JUDGMENT U.B. Saha and S. Talapatra, JJ. 1. Appellant, Phol Singh Jhara, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for one year vide judgment, dated 11.5.2005, passed in Sessions Trial No. 14 (NT/K) 2005 by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the instant appeal being criminal appeal No. 48 of 2007. 2. Heard Mr. S. Datta, Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P. In-charge of the case. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : Smt. Jhara, wife of the accused, appellant herein, used to reside in the dwelling hut at Golokpur Tea Estate situated within the village Nutan Tilla under P.S. Kailashahar along with her husband appellant and minor son, Sunil Jhara (PW 5). On 3.6.2004 at night about 9.00 p.m. accused Phol Singh murdered his wife Smt. Jhara in their dwelling hut by giving axe blow. At the time of commission of murder, the minor son of the accused appellant after seeing the occurrence raised alarm and hearing his alarm, the neighbors including PW 1 Sri Harendra Jhara, who is the brother of the accused by relation, Sri Manju Jhara (PW 3) brother of deceased Jhara and worker of Golokpur Tea Estate, Sri Rabi Urang (PW 4), Sri Samta (PW 7) came to the house of the accused appellant. On arrival of the neighbours, the accused appellant confessed his guilt of commission of murder of his wife by giving axe blow and a blood stained axe was found by the neighbours in his hand just after the occurrence. The accused buried the dead body of his wife on the following morning in the northern side of his house and on the following day of the occurrence, in the afternoon the dead body of the deceased Smt. Jhara was recovered from the northern side of the house at the instance of the accused appellant in presence of police and Executive Magistrate (PW 11). On 4.6.2004, at about 12.45 hours, the Officer In-charge of Kailashahar P.S. received telephonic information from the Intelligence Officer of BSF to the effect that the day before i.e. on 3.6.2004, at about 2.00 hours, the accused Phol Singh of Golokpur Tea Estate murdered his wife and the dead body of his wife was buried. The said telephonic information was recorded in the General Diary Book of the P.S. vide GD entry No. 146 dated 4.6.2004 and S.I. Rahul Alam (PW 13) of that P.S. was asked to enquire the matter and to take necessary action. On the basis of the said GD entry the aforesaid Sub-Inspector, Rahul Alam went to Golakpur Tea Estate along with staff and reached near the house of Harendra Jhara (PW 1) in the Tea Estate at 13.45 hours. At that time, Harendra Jhara (PW 1) submitted a written FIR to the said S.I. Ruhul Alam regarding the murder of the accused appellant's wife. On 4.6.2004 at about 15.35 hrs, the Officer In-charge of the Kailashahar P.S. registered a specific case being Kailashahar P.S Case No. 56 of 2004 under Section 302/201 IPC against the accused appellant and the said police case was endorsed to PW 13 S.I. Ruhul Alam for investigation. 4. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant Phol Singh under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions being the same was sessions triable case after observing all legal formalities. In course of trial, the trial Court framed the following charges against the accused : Firstly, that, on 3.6.2004 at night at about 9 p.m. at village Golokpur under Police Station-Kailasahar you committed murder by intentionally causing the death of your wite, Shrimati Jhara, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly, that, on 4.6.2004 in the morning at about 6 a.m. at village Golokpur under Police Station Kailashahar knowing that you have committed the murder of your wite, Shrimati Jhara, on the previous night at about 9 p.m., which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear by burying the dead body of your wife in jungle near your house with the intention of screening yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by this Court. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the official witnesses and also brought some documents and material objects in evidence. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. From the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and also from the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr PC, it appears that the defense case was of total denial. 6. On completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court considering the evidence on record and hearing the Learned Counsel of the parties, convicted the accused under Section 302, IPC as the charge under that Section was proved beyond all shadow of doubt and acquitted the accused from the charge leveled against him under Section 201 IPC as the same was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Although the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of the charge made against the accused, but the learned trial Court mainly considering the deposition of the Medical Officer, PW 10 Dr. Jyotirmoy Ghosh, PW 1 Sri Harendra Jhara, PW 3 Sri Marju Jhara, PW 4 Sri Rabi Urang and PW 5, Sri Sunil Jhara, convicted the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC for causing death of his wife Smt. Jhara inflicting cut injury on her abdomen with the help of an axe and sentenced thereby as stated supra. 8. Mr. Jyotirmoy Ghosh, PW 1 Sri Harendra Jhara, PW 3 Sri Marju Jhara, PW 4 Sri Rabi Urang and PW 5, Sri Sunil Jhara, convicted the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC for causing death of his wife Smt. Jhara inflicting cut injury on her abdomen with the help of an axe and sentenced thereby as stated supra. 