JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05th December, 2007 and 11th December, 2007 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-III) Godda in connection with Sessions Trial no. 153 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case 151 of 2007 no. 62 of 2005, arising out of Boarijor P.S. Case no. 10 of 2005, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 17.1.2005 at about 5 p.m. when the informant returned home after collecting fire wood from the forest, she found her son Rajesh Soren aged about 6 years weeping. On being questioned, Rajesh Soren told that his uncle Bobila Soren (appellant) had come to his house at 4 p.m. and he wanted to kill Baburam Soren (father of Rajesh) by putting rope around his neck, but, Baburam woke up and to save himself, ran away from that place. It is further disclosed that Baburam could not succeed to flee away and fell down on a heap of fire wood kept in front of the house. Soon thereafter, Bobila Soren caught the target and inflicted 3-4 blows by means of tangi on the head and face of Baburam Soren. After sustaining injuries Baburam Soren died on the spot, on that heap of fire wood. It is also disclosed, on hulla nearby people namely Talaturi Tudu had come and seen the occurrence. The occurrence was brought to the notice of Chaukidar who informed the police. On 18.1.2005 at about 13:45 hour fardbeyan of Talamay Murmu (wife of deceased) was recorded and on the basis of said fard-beyan, Boarijor P.S. Case no. 10 of 2005 was registered. The informant had further made it clear that Bobila Soren is none else, but, own brother of her husband Baburam Soren. After institution of case, the investigation was carried out and after recording statements of witnesses and collecting evidence, charge sheet was filed and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial no. 153 of 2005. 3. The appellant stood charged for the offence punishable U/S. 302 I.P.C. and put on trial. 153 of 2005. 3. The appellant stood charged for the offence punishable U/S. 302 I.P.C. and put on trial. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses including doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased, investigating officer, informant and Rajesh Soren PW-4 son of deceased. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge considering the evidence and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel Sri Rajesh Verma who has been appointed amicus curiae to assist the court, has nicely placed the defence of the appellant and pointed out lacunae as well as contradictions appearing in the prosecution case. It is submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and she has stated, when she returned home after collecting fire wood she found her son Rajesh Soren weeping. On query, he disclosed about the occurrence that Bobila had caused injures to his father Baburam Soren as a result of which his father died. It is submitted that informant has been examined as PW-5 and she has stated that she had seen the axe used for causing injuries to Baburam Soren, lying at the spot and it was seized by the police, but, the investigating officer PW8 did not say that he had seized any axe in connection with this case. According to the statement of informant, information regarding occurrence derived to her from from her son Rajesh Soren, but, Rajesh Soren did not say that he had narrated the occurrence to his mother Talamay Murmu. It is contended that Talamay Murmu in her fard beyan has stated that occurrence was witnessed by Talaturi Tudu, PW-7, but, Talaturi Tudu PW-7 did not support the version of the informant. She did not admit that she had seen the occurrence. Man Singh Marandi PW-2 and Chander Tudu PW-3 are the hearsay witnesses and they have deposed that they could learn about murder of Baburam Soren and they had been to the house of deceased where they could learn about the occurrence from Rajesh Soren, but, Rajesh Soren did not say that he had disclosed the occurrence before PW-2 or PW-3 rather, he says that he had narrated the occurrence only to his nana and bahnoi. Therefore, hearsay evidences given by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are liable to be rejected. Therefore, hearsay evidences given by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that learned trial judge has recorded conviction placing reliance on the statement of child witness Rajesh Soren PW-4. By referring judgments reported in (2003) 3 SCC 51 Zafar Vs. State of U.P. and (2014) Cr.L.J. 4571 (SC) State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandgi Ram and others it is submitted that recording conviction on sole testimony of child witness is always dangerous and that too when the evidence suffers from infirmities and contradictions. PW-4 Rajesh Soren was not able to describe actual place of occurrence where Baburam Soren was killed. According to inquest report Ext.4, the dead body was lying on a heap of fire wood kept in field, but, PW-4 says that when assault was caused to his father, his father was in the courtyard. Learned counsel has further submitted that PW-4 appears to be a tutored witness and he has answered all those questions correctly which were related to the occurrence, but, so far other questions put to him either he kept mum or had given incorrect answer. At the time of occurrence, PW-4 was hardly aged about 6 years and at the time of deposition in court i.e. on 10.3.2006 he has stated his age between 5-6 years. