JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Utpal Dutta @ Haloi has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of incident was his wife Rupa, aged about 26 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, appellant married to Rupa about 14 years prior to the date of incident. As a result of their wedlock Sangeeta @ Dimpi (PW-15) and a son were born. At the time of occurrence Sangeeta was about 10 years and the son was about 2 years of age. They all lived in a rented house belonging to Kalyan Bora (PW-4) at Jorhat. Nijul Das (PW-3), Smti Dipti Borah (PW-5), Smti Puni Gogoi (PW-7), Jiten Khound (PW-11), Niru Bora (PW-12), Tridip Baruah (PW-13) and Smti Anju Bharali (PW-14) were their neighbours. The appellant Utpal used to work as manager in a furniture house in the name and style 'Nova Furniture' belonging to the brother of Tridip (PW-13). On 20/02/2007 at about 6 a.m. when the appellant was woken up by Rupa to go for his work, he got angry and first beat her with a leather belt and then with a bottle. This was witnessed by Sangeeta and the appellant then asked Sangeeta as to where the bottle of kerosene was kept. When Sangeeta did not reply, the appellant brought it himself and after pouring kerosene over Rupa set her ablaze with a matchstick. Rupa cried for help but the appellant gagged her with the help of a curtain. Seeing this Sangeeta also raised hue and cry, but the appellant put her inside the bathroom and threatened her with dire consequences if she would tell anyone about his involvement in the crime. Rupa lay on the floor being so burnt and appellant stood still by tucking his hands into the pockets of his pants. 4. Hearing hue and cry, Kalyan Bora, Nijul Das, Smti Dipti Borah, Smti Puni Gogoi, Jiten Khound, Niru Bora, Tridip Baruah and Smti Anju Bharali came to the house of appellant and saw Rupa in a burnt state. Dipti supported her to sit and removed her burnt clothing and Tridip brought a vehicle. Together the appellant took Rupa to Civil Hospital first and then to Astha Hospital-a private hospital at Dibrugarh - for treatment. Dipti supported her to sit and removed her burnt clothing and Tridip brought a vehicle. Together the appellant took Rupa to Civil Hospital first and then to Astha Hospital-a private hospital at Dibrugarh - for treatment. The appellant also informed the parents of Rupa - Digdari Das (PW-1) and Smti Madow Das (PW-17) over phone that Rupa sustained burn injuries from the gas stove. Digdari informed his nephew-Joyjit Das (PW-2) and related cousin of Rupa - Mon Das (PW-9) and together they came to Jorhat to see Rupa. 5. In the meantime, Sangeeta told her home tutor-Smti Manju Bora (PW-6) that the appellant had burnt her mother Rupa after assaulting and then pouring kerosene on her, when Manju went to her house for teaching immediately after the occurrence. While Rupa was undergoing treatment at Astha Hospital, she made her dying declaration-Exhibit-4 stating therein that she switched on the gas stove but as she had to suddenly attend their 2 year old son for nature's call, she forgot to switch off the knob and when she returned after attending him, she ignited the match stick causing the sudden burn of fire as a result of which she got burnt. Nijora Gogoi (PW-21) was one of the witnesses to that dying declaration. At that time, Dr. Atul Saikia (PW-20) was the resident doctor of that hospital. After the occurrence, Digdari took his grand-daughter - Sangeeta - to his house and kept her with him. Sangeeta told Digdari and Madow Das too, that the appellant had burnt her mother Rupa after assaulting and then pouring kerosene on her. Hobi Das (PW-16) - a neighbour of Digdari-also heard her saying so in the house of Digdari. 6. After treatment for 16 days, Rupa succumbed to her injuries on 7/3/2007 and then Ejahar (Exhibit-7) of the incident was made by Digdari (PW-1) at Police Station Jorhat on the next day i.e. on 8/3/2007. On receiving the information, Investigating Officer - Chandra Kanta Saikia (PW-25) rushed to the spot and prepared the sketch map Exhibit-8 and recorded statements of the witnesses. He also seized some clothes of Rupa, kerosene bottle, belt, curtain etc. vide Seizure list Exhibit-2 in the presence of Joyjit and Kalyan. Chandra Kanta also sent Sangeeta, Digdari and Joyjit for recording statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also seized some clothes of Rupa, kerosene bottle, belt, curtain etc. vide Seizure list Exhibit-2 in the presence of Joyjit and Kalyan. Chandra Kanta also sent Sangeeta, Digdari and Joyjit for recording statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mridul Kumar Saikia (PW-10), Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jorhat, recorded the statement of Sangeeta whereas the statements of Digdari and Joyjit were recorded by Syed Imdadur Rahman, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jorhat (PW-26). 7. It may be mentioned herein that Sangeeta told police about the involvement of her father appellant in the crime in the police station too, in presence of Ajit Das (PW-18)-the husband of the sister of Rupa and Smti Binu Hazarika (PW-19). The dead body of Rupa was then sent for post mortem examination after conducting inquest by Smti Santana Chetia (PW-23) on requisition being made by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Gandhi Gogoi (PW-22). 8. Dr. Kanbapu Choudhury (PW-24) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Rupa and opined that she died due to shock resulting from 45%burn injuries from flame which were ante-mortem in nature. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit-6. On completion of investigation, Chandra Kanta submitted charge sheet against the appellant u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code. 9. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The appellant, in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in the bathroom. The appellant also stated that Sangeeta had been tutored by his in-laws to depose falsely against him. In support of his claim, the appellant adduced the evidence of one Dipak Das (DW-1) and himself (DW-2). But the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 10. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. We have said so because we find the evidence of the sole eye witness-Sangeeta (PW-8) to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy. She was present there in the house at the time of occurrence. It is her evidence that the appellant first assaulted Rupa with a belt and then with a bottle. We have said so because we find the evidence of the sole eye witness-Sangeeta (PW-8) to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy. She was present there in the house at the time of occurrence. It is her evidence that the appellant first assaulted Rupa with a belt and then with a bottle. Thereafter, he asked Sangeeta to show where the kerosene bottle was kept and when she denied showing, the appellant brought it himself, poured kerosene on Rupa and burnt her with a matchstick. The appellant also threatened her not to divulge to anyone as to how Rupa caught fire and to tell everyone that Rupa caught fire from the gas stove. In her cross-examination, she had categorically deposed that she narrated the incident to her grandparents. Digdari corroborated the evidence of Sangeeta on material particulars. Sangeeta had narrated precisely and elaborately as to how the appellant committed the crime. Her testimony is further corroborated by her statement made before the Magistrate Mridul (PW-10). Mridul had recorded the statements of Sangeeta after finding her to be capable of making the statements and understanding the implications thereof. There is hardly any material deviation from her earlier statement and there is no improvement of the same either. It is the golden rule of evidence that testimony of a child witness should be carefully and cautiously scrutinized to make it a basis for conviction. Although, it is argued that Sangeeta was kept under custody of Digdari and his family and as such there is every possibility of tutoring, but the same does not seem to be applicable in the instant case. 11. Only because Sangeeta was with her grandparents, her evidence cannot be thrown out entirely on the possibility of being tutored in as much as the testimony of Sangeeta is elaborate, consistent, described with utmost precision and unshaken. Besides, a child of her age would not implicate her innocent father (appellant) for the murder of her mother until and unless she witnessed him actually committing the crime. The evidence of Sangeeta is consistent as she saw the incident and had she not seen it and had been tutored, there was every possibility of her evidence being shaken during her cross-examination and had made material discrepancies, which has not happened in this case. The evidence of Sangeeta is consistent as she saw the incident and had she not seen it and had been tutored, there was every possibility of her evidence being shaken during her cross-examination and had made material discrepancies, which has not happened in this case. Further, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded within about 1(one) month of the occurrence where she implicated her father (appellant). So, it is totally unbelievable that she could be tutored by her grandparents-with whom she spent only so little time after the incident-to state something against her completely innocent father-with whom she spent 10 years-implicating him falsely for murder of her mother. Her evidence is also supported by the conduct of the appellant who was found standing by Kalyan (PW-4) with his hands tucked into the pockets of his pant after the incident without any haste to save Rupa from burning. 12. It is correct that Digdari did not divulge in the Ejahar that Sangeeta told him about the involvement of the appellant in the crime although he lodged the same after 17 days of the occurrence. But the same is not fatal for the prosecution in as much as it is normal human tendency not to expose a child or to make public the statements of a child in such heinous crimes. It is generally observed that child witnesses are tried to be kept protected and at arm's length by their relatives as far as possible and hence not naming her in the Ejahar does not cast any doubt on the prosecution case. As Rupa did not die immediately after the occurrence and there was some chance of her to stay with the appellant after her recovery, there was every probability that Digdari-as a father of Rupa-preferred to keep mum at first although Sangeeta divulged her father's involvement in the crime immediately thereafter. The so called dying declaration also does not seem to be reliable as Nijora (PW-21) herself admitted that she forgot when she put her signature on Exhibit-4 and Dr. Atul (PW-20) also deposed that he did not record the same. Therefore, making of such a dying declaration in a private hospital by Rupa is completely ruled out being not proved. For these reasons also the evidence of Dipak (DW-1) and the appellant are not relied on. 13. Atul (PW-20) also deposed that he did not record the same. Therefore, making of such a dying declaration in a private hospital by Rupa is completely ruled out being not proved. For these reasons also the evidence of Dipak (DW-1) and the appellant are not relied on. 13. We, therefore, having regard to the above discussions as well as the evidence of the witnesses find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the sole perpetrator of the crime. 14. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.