8. Mr. S. Datta, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellant while questioning the judgment of the learned trial Court convicting the accused would contend that the learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of PW 1 and PW 5, who is a child witness and incapable of understanding the incident and the evidence of a child witness is generally unworthy of credence. More so, such evidence of child witness should not be believed by the trial Court while the same is not corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Panchhi and others v. State of U.P., 1998 Crl LJ 4044. 9. He further submits that the trial Court also failed to consider the evidence of PW 1 which is contradictory to his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr PC His another attack was that the learned trial Court ought not to have believed the evidence of PW 8 who is admittedly a child witness and from the date of alleged occurrence, he was with his grand-mother and there was every possibility of his being tutored while he was in the custody of his grand-mother. He further contended that when there was a possibility of his (PW 5) being tutored, the Court should be careful while relying on he evidence of such a child witness. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on Bhagwan Singh and other v. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 1088 wherein the Court disbelieved PW 19, a child witness of that case and held that there was a possibility of his being tutored, the Court should be careful in relying on his evidence. According to him, in, the instant case also, the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the PW 5 who is admittedly a child witness as he stayed with his grand-mother since after the incident. 10. According to him, in, the instant case also, the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the PW 5 who is admittedly a child witness as he stayed with his grand-mother since after the incident. 10. His further contention was that though the police first received the telephonic call from the BSF people and made a GD entry, but no BSF personnel was examined, which is fatal in nature. 11. His another contention before us was regarding identification of the accused on the night of the alleged incident by PW 5, who is allegedly the only eye witness. According to him, the prosecution failed to show how and what manner the accused was identified by the PW 5 when there was no source of light in hut where allegedly the deceased was murdered. 12. He also submits that PW 10, the doctor, who has done the autopsy found only one injury on the abdomen of the deceased, whereas according to PW 5, his accused father gave two axe blows, one is on the abdomen and other is on the chest of his mother and from such contradiction between these two witnesses, the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the statement of PW 5. He again submitted that the confessional statement of the accused before the neighbours including PW 1, 3, 4, 5 and PW 7 cannot be taken into consideration as a confessional statement as the same being allegedly made after he was taken into custody by the police. 13. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P. while supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court and resisted the submission of Mr. Datta, would contend that the learned trial Court on examination of PW 5, alone son of the deceased as well as appellant, a child witness, has found him as a competent witness. More so, it is PW 5 who has seen the alleged incident of murder of his mother first time while his father, the accused appellant herein, was giving axe blows to his mother. Thus, the learned trial Court rightly relied upon the evidence of PW 5 for convicting the appellant. He further submits that a child witness cannot be disbelieved on account of corroboration of his evidence from other witnesses, as the law recognizes a child as a competent witness subject to he is able to form opinion about the nature of the incident. He further submits that a child witness cannot be disbelieved on account of corroboration of his evidence from other witnesses, as the law recognizes a child as a competent witness subject to he is able to form opinion about the nature of the incident. In the instant case, the learned trial Court upon proper test found PW 5 as a competent witness. Therefore, it would not be proper for the appellate Court to disbelieve such a witness only on the ground that his grandmother has taken him away with her just after the occurrence. He further submits that though the aforesaid witness was cross-examined by the defense, but nothing was found for disbelieving the prosecution story and to help the case of the accused appellant. 14. He also contended that non-examination of BSF personnel who had received the telephonic information regarding the incident itself cannot be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution story when the extract of the GD entry has been produced before the Court and the same was also exhibited and marked as Ext. 4 by the trial Court. 15. He also submits that the submission of Mr. Datta regarding the statement of PW 10, Dr. Jyotirmoy Ghosh, is not correct as the said doctor while causing post mortem examination found external injury over the dead body of the deceased viz., one lacerated cut injury measuring 3" x 2" x deep upto peritoneal cavity (length x breadth x depth) in the right side of the abdomen below the hypochondria region and small intestine (jejunum) was found in totally cut condition along with other injuries. According to doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock following injury of liver, right kidney, small intestine and transverse colon leading to cardio respiratory failure and the defense in cross-examination could not shift him from his said opinion. Thus, it would be proper for the Court to rely on this witness also for upholding the conviction as ordered by the trial Court. 