Judgment: P.V. HARDAS, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia by judgment dated 9.3.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 40/07, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus :- P.W. 9 Sangramsingh s/o Pratapsingh Nishandar, A.C.P., who was attached to Deori Police Station as a SDPO questioned the accused and during custodial interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place where a nylon rope had been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum at Exh.22 was drawn in the presence of PW.7 Hiralal and another panch. The appellant led the police and the panch and accordingly produced a nylon rope which was seized under seizure-memo at Exh. 23. The sketch map of the scene of the incident was drawn by the Revenue Authorities at Exh. 33. It appears that pursuant to the report of PW. 1 Anil kumar, Police Patil of village Kohamara at Exh. 11, accidental death had been registered. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code were recorded and further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was filed. During the course of investigation, a report of PW.3 Raju, brother of deceased Vandana was recorded at Exh. 15. On the basis of the said report, an offence was registered vide Crime No. 98/06 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed FIR is at Exh. 16. Pursuant thereto, the scene of the offence panchnama was drawn at Exh. 25 and the inquest panchnama of the dead body of deceased Vandana at Exh. 29. The dead body had been referred for postmortem examination. 3. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Vandana was performed by PW.8 Dr. Sabale, who noticed the ligature mark ½ cm in breadth on the right side of the neck and, therefore, opined that cause of death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The postmortem report is at Exh. 28. According to PW.8 Dr. Sabale, the nylon rope could have caused the ligature on the neck of deceased Vandana. 4. Sabale, who noticed the ligature mark ½ cm in breadth on the right side of the neck and, therefore, opined that cause of death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The postmortem report is at Exh. 28. According to PW.8 Dr. Sabale, the nylon rope could have caused the ligature on the neck of deceased Vandana. 4. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, the trial Court vide Exh. 4 framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. The defence of the appellant is of denial and has claimed that a false case had been lodged against him. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-stated. 5. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri T.A. Mirza, the learned A.P.P. for respondent State, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW.2 Kisnabai, mother of deceased Vandana, states that Vandana was married to the appellant in 2001 and the appellant after the marriage used to assault Vandana while under the influence of liquor. Kisnabai states that the aforesaid fact had been disclosed to her by Vandana. In respect of the incident, she states that the appellant had telephoned her that Vandana had expired and accordingly, PW.2 Kisnabai along with the other family members had gone to village Kohamara and had seen the dead body of her daughter. She had noticed ligature mark on the neck of Vandana. She had noticed that the hair of Vandana was dishevelled. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, she has admitted as correct that the appellant was running a panshop. She has also admitted that Vandana had given birth to two children. She has denied the suggestion that she was stating a falsehood. 6. PW.3 Raju, brother of deceased Vandana, states that the appellant used to assault Vandana after consuming liquor. He admits to have gone to the house of Vandana on receipt of the information that Vandana had expired and states that he had noticed ligature mark on the neck of Vandana. 6. PW.3 Raju, brother of deceased Vandana, states that the appellant used to assault Vandana after consuming liquor. He admits to have gone to the house of Vandana on receipt of the information that Vandana had expired and states that he had noticed ligature mark on the neck of Vandana. He states that on the next day, he had accordingly lodged his report at Exh. 15. He has identified his signature on the printed FIR at Exh. 16. He has admitted in cross-examination that the appellant was poor and was running a pan shop. He has also admitted as correct that the appellant used to keep rice in a gunny bag in the house. He has admitted that Vandana used to visit his house once or twice in a year. He has denied the suggestion that Vandana had strangulated herself. 