Order Counsel for the applicant is not pressing this Interlocutory Application. 2. Hence, this Interlocutory Application is disposed of as not pressed. Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2003 3. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused Sundar Baraik @ Sasodhar Baraik against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13th August, 2003, passed by the 10th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2002, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. It is a case of the prosecution that on 14th November, 2001, at about 2 P.M., when the informant Jhaiyo Devi (P.W. 5) was at Bero Bazar, her daughter (P.W.6) informed her that her Mama (maternal uncle of P.W. 6) Sundar Baraik @ Sasodhar Baraik, who is the accused appellant, has cut the neck of her father, namely Harakh Baraik by Tangi. The informant (P.W. 5) immediately rushed to her house along with her daughter (P.W. 6) and there she found her husband lying in a critically injured condition but was still breathing. With the help of the villagers the informant took her husband on a 'Thela' and rushed for medical' aid, but her husband Harakh Baraik expired on the way. 5. Thereafter, her Fardbayan was recorded immediately at Police Station-Bero, District-Ranchi on 14th November, 2001, at about 15 hours approx. and on the basis of the said Fard-beyan, First Information Report being Bero P.S. Case No. 74 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. The appellant accused, who was caught hold of by the villagers, was named in the F.I.R. (Exhibit-3). Thereafter, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8). Inquest report (Panchnama) was prepared, which has been marked as Ext.-5. Sharp cutting weapon 'Tangi' and the blood stained 'Chaddar' were also seized and Seizure List (Ext.-4) was prepared accordingly. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.7). The post mortem report has been marked as Ext.-2. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and, thereafter, after commitment, the trial proceeded. Sharp cutting weapon 'Tangi' and the blood stained 'Chaddar' were also seized and Seizure List (Ext.-4) was prepared accordingly. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W.7). The post mortem report has been marked as Ext.-2. 6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and, thereafter, after commitment, the trial proceeded. During trial, deposition of the prosecution witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 8) were recorded and the trial court after appreciating the depositions of the witnesses and evidences on record, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. Against this order of conviction and sentence, present appeal has been preferred. 5. Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the case of the prosecution is based mainly upon the deposition of Meena Kumari (P.W. 6), who is daughter of the deceased, aged about 7 years, who is an interested witness and looking to her cross-examination, she is not a reliable witness. It is further submitted that rest of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. Moreover, looking to the deposition of the Investigating Officer, there was no bloodstain on the place of occurrence. It is .further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and hence the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. We have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor, who has vehemently submitted-that the case of the prosecution is based upon the deposition of several witnesses, including P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, to" be read with the deposition given by P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 keeping in mind the documentary evidence such as, Exts.-2, 3, 4 and 5. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that on the day of Deepavali, murder has taken place in the house of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. The murder has been committed in broad daylight. P.W. 6 is the eye witness to the whole incident. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that on the day of Deepavali, murder has taken place in the house of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. The murder has been committed in broad daylight. P.W. 6 is the eye witness to the whole incident. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 6, who is the daughter of the deceased, it is apparent that she has clearly narrated that it is only the appellant-accused, who has committed murder of the deceased by sharp cutting weapon "Tangi" P.W. 6 has described the appellant-accused as her Mama (maternal uncle) and P.W. 6 being a close relative of the accused, there is no question of misidentification of the appellant-accused by her. Though P.W. 6 is a child witness, she has given her deposition clearly and looking to the cross-examination, it is' apparent that nothing from her cross-examination has come in favour of the present appellant-accused. She has clearly narrated the whole incident. It appears that immediately after the incident, P.W.6 rushed to her mother (P.W. 5), which can also be considered a normal conduct on her part because it is the natural urge of a child to rush to her mother in case of any untoward happening. P. W. 5 is wife of the deceased and mother of P.W. 6 and at the relevant time she was in the Bazar at Village-Bero, District-Ranchi. As soon as P.W. 5 was informed by P.W. 6 about the murder of her husband, she rushed immediately to her house. In her deposition, she has narrated whatever she has seen in the house. Her husband was lying in a critically injured condition and she immediately took her husband on a ‘Thela’ with the help of the villagers, but her husband died on the way. Thus, the scene of offence is also confirmed by P.W. 6 and P.W. 5. Immediately thereafter, P.W. 5 rushed to the Sero Police Station. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that looking to the cross-examination of P.W. 6, nothing goes in favour of the present appellant accused. The deposition of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is also corroborated by the deposition of P.W. 4, who is a co-villager and an independent witness. P.W. 4 is the wife of the landlord where the deceased, his wife and daughter were residing. The deposition of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is also corroborated by the deposition of P.W. 4, who is a co-villager and an independent witness. P.W. 4 is the wife of the landlord where the deceased, his wife and daughter were residing. The A.P.P. further submitted that looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, there is enough corroboration of the prosecution version. The A.P.P. further submitted that post mortem examination was carried out on 15th November, 2001 and the time of death has been opined by the doctor in between 18 to 36 hours from the time of post mortem examination and looking to the deposition of the doctor (P.W. 7), who has conducted post mortem examination, it appears that there is enough corroboration of the deposition of the eye witness P.W. 6 as well as other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. There were corresponding injuries on the neck of the deceased and three incised wounds by sharp cutting weapon. All the injuries were ante mortem. The said post mortem report is at Exhibit No. 2 and looking to this document and deposition given by P.W. 7, there is enough corroboration of the deposition given by the prosecution witnesses. The A.P.P. has further submitted that looking to the statement of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), who has drawn the inquest report (Panchnama-Ext. No.5), it appears that there is clear narration of the scene of offence and recovery of the weapon (Tangi) as well as bloodstained Chadar from the place of occurrence. Looking to the cross-examination of this witness, nothing goes in favour of the appellant accused and deposition of P.W. 8 corroborates the deposition given by P.Ws.4, 5 and 6. The A.P.P. further submitted that above facts go to show that the prosecution case is based on the statement of the eye-witness. The murder took place in the house of the victim. There is no question of misidentification of the appellant accused. Weapon had been recovered from the scene of offence and the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased by the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, tally with what has been deposed by the eye witness regarding the injuries. There is no question of misidentification of the appellant accused. Weapon had been recovered from the scene of offence and the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased by the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, tally with what has been deposed by the eye witness regarding the injuries. Lastly, it has been submitted by the A.P.P. that no error has been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as it has been passed by the trial court after proper appreciation of all the evidences on record, and, as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the evidences on record, I see no ground to entertain this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant accused, mainly for the following facts and reasons;- (I) The incident has taken place on 14th November, 2001 at about 2 p.m. at the house of P.W. 5 and P.W.6, who were residing in the house of P.W. 4. It appears that at the time the offence took place, apart from P.W. 6 Meena Kumari, the appellant accused Sundar Baraik and the victim Harakh Baraik were also in the house. Harakh Baraik (deceased) is the father of P.W. 6. (II) Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 6, it appears that though she is a minor, she is a •reliable and trustworthy witness. She has narrated the whole incident, in detail and accurately and there is no ambiguity in her narration regarding the scene of offence, the person who committed the murder and the weapon, used in commission of murder. Her behaviour after the murder was also quite natural i.e. she rushed to her mother immediately. On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W. 6, which is heavily relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that P.W. 6 was an interested witness. On the contrary, in her cross-examination, though there was some hesitation on her part, she has clearly stated that she was a witness to the incident. Counsel for the appellant is heavily relying on one sentence in para 2 of her cross-examination. On the contrary, in her cross-examination, though there was some hesitation on her part, she has clearly stated that she was a witness to the incident. Counsel for the appellant is heavily relying on one sentence in para 2 of her cross-examination. It ought to be kept in mind that deposition should be read as a whole, especially when the deposition in question is of a child witness and that too when the deposition is recorded before the court after several months from the date of incidence. The fact which should be considered is that P.W. 6 is an illiterate child of about 7 years age and is not a seasoned witness. She is from a village and therefore, easily susceptible to the hesitation a villager might feel inside a court room. Further, deposition of a witness will depend upon his/her observation power, memory and capacity to reiterate the facts regarding the incident before the court after several months from the date of incident. Therefore, a little hesitation in the narration of the incident cannot be ruled out and one single line in the cross-examination will not make the deposition given by P.W. 6 wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. On the contrary, apparent hesitation in paragraph 2 of the deposition of P.W. 6 makes it clear that she is not a tutored witness and, thus, leaves no room for doubt regarding her trustworthiness. There bound to be some hesitation on the part of a child when he/she found herself/himself among strangers in an alien atmosphere, which in this case is a crowded court room. But overall, the way she has deposed, narrating the whole incident as stated hereinabove, is reliable and trustworthy and further, her conduct after she witnessed the