16. Thus, it would be proper for the Court to rely on this witness also for upholding the conviction as ordered by the trial Court. 16. He again contended that the extra judicial confession was made by the accused appellant before the prosecution witnesses while he was found with axe in his hand, the alleged weapon used in the incident and the said extra judicial confession made before the PW 1 and 3 is also corroborated by other witnesses, If the extra judicial confession before the PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 and the recovery of the dead body are taken together with the statement of PW 5, the lone eye witness, then there will be no other option except to come to the conclusion that it is the accused appellant who killed his the deceased wife, he contended. 17. Mr. Debnath further contended that in a case of murder, motive though important, but absence of motive itself would not create doubt in the case of prosecution as the facts of each case differ from one another. Further, the instant case is not a case based on wholly circumstantial evidence, rather this is a case where an eye witness is available who is none but the son of the deceased-mother and appellant-father. Therefore, it would not be proper for the Court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution only for absence of motive. 18. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance in a case decided by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh & Ors., etc., AIR 2011 SC 3380 wherein the Apex Court while discussing about the motive noted that "even in the absence of motive, in view of the assertion of eye witnesses, particularly, Raj Singh, (PW 2), coupled with the medical evidence as seen from Exs. P1 & P4, by the Doctor (PW 1), the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. In a catena of decisions, this Court has held that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the prosecution to prove since one cannot normally be seen into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. In a catena of decisions, this Court has held that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the prosecution to prove since one cannot normally be seen into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Even in the absence of specific evidence as to motive, in view of the fact that in the case on hand, two persons have been killed and one sustained injuries due to fire arms, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this ground." 19. Mr. Debnath finally contended that it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove the guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. Therefore, he contended that it would be proper for this Court to believe the facts that the PW 5 was present at the place of occurrence and disbelieve the statement regarding identification of the accused appellant. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Jakki @ Selvaraj and another v. State represented by the I.P., Coimbatore, (2007) 9 SCC 589 : 2007 AIR SCW 1327. 20. In Panchhi and others (supra), the Apex Court noted that it cannot be said that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. Thus, according to us, the case of Panchhi and others (supra) will no way help the case of the accused appellant, rather principal laid down by the Apex Court in that case, will help the prosecution case. 21. Thus, according to us, the case of Panchhi and others (supra) will no way help the case of the accused appellant, rather principal laid down by the Apex Court in that case, will help the prosecution case. 21. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court taking note of Prakash v. State of M.P., (1992) 4 SCC 225 ; Baby Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 667; Raja Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 287 ; and Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 held, inter alia, evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. 22. In the instant case, though Mr. Datta tried to convince us that the evidence of PW 5, the child witness, is not only unworthy, but also uncorroborated by any other evidence, but we do not subscribe to the view, as contended by Mr. Duta only on the ground that the narration of the incident by PW 5 was quite natural and he was the only person inside the house who could see the alleged incident and there is no whisper or suggestion available in the defence case that PW 5 was not present at the time of the alleged incident in the room where axe blow was given by the accused appellant to his deceased mother. 23. In Bhagwan Singh and others (supra), the Apex Court considering the evidence of a child witness, PW 19 of that case, stated inter alia, " the law recognizes the child as a competent witness but a child particularly at such a tender age of six years, who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding, is not considered by the Court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied upon without other corroborative evidence. The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the Court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony." 24. The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the Court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony." 24. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case disbelieved the evidence of the child witness considering the fact and circumstances of that case, particularly, the fact that the Trial Judge has recorded the demeanour of the child witness and the child witness was vacillating in the course of his deposition. The Apex Court also noted that" From a child of six years of age, absolute consistency in deposition cannot be expected but if it appears that there was a possibility of his being tutored, the Court should be careful in relying on his evidence." 25. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case also noted that "Agyaram, maternal uncle of the child, who first met him after the incident and took him along with his younger brothers to his father's village, has not been produced by the prosecution as a witness in the Court. It was most unlikely that if the child had seen the incident and identified the three accused, he would not have narrated it to Agyaram as the latter would have naturally inquired about the same. The conduct of his father Radheyshyam who was produced as a witness by the prosecution is also unnatural that before recording the statement of the child by the police, he made no enquires from the child." 26. The Apex Court also took note of the fact that "even after the alleged involvement of three accused by the child witness in his statement under Section 161, Cr PC to the police, no test identification parade was held and in such Circumstances, in our opinion, mere dock identification of the accused by the child in the Court cannot be accepted with certainty as a reliable identification." 27. But in the instant case, the learned trial Court in its judgment stated that PW 5, who is a minor boy of the accused- appellant and deceased, is the only eye witness of the occurrence and PW 5 along with his parents used to reside in their dwelling hut situated at village Nutantilla about ten months back from the date of giving his deposition on 6.4.2005 who stated that about ten months back on a Thursday, at night, at about 9 p.m., while he was sleeping in their hut, at that time, hearing cry raised by his mother, he woke up from his sleep and saw that his father was giving axe blow on his mother. The trial Court also noted that it is also found that during the cross-examination of PW 5, it was confirmed from the side the accused appellant that the accused appellant gave axe blow on the abdomen of his mother and his mother died within few minutes after sustaining the axe blows. Moreover, from the deposition of PW 5, it also reveals that the said witness being a minor boy of about 9 years, he was examined by the trial Judge by putting some questions to which he gave rational answers to all the questions put to him and he was found competent to testify. 28. On careful scrutiny of the deposition of PW 5, it is found that the deposition of the said witness is not at all shaken in any way during his cross-examination and there is no material on record to disbelieve the deposition of the said witness, rather it is found that deposition of this child witness is very much natural, cogent and trustworthy. 29. The Apex Court in Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 3690 , noted, inter alia, "it is true that motive is important in cases of circumstantial evidence, but that does not mean that in all cases of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution has been unable to satisfactorily prove a motive its case must fail. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case". 30. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case". 30. Before we proceed to consider the submission of the Learned Counsel of the parties, and ground raised by them at the time of hearing, it would be necessary on our part to discuss the salient part of the evidence of PW 1, 3, 4, 5 and 10. PW 5 is the star witness who was sleeping in the room with her parents where the alleged incident of murder of his mother was occurred and who happened to be the lone eye witness. 31. PW 1 Sri Harendra Jhara in his deposition stated that he is the brother of the accused appellant by relation and on the night of occurrence, at about 9/9.30 p.m., hearing the alarm, he went to the house of the accused appellant along with others and saw that the dead body of deceased was lying on the floor of the dwelling hut of the accused appellant with grievous injuries on her abdomen and chest. He also saw that the accused was sitting in his dwelling hut with an axe in his hand and he found blood stain on that axe. On query, the accused appellant told him that he murdered his wife. He also stated that he went to the house of the accused just after the occurrence along with PW 3 and few others. The accused confessed the guilt of commission of murder of his wife to them. Thereafter, they reported the said facts to their leader Jagadish Karmakar and others who advised them to wait for that night and that the necessary action will be taken on the following morning. He further stated that on the following day of the occurrence, at noon, one police officer along with other police personnel came to the house of the accused and at that time, he lodged written F.I.R. to the police officer narrating the said incident and the said FIR was written by one person as per his dictation and it was read over to him before he gave his L.T.I. in the FIR. Being shown the seized axe (Ext. M.O. 1), he identified the same and stated that he found the said axe in the hand of the accused just after murder of the deceased. 32. Being shown the seized axe (Ext. M.O. 1), he identified the same and stated that he found the said axe in the hand of the accused just after murder of the deceased. 