7. PW.4 Laxmibai, mother of the appellant, states that the appellant was not doing any work and used to consume liquor and, thereafter, used to quarrel. She states that the appellant had never treated his wife Vandana well. The appellant was involved as an accused in the murder case of his real brother Tilakchand. The appellant was, however, acquitted in the said case and thereafter used to behave in the same manner. In respect of the incident, she states that on the day of the incident the appellant had sold wheat at about 8 a.m. and had subsequently consumed liquor. The appellant awoke at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. and had demanded Rs.50/- from his father. The appellant had then alleged that Vandana removed Rs. 300/- from his pocket. Vandana had driven the appellant out of the room and PW.4 Laxmibai had attempted to convince the appellant to behave properly. Since the appellant did not relent, Laxmibai went to the house of one Sayabai. Laxmibai further states that her grand-daughter PW.5 Simran came to the house of Sayabai and informed Laxmibai that the appellant had assaulted her mother and had pressed her neck. Simran also disclosed that the appellant had told her that he would kill her. Vandana was later on taken to the hospital and the appellant returned along with Vandana and disclosed that Vandana had died. Laxmibai states that she had noticed ligature marks on the neck of Vandana. In cross-examination, she has admitted that since the marriage the appellant was residing separate. Vandana was later on taken to the hospital and the appellant returned along with Vandana and disclosed that Vandana had died. Laxmibai states that she had noticed ligature marks on the neck of Vandana. In cross-examination, she has admitted that since the marriage the appellant was residing separate. An admission is elicited that the appellant had not taken care of Laxmibai. An admission is also elicited that Vandana was not happy with the appellant. An omission is attempted to be elicited in the cross - examination of Laxmibai that she had not stated in her previous statement that Simran had disclosed to her that the appellant had assaulted Vandana on her neck. The said omission has not been proved and moreover, Laxmibai does not state that Simran had informed her that the appellant had assaulted Vandana on her neck. 8. PW.5 Simran, the sole eyewitness to the incident, states that on the day of the incident, the appellant - her father had consumed liquor and had assaulted Vandana as the appellant wanted to sell rice. The appellant tied the neck of Vandana with a rope. The appellant asked Simran to come near him and had told that he would "cut" her. Simran states that she had accordingly gone and informed her grandmother that the appellant had tied the neck of Vandana with a rope and had assaulted her. Simran states that she had also disclosed to her grandmother that the appellant had threatened her that he would "cut" her also. Though PW.5 Simran has been cross - examined, nothing of substance has been elicited in the cross-examination. 9. PW.6 Seema, a neighbour states that the appellant used to always quarrel with Vandana and on the day of the incident, the appellant had alleged that Vandana had removed Rs.300/- from his pocket but Vandana had denied the same. Subsequently, she noticed that Vandana had been killed and had seen the appellant taking Vandana to a hospital in an autorickshaw. She has denied the suggestion that at the time of the incident she was not present in the house. Again, nothing of any significance is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. 10. Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has urged before us that implicit reliance on the testimony of PW.5 Simran cannot be placed as Simran is a child witness and is susceptible to tutoring. Again, nothing of any significance is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. 10. Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has urged before us that implicit reliance on the testimony of PW.5 Simran cannot be placed as Simran is a child witness and is susceptible to tutoring. It is further alleged before us that in the absence of any corroborative evidence, evidence of Simran cannot be used as a foundation for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. The learned A.P.P. has supported the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW.5 Simran. Undoubtedly, PW.5 Simran is a child witness. Normally, the evidence of a child witness is not accepted or relied upon unless it is corroborated. In the present case, we find that the evidence ofPW.5 Simran is corroborated by the immediate information conveyed by PW.5 Simran to PWA Laxmibai. The presence of the appellant in the house is firmly established and it is also established that the appellant was quarrelling with deceased Vandana. When Vandana had died the appellant was present in the house and PW.5 Simran had seen the appellant strangulating deceased Vandana. The appellant has not been able to establish that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of the incident. The presence of the appellant in the house is also referred to by PW.6 Seema, a neighbour of the appellant. The appellant has also not offered any explanation as to how Vandana had sustained a ligature mark on her neck and had died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. Death of Vandana was obviously not a natural death but was a homicidal death. We, therefore, find that the disclosure made by PW.5 Simran to PW.4 Laxmibai immediately after the incident corroborates the version of PW.5 Simran. There is overwhelming evidence which establishes the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find that the appeal filed by the appellant is without any merit and no fault can be found with the reasoning of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant as afore-stated. 12. Accordingly, there being no merit in the present appeal, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.