JUDGEMENT : Suman Shyam, J, The appellant Paresh Mandal has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) for murdering his wife Runu Mandal and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim Runu Mandal was the wife of the appellant and out of the wedlock, a daughter named Payal Mandal was born. On 07/02/2010 at about 7-30 p.m. in the evening when Runu Mandal was cooking rice in a stove, the appellant had poured Krosine Oil over her from the back side and thereafter set her ablazed by lighting match stick. The victim had somehow managed to come out of the house by opening the front door and hearing her cry, an old woman from the neighbourhood had come and poured water upon her dousing the fire. A youth from the nearby shop had telephonically called a 108 Ambulance which then took her to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital for treatment. Although, the case of the victim Runu Mandal was referred to Guwahati Medical College Hospital for better treatment, she was again brought back to the Mangaldoi Civil Hospital and re-admitted therein and after 14 days, Runu Mandal had died due to burn injuries suffered by her. 3. An ejahar was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldoi Sadar Police Station by Smt. Manju Ghosh i.e. the mother of the deceased on 05/02/2010 reporting the said incident and Mangaldoi P.S. Case No. 107/2010 under Section 498(A)/ 304 (B) of Indian Penal Code was registered. Thereafter, post-mortem examination was also conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 20/02/2010. Dr. Noni Gopal Saharia, who had conducted the post-mortem examination was examined as PW-6, who had given his opinion that the cause of death was due to toxaemia and sepsis as a result of burn. 4. The prosecution case was based on the evidence of an eye witness Payel Mandal. Payel Mandal is the daughter of the deceased and the appellant aged about ten years, was examined as PW-1. Since Payel Mandal was a minor, hence before recording her testimony, the Court had posed certain relevant queries to her so as to ascertain as to whether the witness was capable of understanding the questions put to her and give rational answers in respect thereto. Since Payel Mandal was a minor, hence before recording her testimony, the Court had posed certain relevant queries to her so as to ascertain as to whether the witness was capable of understanding the questions put to her and give rational answers in respect thereto. Upon carrying out the said exercise and on being satisfied with the capability of the child witness, the trial Court had certified that the PW-1 was not prevented by her tender age from understanding the questions and giving rational answers in respect thereto. In her testimony, the PW-1 Payel Mandal had categorically deposed that the appellant had poured kerosene over her mother and set her on fire by lighting a match stick in her presence. During the cross examination, the witness had further testified that before pouring kerosene oil and burning her mother, the appellant had beaten the deceased with a batten in the presence of “Bardewta (Paternal uncle) and Barma (Paternal Aunty), Grandma and many others”. The aforesaid testimony of the PW-1 remained un-impeached during her cross examination. 5. The version given by the PW-1 stood further corroborated from the evidence of Smt. Sunita Deka, the sister of the deceased, who was examined as the PW-3. The said witness has testified that when she had met her sister Runu Mandal in the hospital and asked about the incident, she (deceased) had told her that an hour after she had gone to her husband’s house from the mother’s house, her husband had picked up a quarrel with her and that he had beaten her with a bed-post, breaking her fingers. After the quarrel was over, she (deceased) had started cooking rice in a stove when the accused had poured kerosene oil over her from back side and set her ablaze by lighting a match stick; that when she had tried to go out of the room by opening the door the appellant had prevented her from opening it. 6. Smt. Manju Ghosh (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, while supporting the prosecution case, had further testified that some 2 years ago, the appellant had tried to kill her daughter Runu Mandal by setting her on fire. The said testimony of the PW-2 was not challenged by the defence during the cross examination. 6. Smt. Manju Ghosh (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, while supporting the prosecution case, had further testified that some 2 years ago, the appellant had tried to kill her daughter Runu Mandal by setting her on fire. The said testimony of the PW-2 was not challenged by the defence during the cross examination. Shri Ananda Mandal (PW-4) who is a neighbour of the appellant had signed the seizure list Ext-2 by means of which some burnt cloth, one plastic bottle smelling of kerosene and a match box were seized. The said witness also supported the prosecution case. 7. The case of the appellant has been one of total denial. But the appellant did not adduce any evidence. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended before us that the death of the deceased was on account of an accident due to bursting of the stove. However, we find that there is no evidence available on record to substantiate the said argument. 8. In the case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 5 SCC 341 , the Supreme Court has held that the testimony of a child witness can be the basis of conviction if it is found that the witness was competent to depose to the facts and was a reliable one. The only precaution which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour should be like any other competent witness and that there is no likelihood of being tutored. Again, in the case of Radhey Shyam vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 5 SCC 389 , the Supreme Court has held that if the court finds that the child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of obligation of oath and that there is adequate corroboration to the child witness evidence then the same can be relied upon for the purpose of conviction. 9. As has been mentioned above, record reveals that in the present case the Trial Court had acted with great care and caution before recording the testimony of the child witness Payel Mandal (PW-1). On examination of the testimony of the PW-1 we find that her evidence was wholly consistent in the facts and circumstances of the case and was also duly corroborated by other witnesses. On examination of the testimony of the PW-1 we find that her evidence was wholly consistent in the facts and circumstances of the case and was also duly corroborated by other witnesses. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said witness was either incapable of deposing in the matter or that she was tutored. As a matter of fact, in response to a suggestion made by the defence, the PW-1 had clarified that her Maternal Uncle had merely taught her how to adduce evidence. But there is nothing to show that the said witness was tutored on what to deposed in her evidence. 10. From a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we find that the prosecution side had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. From the dying declaration of the deceased made before Sunita Deka (PW-3) it is evident that the appellant had every intention to murder his wife Runu Mandal by burning her alive. The guilt of the appellant having been established based on cogent evidence on record, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Runu Mandal and sentencing him for life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 11. For the reasons stated above we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.