32. PW 3, Sri Marju Jhara is the brother of the deceased who in his deposition stated that on the night of occurrence at about 9/10 p.m. while he was working in the Golokpur Tea Garden, at that time, one Ranjan Jhara of their area told him that an incident of assault took place in the house of his elder sister. Hearing this, he went to the house of his said sister and saw that dead body of his sister was lying on the floor of the dwelling hut. He also found bleeding cut injuries on the abdomen and chest of his sister. He also saw that the accused was sitting in his dwelling hut with an axe in his hand and on being asked, the accused told him that he committed murder of his wife. This witness also saw blood stain on the axe which was at the hand of the accused. He also found other villagers in the house of the accused. During cross examination, he stated that on the night of occurrence, on his query, the accused remained mum and on the following day in the morning, he again went to the house of his sister and at that time, the accused told him that he committed murder of his wife. He also stated that his deceased sister left behind her only son, namely, Sunil Jhara, (PW 5) who was then aged about 9 years and after the murder of his sister, he has been residing with him. 33. PW 4, Sri Rabi Urang, is the neighbour of the accused who also hearing alarm went to the house of the accused on the night of occurrence at about 9 p.m. and also corroborated the evidence of the PW 3. He stated in his deposition that he saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor of the dwelling hut with cut bleeding injuries on her abdomen and chest. He also found that the accused was standing in his hut with an axe in his hand and some other villagers also went to the house of the accused and the accused confessed to them that he murdered his wife. He also found that the accused was standing in his hut with an axe in his hand and some other villagers also went to the house of the accused and the accused confessed to them that he murdered his wife. He further stated that on his query, the accused told him that he murdered his wife. He also stated that the accused got only one son namely Sunil Jhara (PW 5) who used to reside with the accused at the time of occurrence. 34. PW 5, Sri Sunil Jhara, in his deposition stated that deceased Smt. Jhara was his mother and accused Phol Singh Jhara is his father and he along with his parents used to reside in their dwelling hut at village Nutan Tilla about 10 months back from the date of his giving deposition on 6.4.05 and about ten months back on a Thursday, at night, at about 9 p.m., when he was sleeping in their hut, he woke up hearing cry of his mother and saw that his father was giving axe blow on his mother. He also saw that his father gave about two axe blows on the abdomen and chest of his mother. After sustaining axe blows, his mother fell down on the floor of their hut and died at the spot. Seeing this, he raised alarm to save his mother and neighbours came to their house. On query of the neighbours, his father told them that he (the father of the PW 5) committed murder of his wife (deceased mother of PW 5). He further stated that his grand-mother also came to their house just after the occurrence and took him to his grand-mother's house on the night of occurrence and since then, he had been residing in the house of his grand-mother. During cross examination, he stated that he did not state to the police officer that his father had given two axe blows to his mother and he stated to the police officer that his father had given axe blow on the abdomen of his mother. He also stated that his mother died within few minutes after sustaining the axe blows. 35. PW 10 is Dr. He also stated that his mother died within few minutes after sustaining the axe blows. 35. PW 10 is Dr. Jyotirmoy Ghosh, who in his deposition specifically stated that he had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, the wife of the accused appellant in connection with the Kailashahar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2004 under Section 302, IPC and during post mortem examination, he found one external injury measuring 3" x 2" deep up to peritoneal cavity on the right side of the abdomen of the deceased. 36. PW 13 Rahul Alam is the I.O. who went to the place of occurrence and examined four witnesses and recorded their statements. He also arrested the accused from jungle Situated on the eastern side of his house. Thereafter, as the accused had shown the burial place of his wife, the dead body of the deceased was recovered by digging earth and he found one grievous cut injury on the right side of the abdomen of the dead body. He also found another reddish injury on the left side chest of the dead body. He prepared the inquest report over the dead body. In his cross-examination, he also stated that during investigation, it was not revealed that the accd. was intoxicated at the time of occurrence. 37. In Pratap Singh and another v. State of M.R., (2005) 13 SCC 624 , the Apex Court while considering the evidence of a child witness noted inter alia that corroboration of a minor's evidence with other independent evidence is not mandatory requirement of law, but closer scrutiny of the said evidence is required. 