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the manner in which deposition of this witness was recorded suggests that leading questions were put to him to which he had answered. The deposition of P.W.-4 does not appear to be volunteered. The informant has stated that other villagers had seen the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence, but, no such witness has come forward to support this contention of the informant. Furthermore, neither the rope nor the axe were seized from the place of occurrence. The learned trial judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty and impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. 5. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the arguments and submitted that prosecution case is based upon solitary testimony of PW-4 and he is the only eye witness to the occurrence. The learned trial judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty and impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. 5. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the arguments and submitted that prosecution case is based upon solitary testimony of PW-4 and he is the only eye witness to the occurrence. In presence of PW-4 his father was killed by his uncle and the boy had witnessed entire episode as to how the appellant entered in the house and how he tried to strangulate his father, when his father woke up and ran to save him, how he was chased and overpowered and how the injuries were caused by means of tangi to the deceased. PW-4 has categorically and consistently described the entire occurrence in his deposition in court and deposition of this witness completely corroborates the statement given by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. before the police. It was quite natural, when mother of PW-4 returned home and asked him the reason of his weeping, he had narrated the occurrence. Only because it is specifically not stated in his deposition that he had disclosed about the occurrence to the informant, the evidence brought on record by PW-4 and PW-5 can not be thrown away. So far as PW-2 and PW-3 are concerned, no cross-examination has been done to disbelieve them. The injuries described by PW-4 find support from the post-mortem report Ext.1. There is nothing in the statement of PW-4 to disbelieve him and his statement cannot be discarded only because he is a child witness. 6. After hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, we have anxiously examined the evidences of PW-4 and PW.5. Since learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the veracity of PW-4, especially on the ground that he is a child witness and there was every chance of tutoring, we have been compelled to go through the statements of PW-4 recorded in the case diary at paragraph no.10 and we do not find that conducting counsel in the court below had taken any contradiction from the mouth of PW-4 but, even then to satisfy ourselves, whether the evidence given by PW-4 is tutored one or the boy has given evidence according to his memory, we have gone through the statement of PW-4 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the case diary. We find that PW-4 has given exactly same statement which he had given before the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He has not either omitted or added or exaggerated anything in his statement in the court. On perusal of deposition of PW-4, both recorded under examination-in-chief and under heading cross-examination, it appears that the boy had repeated the entire episode which he had narrated before the police during investigation. The learned Amicus Curiae has repeatedly raised a point that place of occurrence has not been established and to strengthen his argument, all the time he has referred inquest report (Ext.4) in which place where dead body was lying has been described-heap of fire wood lying in the field. Again to satisfy ourselves we have examined the evidence of Rajesh Soren PW-4, statement of investigating officer PW-8, the inquest report and description of place of occurrence recorded in the case diary at paragraph no.7. Admittedly PW-4 is a child witness and who was aged about six years at the time of occurrence but, the way he had captured the occurrence in which his father was killed within his view, appears remarkable. The boy has said, he returned home after grazing cattle and he was just going to feed them. His father was sleeping on a cot in the dhaba of the house. In the mean time, his uncle Bobila Soren (appellant) appeared with a rope and axe in his hand. He says that appellant tried to strangulate Baburam Soren with the help of rope but, Baburam Soren woke up and ran to save himself. He could not succeeded to escape and fell down on the heap of fire wood kept in front of the house. Immediately, Bobila Soren reached to the place and started inflicting blows by means of tangi on the head of Baburam Soren. The boy has further stated number of blows inflicted on the head of his father by the appellant by means of tangi and number of injuries so caused find support from post mortem report and the evidence of doctor PW-1. Therefore, it is very much clear that Baburam Soren in order to save himself started running but, fell