JUDGMENT Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. These three appeals are directed against selfsame judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Nadiad, and therefore, they are being disposed by this common judgment. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 - Udesinh @ Shetansinh Ramratansinh Parmar was accused No. 3, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 2009 - Hiraben Rupabhai Jadav was accused No. 1, while appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 - Parbatsinh Shivnathsinh Siddhusinh Tomar was accused No. 2 before the learned trial Judge in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2007. The appellants were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 and Sec. 201 read with Sec. 114 and Sec. 120B of the I.P. Code. They came to be convicted for these offences under Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are directed to suffer imprisonment as under: 1.1. No separate sentence is imposed for offence punishable under Sec. 120B of the I.P. Code. 1.2. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 - Udesinh @ Shetansinh Ramratansinh Parmar has left for heavenly abode during the pendency of the appeal. 1.3. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 2009 - Hiraben Wd/o. Rupabhai Amarabhai Jadav was accused No. 1, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 - Parbatsinh Shivnathsinh Siddhusinh Tomar was accused No. 2 while the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 - Udesinh @ Shetansinh Ramratansinh Parmar was accused No. 3 in the Sessions case. For the sake of convenience, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 2009 - Hiraben Wd/o. Rupabhai Amrabhai Jadav shall be referred as appellant No. 1, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 - Parbatsinh Shivnathsinh Siddhusinh Tomar shall be referred as appellant No. 2 while deceased Udesinh @ Shetansinh Ramratansinh Parmar - appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 shall be referred as appellant No. 3 hereinafter in this judgment. 2. The short matrix of the prosecution case as emerging from the evidence led before the lower Court is that the appellant No. 1, Hiraben Rupabhai Jadav, who is widow of the deceased, was having illicit relations with appellant No. 2, Parbatsinh Shivnathsinh Siddhusinh Tomar. 2. The short matrix of the prosecution case as emerging from the evidence led before the lower Court is that the appellant No. 1, Hiraben Rupabhai Jadav, who is widow of the deceased, was having illicit relations with appellant No. 2, Parbatsinh Shivnathsinh Siddhusinh Tomar. As a result of this illicit relation, with a view to done away with deceased Rupabhai Amrabhai Jadav, the appellants had on 18-1-2007 in the evening hours, in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by them, appellant No. 1 gave poison in the liquor to the deceased and appellant No. 2 and other appellant, who has passed away, committed offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of I.P. Code. With a view to conceal the commission of the offence, appellant No. 2 and deceased accused disposed of the dead body of the deceased and thereby destroyed the evidence and committed offence punishable under Sec. 201 read with Sec. 114 of the I.P. Code. A complaint in respect of this incident came to be lodged by Shanabhai Vaghjibhai Solanki (P.W. No. 1), former Sarpanch of village Kamala, Tal. Nadiad, Dist. Kheda, with Nadiad Rural Police Station. In pursuance of this complaint, F.I.R. vide Nadiad Rural Police Station I-CR No. 9 of 2007 came to be registered. 3. The investigation was taken up and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants. The offences committed by the appellants were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court at Nadiad under Sec. 209 of the Code, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 62 of 2007. Charge vide Exh. 2 came to be framed against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: 4.1. The prosecution also produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence during the course of the trial: 5. After conclusion of the trial, further statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of the appellants came to be recorded. The defence in the further statement is of total denial. The learned trial Judge heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and learned Advocate for the appellants and after appreciating the evidence, recorded the judgment and order of conviction against the appellants as aforesaid. Therefore, the present appeal. 6. The defence in the further statement is of total denial. The learned trial Judge heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and learned Advocate for the appellants and after appreciating the evidence, recorded the judgment and order of conviction against the appellants as aforesaid. Therefore, the present appeal. 6. We have been taken through the oral and documentary evidence by learned Advocate Mr. Darji for the appellants and learned A.P.P. Mr. H.L. Jani for the respondent-State. We have independently and dispassionately applied our mind to this evidence. 7. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Harnish V. Darji for the appellants and learned A.P.P. Mr. H.L. Jani for the respondent-State. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Darji for the appellants has urged that the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the oral evidence of P.W. No. 13, Exh. 53 - Laxmiben Rupabhai Jadav, who happens to be the minor daughter of appellant No. 1 and the deceased and two other witnesses, viz. Mafabhai Nathabhai Bharwad, P.W. No. 16, Exh. 59 and Fulabhai Ramtubhai Parmar, P.W. No. 17, Exh. 60, who had seen appellant No. 2 carrying the drum, in which dead both of the deceased was put which was ultimately dumped in a pasture land. It is the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Darji that the evidence of minor daughter cannot be relied upon as she appears to be a tutored witness. If the evidence of this witness is ignored then there is no iota of evidence against the appellants to connect them with the crime, and therefore, in his submission, benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the appellants. It is his further contention that it is the categorical case of the prosecution that poison was administered by appellant No. 1 to the deceased, but as per the evidence of the Doctor, i.e. P.W. No. 18, Exh. 62 - Dr. Minaxikumari Amravat and F.S.L. report, no poison was found and the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia, and therefore, there is material contradiction between the oral evidence and the medical evidence, and therefore, also, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. H.L. Jani has contended that the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution is consistent and there are no material contradictions. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. H.L. Jani has contended that the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution is consistent and there are no material contradictions. The minor witness, i.e. P.W. No. 13 - Laxmiben is an eyewitness and has supported the prosecution case in material particulars. He has further contended that it has come in the evidence of this witness that appellant No. 1 had told her that she had administered poison to the deceased. It is further contention of learned A.P.P. that appellant No. 2 was identified in the Test Identification Parade, and therefore, there is no scope to doubt the prosecution case against the appellants. Hence, he has urged that the appeal may be dismissed. So far as evidence of child witness is concerned, he has placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alagupandi @ Alagupandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 451 . The Supreme Court in the case of Alagupandi @ Alagupandian (supra), relied upon by learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani, has made following relevant observations as to the appreciation of the evidence of a child witness in Para 36: "It is a settled principle of law that a child witness can be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. The Court in such circumstances can safely rely upon the statement of a child witness and it can form the basis for conviction as well. Further, the evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and that there exists no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be allowed to stand but as a rule of prudence the Court always finds it desirable to seek corroboration to such evidence from other reliable evidence placed on record. Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. (Ref. Further, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. (Ref. Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (5) SCC 341 ] and Panchhi v. State of U.P., 1998 (7) SCC 177 )." 10. The contention of learned Advocate Mr. Darji for the appellants that the evidence of minor witness, i.e. P.W. No. 13 - Laxmiben should not be believed is devoid of substance. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down a proposition that evidence of child witness must reveal that he/she was able to discern between right and wrong and the Court may find out from the cross-examination whether the Advocate for the accused could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and wrong. The Court may ascertain his/her suitability as a witness by putting question and even if no such questions are put, it may be gathered from the evidence as to whether witness fully understands the implications of what he/she was saying and whether he/she stood discredited in facing a stiff cross-examination. A child witness must be able to understand the sanctity giving evidence on oath and the import of the question that were being put. We have gone through the oral evidence of this witness very minutely. Before recording oral evidence of this witness on oath, learned Additional Sessions Judge had put certain questions to her to satisfy himself as to whether she was able to understand the sanctity of oath and the meaning of question put to her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is no harm in recording evidence on oath from the answers elicited from the minor witness. On perusal of the evidence in chief and evidence in cross-examination both, it is abundantly clear that this witness has deposed before the Court in a very natural way. Her conduct in the Court is unblemished and she has narrated the incident as it had happened, without any exaggeration or improvement. This child witness was subjected to incisive cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from her so as to dislodge or discredit her testimony. The learned Public Prosecutor has rightly contended before us that the appellant No. 1 had made extra-judicial confession before this witness by stating that deceased was given poison in liquor. This child witness was subjected to incisive cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from her so as to dislodge or discredit her testimony. The learned Public Prosecutor has rightly contended before us that the appellant No. 1 had made extra-judicial confession before this witness by stating that deceased was given poison in liquor. We do not find that her evidence should be discarded solely on the ground that she happens to be a minor witness. The testimony of this witness is amply affirmed and corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and medical evidence. The apt observations made by the Apex Court in case of Alagupandi @ Alagupandian (supra) are applicable as evidence of this child witness with full vigour. In our opinion, the evidence of the child witness inspires confidence of this Court and the learned trial Judge has not committed any error whatsoever in relying upon the testimony of this child witness to base the order of conviction against the appellants. 11. The prosecution has examined Mafabhai Nathabhai Bharwad, P.W. No. 16. He is running 'Pan Galla' shop and it transpires from his evidence that on 19-1-2007, when he was at his Pan Kiosk, appellant No. 2 had come to his shop to purchase 'Bidi'. This witness has seen appellant No. 2 coming with lorry, i.e. cycle-rickshaw on which there was square shape drum. He also sow appellant No. 2 and deceased accused returning after some time at about 3/3-15 p.m. The prosecution has examined Fulabhai Ramtubhai Parmar, P.W. No. 17. He is resident of village 'Kamra' and is working as caretaker of pasture land. This witness had seen appellant No. 1 and deceased appellant dumping the drum in the pasture land. He informed the Sarpanch of the village. Both these witnesses are subjected to cross-examination, but there nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve their say in the examination in chief. Reading of evidence of P.W. No. 13 - Laxmiben and these two witnesses clinches the case in favour of the prosecution and it is established beyond shred of doubt that the appellants hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased as appellant No. 1 was having illicit relation with appellant No. 2. 12. Reading of evidence of P.W. No. 13 - Laxmiben and these two witnesses clinches the case in favour of the prosecution and it is established beyond shred of doubt that the appellants hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased as appellant No. 1 was having illicit relation with appellant No. 2. 12. So far as motive for commission of the offence is concerned, as stated hereinabove, appellant No. 1 was having illicit relation with appellant No. 2, and therefore, with a view to remove the thorn, deceased was done to death by administering poison. To establish that appellant No. 1 was having illicit relation with appellant No. 2, prosecution has examined P.W. No. 14 - Rajubhai Bababhai Rajput and P.W. No. 15 - Jayantibhai Kalidas Parmar. A perusal of the evidence of both these witnesses makes it abundantly clear that the appellant No. 2 used to visit house of appellant No. 1 and on many occasions, when the deceased was not at home, he used to stay with appellant No. 1. The cross-examination is in incisive. There is nothing to dislodge their say in examination in chief. Therefore, has successfully established the notice of illicit relation between the appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2, which was the sole motive for murder of the deceased. 13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons in the impugned judgment. We are in complete agreement with the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, which does not warrant any interference in these appeals. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 fail and are hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 17-2-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2007 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellants may be reviewed by the appropriate authority considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah v. State of Assam, reported in,  JT 2013 (10) SC 373. The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. 15. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 - Udesinh @ Shetansinh Ramratansinh Parmar expired during the pendency of appeal. The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. 15. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 - Udesinh @ Shetansinh Ramratansinh Parmar expired during the pendency of appeal. The near relatives of the deceased appellant have not applied within 30 days of his death to continue the appeal as required by proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 394 of the Code. Hence Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2009 stands abated and the same is disposed of accordingly. R. & P. to be remitted to trial Court forthwith.