her cries, Subi Bai, Bhagrathi Bai and Parwati Bai also reached at the spot. Appellant taking his son with him ran away on a bicycle. Her mother died at the spot. According to her, she also narrated the incident to Bhagrathi Bai and Parwati Bai. Evidence of this witness was virtually not challenged. Only suggestion was put that deceased fainted and died because of falling. Appellant did not assault her. 12. It is true that Maya Bai (PW-1) is a young girl of about 12 years of age, but her evidence is clear, cogent and consistent. It was not seriously challenged by the defence. Even no suggestion was put to this witness that she was tutored by anybody. Evidence of child witness should be scrutinized with care and caution especially when she claimed to be an eyewitness, but it can be accepted if it otherwise appears to be trustworthy. 13. Bhagrathi Bai (PW-2) deposed that when she was going to work in the house of Ajay Patel, she saw deceased going to her house. Appellant suddenly came out of his house and assaulted her with a spear on her hand, head and neck. She fell down and died. Appellant along with his son went away on the bicycle. Evidence of this witness was also not seriously challenged. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she did not see Appellant assaulting deceased. 14. Evidence of Maya Bai (PW-1) finds corroboration from the evidence of Parwati Bai (PW-4), who deposed that when she was tying her goat in the courtyard, hearing hue and cry of Maya, she went to her house and saw deceased lying in front of the house of Appellant. Blood was oozing out of her head. Maya informed her that Appellant assaulted deceased. 15. Evidence of Maya Bai (PW-1) and Bhagrathi Bai (PW-2) finds support from the evidence of Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-6), who performed the postmortem examination of the body of deceased and found incised and other injuries on her body. Dr. Chandrashekhar categorically stated that injuries found on the body of deceased could have been caused by the weapon which was sent to him for examination. In the opinion of Dr. Chandrashekhar, injuries found on the body of deceased were homicidal and sufficient to cause death. 16. Dr. Chandrashekhar categorically stated that injuries found on the body of deceased could have been caused by the weapon which was sent to him for examination. In the opinion of Dr. Chandrashekhar, injuries found on the body of deceased were homicidal and sufficient to cause death. 16. Trial Court rightly held that the first information report Ex.P/1 which was a confessional statement of accused was not admissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The expression "accused of any offence" covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession. This section covers a confession made when accused was free and not in police custody, as also the one made before any investigation has begun. 17. After close analysis of the evidence on record, we find that prosecution was successful in establishing that Appellant caused the death of deceased with intention to commit her murder. The finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. 18. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. We uphold the conviction of the Appellant and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him under Section 302 I.P.C. 19. Appeal fails and is dismissed.