down on the heap of fire wood kept in front of the house and that is the place where he was killed. Therefore, it is very much clear that Baburam Soren in order to save himself started running but, fell down on the heap of fire wood kept in front of the house and that is the place where he was killed. Blood fallen on a piece of wood was seized by the investigating officer which is apparent from the seizure list and the evidence of S.I. Chandermani Bharti PW-8. Therefore, the consistent evidence on record is that Baburam Soren was killed while he fell down on a heap of fire wood and the dead body was lying on that heap of fire wood till the police arrived at the place of occurrence. Now, the question required to be answered is whether the heap of fire wood was kept there or not ? To find out answer of this question we have examined the statement of investigating officer PW-8, perused the inquest report and to satisfy ourselves we have again gone through the case diary at paragraph no.7 in which the description of place of occurrence was recorded by the investigating officer. We have been compelled to do such exercise only because of lack of knowledge of A.P.P. concerned and the investigating officer. The investigating officer did not explain the place of occurrence in his deposition as recorded in the case diary. After examining evidence of P.W.4, P.W.8, inquest report and para 7 of the case diary, it is crystal clear that heap of fire wood was kept in front of the house of deceased at a distance of only 15 ft. and that place is adjacent to vegetable field of deceased. On the basis of evidence and the description of place of occurrence recorded in the case diary we feel no hesitation to observe that heap of fire wood on which the deceased fell down and was killed, was kept at a distance of 15 ft. from the house and that place was adjacent to the vegetable filed. Therefore, mentioning of place where dead body was lying as field in the inquest report, does not mean the place where dead body was lying was away from the house of the deceased. Considering all these evidences and documents available on record, we do not agree with the submission advanced that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. 7. Considering all these evidences and documents available on record, we do not agree with the submission advanced that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. 7. The basis of contention made in the fard-beyan is the information derived to informant from her son Rajesh Soren PW4. Only because Rajesh Soren in his deposition in court has failed to say that he had disclosed the incident to his mother that does not mean the boy had not disclosed the occurrence to his mother. It is but natural, when father of the boy was killed in his presence and his mother was away from the house, after arrival of his mother he would naturally disclose the occurrence to her. Furthermore, the narration made by informant in her fard-beyan find corroboration from the evidence of PW-4 and, therefore, we do not agree to discard the statement of PW-5 (informant) given in the fard-beyan or in her deposition in court. So far PW-2 and PW-3 are concerned, both of them have stated, when they reached to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Baburam Soren, they found Rajesh Soren present over there and he disclosed the occurrence to them. We do not find that any cross-examination on this point has been done. Even accepting the arguments advanced that PW-4 has not deposed that he had narrated the incident to them evidence of these two witnesses can not be discarded. We find no reason to disbelieve PW-2 and PW-3. Learned counsel has raised another point that PW-4 and PW-5 have stated in their deposition that the appellant after leaving axe at the place of occurrence fled away and that axe was seized by the police, but, the investigating officer did not admit that any axe was seized from the place of occurrence in connection with this case. Only because the statement of PW-5 regarding seizure of axe does not find support from the evidence of PW-8, entire prosecution case should not be thrown away. We have already observed that evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 are reliable and consistent on the point of occurrence. If the version of eye witnesses is admitted to be true, latches committed by the investigating officer during investigation, if did not cause prejudice to appellant, shall be ignored. 8. We have already observed that evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 are reliable and consistent on the point of occurrence. If the version of eye witnesses is admitted to be true, latches committed by the investigating officer during investigation, if did not cause prejudice to appellant, shall be ignored. 8. In view of the discussions made above and the evidences available on record, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court and, accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05th December, 2007 and 11th December, 2007 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-III) Godda in connection with Sessions Trial no. 153 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case 151 of 2007 no. 62of 2005, arising out of Boarijor P.S. Case no. 10 of 2005 is hereby upheld and, accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.