38. In Ghulam Qadir v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2011 Cri LJ 4185, a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court while considering the judgment of the Additional Judge, Reasi whereby and whereunder the appellant Ghulam Qadir stood convicted under Section 302 and 323 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), considered the evidence of a child witness, Mohd. Tariz (PW 3) in that case who was at the age of 9 (nine) years at the time of occurrence and held that Evidence Act does not describe any particular age as determining factor to treat a witness to be competent one. Tariz (PW 3) in that case who was at the age of 9 (nine) years at the time of occurrence and held that Evidence Act does not describe any particular age as determining factor to treat a witness to be competent one. On the contrary, it envisages that all the persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions because of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of mind or any other kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify, if he or she has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rationale answers. (Emphasis supplied). 39. Their Lordship in Ghulam Qadir (supra) considering the case of Suryanarayan v. Stale of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 482 , also noted that "it is well settled that the evidence of a child witness is not to be rejected per se, but the Court as a rule of prudence is supposed to test the evidence of a child witness with care and caution, as the child witness may mix up what he has actually seen with what he likes to imagine. If the Court is ultimately convinced about the quality and reliability of the evidence, conviction can be recorded on the statement of a child witness" and ultimately upheld the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. 40. On scrutiny of the evidence as produced by the prosecution and discussed hereinabove, it appears that PW 5, the son of the deceased and the accused appellant, was admittedly a minor at the time of alleged incident and he used to reside in their dwelling hut at the relevant time, who has stated in his deposition that about ten months back from the date of his giving deposition on 6.4.2005, he along with his parents used to reside in their dwelling hut Situated at Nutan Tilla and on a Thursday, at night, at about 9 p.m., he was sleeping in their hut. At that time, hearing the cry raised by his mother, he woke up from sleep and saw that his father was giving axe blow on his mother. He also saw that his father gave about two axe blow on the abdomen and chest of his mother and after sustaining axe blow his mother fell down on the floor of their hut and died at the spot. He also saw that his father gave about two axe blow on the abdomen and chest of his mother and after sustaining axe blow his mother fell down on the floor of their hut and died at the spot. Seeing the aforesaid incident, he raised alarm to save his mother and hearing the alarm, neighbours came to their house and on query of them, his father told them that his father committed murder of his mother. 41. In his cross, he has confirmed the story narrated by him in his chief. It further appears from his deposition that at the time of alleged incident, he was a minor boy of about nine years and was examined by the trial Court by putting some questions to which he gave rational answer and he was found by the trial Court that he was a competent to examine as a witness. Not only that, in his cross-examination, the defence failed to shaken his deposition in any manner. 42. Thus, we are of the conscious opinion that the said witness cannot be disbelieved as he was the only natural witness relating to the alleged incident and the Evidence Act does not exclude a child witness from deposing regarding an incident which he had witnessed, rather, according to the Evidence Act, all the persons including a child shall be competent to testify unless a Court considers that those witnesses are prevented from understanding the questions because of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of mind or any other kind as stated in Ghulam Qadir (supra). The Trial Court should be more cautious before recording the evidence of a child witness and also to SCC that the child witness should not get an opportunity for mixing himself with any other person by whom he can be tutored. 43. Now-a-days, due to development of the science, maturity of the children is also fast developed not only in the urban area, but also in rural area. According to us, the learned trial Court rightly found that the deposition of the PW 5 was believable. Moreover, PW 5, the son of the accused appellant, was completely aware of the fact that the person who was in dock was none but his father. He was also aware about the consequence of his deposition before the Court. 44. According to us, the learned trial Court rightly found that the deposition of the PW 5 was believable. Moreover, PW 5, the son of the accused appellant, was completely aware of the fact that the person who was in dock was none but his father. He was also aware about the consequence of his deposition before the Court. 44. The Court should not either believe or disbelieve a child witness at the first instance in a trial. It should consider the facts and circumstance of each case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court should either believe or disbelieve a child witness. Neither the Evidence Act nor the Apex Court laid down any formula for considering the maturity of a child witness. It is the trial Court, before whom a child witness is adducing his evidence, is the best Judge to testify the a child witness and come to a conclusion regarding the maturity of the said child witness and when the trial Court believes a child witness, normally, the appellate Court should not discard the evidence of such child witness in an appeal. 45. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned trial Court, before recording the evidence of PW 5, the minor child of the deceased and the accused appellant, had examined him by putting certain questions to which he had given rational answer and the learned trial Court found him competent and most reliable witness of the occurrence. The learned trial Court also discussed in his judgment that though the PW 5 specifically deposed in his deposition that he saw the accused to give axe blow on the abdomen of his mother, but no suggestion is given to him from the defence that at the time of occurrence, there was no light. The learned trial Court also took note of the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Babu and others, 2003 Cri. L.J 4982, wherein the Apex Court in Para-7 of the said Report observed : 7. xxx When accused persons are known to the witness, identification is possible from the manner of speech, manner of walking and gesticulating and specially features of a person like physical attributes. Therefore, the evidence of PW 5 cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a child witness. xxx When accused persons are known to the witness, identification is possible from the manner of speech, manner of walking and gesticulating and specially features of a person like physical attributes. Therefore, the evidence of PW 5 cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a child witness. More so, the evidence of the said child witness has also been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses like PW 1, 3 and 4 and also by PW 10 Dr. Jyotirmoy Ghosh. 46. From the evidence of PW 10, it appears that some sort of discrepancies are found between the deposition of the medical evidence and the deposition of other prosecution witnesses regarding the number of external injuries found over the dead body of the deceased. By this time, it is settled that the medical evidence is nothing but an opinion evidence and such evidence can be used only for the purpose of corroboration. The defence can at best come with a plea that the alleged injuries could not have been possibly caused by use of weapon alleged and also to discard witness. The Apex Court in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri. L.J 822 in para-12 of the said Report held : 12. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. 47. It is also settled that medical science is not yet so perfect for determining the exact time of death nor can the same be determined in a computerized or mathematical fashion so as to be accurate to the last second. (See State of Punjab and others v. S. Dharam Singh (Dead) by Successor Desa Singh and another, AIR 1985 SC 1751 . 48. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh and others, 2005 Cri. (See State of Punjab and others v. S. Dharam Singh (Dead) by Successor Desa Singh and another, AIR 1985 SC 1751 . 48. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh and others, 2005 Cri. L.J 108, the Apex Court while discussing the evidence of Medical Officer noted, inter alia, in Para-8 and 9 of the said Report: 8. Coming to the plea that the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord under primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the Variable' keeping in the medical evidence as the "constant". 9. It is trite that where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primary of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sale touchstone for the test of such credibility. xxx. 49. In the instant case, though there were some discrepancies between the deposition of the medical evidence and the evidences of other prosecution witnesses, but the medical officer specifically stated in his deposition that the deceased was died due to injuries inflicted on her abdomen by a weapon like axe which caused damaged to the liver, right kidney small intestine and transverse colon of the deceased. Such evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 to the extent that his father had given axe blow on the abdomen of his mother. Therefore, the PW 5, the child witness is more important and a competent witness in the case in hand and his evidence in no way can be ignored, as he was the only eyewitness of the incident, particularly, when a son of the deceased mother as well as the accused father appellant is deposing against his accused father. 50. Therefore, the PW 5, the child witness is more important and a competent witness in the case in hand and his evidence in no way can be ignored, as he was the only eyewitness of the incident, particularly, when a son of the deceased mother as well as the accused father appellant is deposing against his accused father. 50. The defence in his cross-examination nowhere suggested that the son (PW 5) was inimical to his father at any point of time and other neighbouring witness including the brother of the deceased (PW 3), who were in the place of occurrence after hearing alarm raised by PW 5 and were the witnesses of confession made by the accused appellant admitting his guilt. 51. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court did not commit any wrong in the trial while convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. On scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the further opinion that the present case neither falls under Section 304, Part-I nor is a case of 304 Part-II IPC, rather this is a clear case of 302, IPC simplicitor, as there was no pre-meditation in the alleged incident. In the result, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC. Consequent thereto, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed