Judgment : Virender Singh, C.J. 1. The appellant stands convicted, for the offence u/s 302 IPC for causing murder of Aghni Deviand and Jagmohan Singh, on 02/12/2003 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by order dated 5.12.2003 passed by Sessions Judge Simdega. Aggrieved thereof, he has preferred the instant appeal. Since the appellant is in custody for more than 13 years, preference has been given to the instant appeal for its final hearing. 2. The prosecution story inter-alia alleges that on 20.11.2001 at 4.30 a.m. the informant along with her mother Aghni Devi(Deceased) and younger brother was coming home after taking water from well. When they came near the house of Fagua Singh then Appellant / accused came to the informant’s mother and gave sword blow which hit on the neck of the informant’s mother whereupon Aghni Devi fell on the ground and died on the spot. The informant along with her younger brother rushed to her house where she noticed her father lying dead in front of courtyard. While attacking informant’s mother appellant was telling that he had already killed the informant’s father. 3. An F.I.R was lodged on the fardbayan of Sukhmati Kumari (informant) on 21.11.2001 being Bano P.S. case No. 27 of 2001 u/s 302 IPC. 4. After completion of the investigation and submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken u/s 302 IPC and case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Simdega. 5. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses of whom informant, P.W.5, Sukhmati Kumari is daughter of the deceased and is the eye witness. P.W.1 is the wife (another) of late Jagmohan Singh who is hearsay witness. P.W.2 and 3 were declared hostile. P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. 6. Dr. Chandra Nath Jha conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased persons namely Aghni Devi and Jagmohan Singh, which were marked as ext.1 and 1/1 respectively. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Aghni Devi:-External Injury:- I. An incised wound 7” X 1 ½” X bone deep with fracture of occipital bone situated on right side of head. II. An incised wound 3” X 2” X bone deep with fracture of mandible situated just below chin. Internal exam:- on facing injury no. 1 further there was laceration of meninges and brain matter also there were haemorrhages inside brain materials. II. An incised wound 3” X 2” X bone deep with fracture of mandible situated just below chin. Internal exam:- on facing injury no. 1 further there was laceration of meninges and brain matter also there were haemorrhages inside brain materials. On tracing injury no.2 further there was severing of great vessels of neck. Both side of heart was empty. All vessel organs were pale. Stomach contained undigested food materials. Nature of Weapon -some sharp cutting weapon such as sword. All injuries were ante mortem in nature. Time Since death:- within 36 to 48 hrs. Cause of death:-Death was due to hemorrhage and shock caused by above mentioned injuries. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Jagmohan Singh:-External injury:- I. An incised wound 2 ½” X 1” X bone deep with fracture of occipital bone in front of right ear II. An incised wound 2” X 1” X bone deep with fracture of parietal bone of right side. III. An incised wound 3” X 1“ X bone deep with fracture of occipital bone on right side. Internal examination On tracing above three injuries further there was tracing of meninges of brain and laceration of brain tissue with hemorrhage inside it. Both sides of heart were empty. Stomach was empty. All visceral organs were pale. Nature of weapon :- Some sharp cutting weapon such as Talwar. All injuries were ante mortem in nature. Time since death was within 36 to 48 hrs. Cause death:-Death was due to hemorrhage and shock produced by above mentioned injuries. 7. The I.O. Braj Kishore Kumar appeared as P.W.7 and proved the fardbeyan and also the formal F.I.R and other pages written by him which is marked as Ext. 2 and 3 respectively. 8. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of material evidence, came to the conclusion that P.W.5-Sukhmati Kumari is eyewitness to the occurrence who had fully supported the manner, date and time of occurrences and also identified the accused person. The learned Trial Court has found the presence of P.W.5, the informant at the place of occurrence as wholly credible as she was accompanying her mother. The learned Trial Court did not find any reason to doubt the statement of P.W.5. 9. The appellant’s main objection against the conviction is that P.W. 5 is child witness and she is not consistent on her statement. 10. The learned Trial Court did not find any reason to doubt the statement of P.W.5. 9. The appellant’s main objection against the conviction is that P.W. 5 is child witness and she is not consistent on her statement. 10. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. We have gone through the material evidences on record and re-appreciated the same. 11. The prosecution case on hand hinges upon the testimony of ocular witness P.W.5, the daughter of deceased. The matrix of the facts as narrated through the mouth of this witness reveals a clear natural sequence of events when at 4.30 in the evening informant, her mother and her brother were coming from the well. The eye witness is wholly natural eye witness and her presence cannot be questioned. P.W.5, informant, is consistent regarding the sharp cutting weapon used by the appellant to strike the neck of her mother which gave fatal injuries. 12. The description of injuries and presence of sharp cutting injuries on the neck of deceased, which caused death, opined by Medical Officer, P.W.6, Dr. Chandra Nath Jha, does not leave any iota of doubt relating to the involvement of this accused in the commission of the crime. 13. Contention of I.O also suggest and corroborate the story narrated by the informant. The inquest report prepared by I.O. leaves no room of doubt, rather it makes the case of the informant as water tight compartment. 14. One more aspect, the court cannot lose sight of, is the fact that whatever is stated on oath by child witness during the trial finds mentioned in the F.I.R. The child witness (informant) was also present at the place of occurrence. So there could not be any reason for anybody to manipulate this witness. It is well settled that evidence of child witness has to be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out possibility of tutoring. Undoubtedly, it can be relied upon if the court finds the child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of oath. So there could not be any reason for anybody to manipulate this witness. It is well settled that evidence of child witness has to be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out possibility of tutoring. Undoubtedly, it can be relied upon if the court finds the child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of oath. In Ratnasinh Dalsukbhai Nayar Versus State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 1 SCC 64 the Apex Court while considering the evidentiary value of child witness observed as under:- “6………The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make-believe. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness.” In another case namely Panchhi and Others Versus State of U.P. reported in (1998) 7 SCC 177 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed its view in the following terms:- “11. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, contended that it is very risky to place reliance on the evidence of PW 1, he being a child witness. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of a child witness is generally unworthy of credence. But we do not subscribe to the view 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. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of a child witness is generally unworthy of credence. But we do not subscribe to the view 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.” 15. After churning the prosecution evidences in its right perspective, we are of the considered view that the evidence of solitary eye witness to the occurrence (P.W. 5) who, undoubtedly is a child witness, has unerringly unfolded the prosecution case. The prosecution thus has been able to prove the charge of murder of two persons, namely, Aghini Devi and Jagmohan Singh, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Resultantly the conviction of the appellant accused u/s 302 IPC as already recorded by the learned trial judge vide impugned judgment deserves to be affirmed. Ordered accordingly. 16. The net result is that the appeal on hand stands dismissed.