murder of her father was also absolutely natural. (IIA) Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 5, who is the informant and wife of the deceased, it appears that she was in Bazar at Village-Bero where she was informed by her daughter P.W. 6 that her husband (father of P.W. 6) was murdered by the present appellant accused by Tangi in their own house. P.W. 5 immediately rushed to her house. She saw her husband lying in a critically injured condition. She immediately took her on a ‘Thela’ for his treatment but on the way he succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 5 immediately rushed to her house. She saw her husband lying in a critically injured condition. She immediately took her on a ‘Thela’ for his treatment but on the way he succumbed to the injuries. On perusal of her cross-examination, apparently nothing comes out in favour of the appellant. Without any exaggeration, this rustic witness has narrated the entire incident. Her deposition is also corroborated by the deposition of P.W. 4., who is also a trustworthy witness. (III) In her deposition, P.W. 4, who is an independent witness and a co-villager and wife of the landlord in whose house P.Ws. 5 and 6 and the deceased were residing, has stated that she was also informed by P.W. 6 about the murder committed by the present appellant. On perusal of the deposition given by P.W. 4, it is apparent that she has also narrated the scene of occurrence accurately. Moreover, P.W.4 has also narrated that the accused was also caught hold of by other co-villagers on the spot and from her cross-examination, nothing comes out in favour of the appellant accused. Thus, on perusal of the deposition of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, it appears that the whole case of prosecution is based upon the eye witness as well as the depositions given by P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, who are also supporting the deposition of the eye witness. (IV) Further, deposition of these witnesses (P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6) have been corrobotated by Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (P.W. 7), who has carried out post mortem examination on the deceased. Postmortem Note is Ext.-2. Following are the injuries found by P.W.7:- (a) 6 x 1% cm x bone deep on left cheek cutting the underlying maxillary bone. (b) 5 x 1 % cm x bone deep on left lateral neck lower part cutting' the underlying soft tissue, blood vessels and 6th cervical vertebra partially. (c) 6 x 2cm x soft tissue on left frontal lateral neck cutting the soft tissue, blood-vessels, left side of trachea and oesophagus. The food matter is coming out through the wound. There is infiltration of blood and blood clot in the soft and bony tissues at the side of the abovementioned wounds. Internal organs are pale. (c) 6 x 2cm x soft tissue on left frontal lateral neck cutting the soft tissue, blood-vessels, left side of trachea and oesophagus. The food matter is coming out through the wound. There is infiltration of blood and blood clot in the soft and bony tissues at the side of the abovementioned wounds. Internal organs are pale. This witness has opined that (i) All the injuries are ante mortem, (ii) Caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon, (iii) Death is due to injuries on neck, hemorrhage and shock, and (iv) Time since death is 18 to 36 hours from the time of post mortem examination. This witness has proved the post mortem report as Ext.-2. This witness has not been cross-examined by the defence. Thus, there were three incised wounds. These injuries were ante mortem and could have been caused by the weapon which was seized by the Investigating Officer from the scene of offence. Thus, depositions given by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are corroborated by the medical evidence. Time of death, as determined from the medical evidence, also tallies with the depositions of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6. (V) As per the deposition given by P.W. 8, who has carried out the investigation of the whole offence, it appears that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 5 immediately after the incident Present appellant is named in the F.I.R. (Ext.-3). The 'Tangi' and the bloodstained chadar figures in the Seizure list (Ext. 4). On perusal of the deposition of P.W, 8, apparently there is no discrepancy in the scene of offence from where 'Tangi' and bloodstained 'Ghadar' were also seized. (VI) Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there was no bloodstain on the floor, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. This contention is not accepted by this court mainly for the reason that it has been stated by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) in his statement that the floor was cleaned with water. Secondly bloodstained 'Ghadar" was also seized. Therefore, an attempt was made to wash the floor clean, Therefore, no doubtful situation, whatsoever, arises and on the contrary, there is corroboration of the deposition given by P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 4. by the deposition given by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) and looking to his cross-examination, nothing is coming out in favour of the present appellant accused. 8. by the deposition given by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) and looking to his cross-examination, nothing is coming out in favour of the present appellant accused. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidences on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant, who has committed the murder of Harakh Baraik (deceased) at the house where he used to reside with his wife (P.W. 5) and his daughter (P.W. 6). Medical evidence is also corroborative. The evidence given by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, especially considering the Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating these evidences on record and, thus, present appellant accused has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 9. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.