JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.31 of 1998, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant Rakesh Mohan Juyal under section 307 IPC, and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 4,000/-. The trial court has further directed that if the fine is not paid by the convict he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that P.W.1 Smt. Vajyanti Devi lodged a report at P.S. Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, stating therein that on 21.07.1997 at about 08:00 p.m., her nephew Rakesh Mohan (accused/appellant) beaten her children, which act was protested by her husband, whereupon, the accused/appellant, with intention to kill her husband, assaulted him with Gandasa (a sharp-edged weapon), due to which her husband received serious injuries and he became unconscious. Her daughter screamed and the villagers arrived at the spot. She took her husband to the hospital with the help of villagers, where he was admitted. With these averments, First information report of the incident was lodged by P.W.1 Smt. Jayanti Devi. On the basis of said report, Case Crime No. 495 of 1997 was registered against accused Rakesh Mohan, relating to offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. Investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector S.N. Sharma. He interrogated the witnesses, inspected the spot and prepared site plan (Ex. A9), and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ex. A10) against accused/appellant Rakesh Mohan for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, Camp at Kotdwar, on 13.07.2000, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, against accused Rakesh Mohan, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined P.W.1 Smt. Vajyanti Devi (complainant), P.W.2 Km. Puja Juyal (eyewitness), P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra (scribe of the report), P.W.4 Bhaskar, P.W.5 Manmohan Juyal (injured), P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar (Medical officer), P.W.7 Satya Prakash Sharma. 5. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined P.W.1 Smt. Vajyanti Devi (complainant), P.W.2 Km. Puja Juyal (eyewitness), P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra (scribe of the report), P.W.4 Bhaskar, P.W.5 Manmohan Juyal (injured), P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar (Medical officer), P.W.7 Satya Prakash Sharma. 5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, in the form of questions, in reply to which he pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case and the evidence adduced against him is false. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties and appraisal of record, found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, and accordingly convicted accused Rakesh Mohan Juyal. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of payment of which, the convict was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six year. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.11.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, this appeal has been preferred by the convict Rakesh Mohan Juyal. 7. Before any discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found by P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar Gupta on 21.07.1997 at 9.20 pm, on the person of Manmohan Juyal (P.W.5). The same are being reproduced from injury report (Ex. A5):- “Multiple incised wound over back of top of head 18cm x 14 cm area x bone deep, part of brain exposed, fresh bleeding present.” 8. To prove the medical report, the prosecution got examined P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, who has proved the report Ext.A.5 and has stated that the injury was caused by sharp edged object, fresh in duration, and was grievous in nature. He further stated that it could have been caused on 21.7.1997 at about 07.30-8.00 pm. He also opined that head injury sustained by the injured was sufficient to cause death. 9. From the medical evidence on record given by the medical officer of the Government Combined Hospital, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, it is established on the record that Manmohan Juyal (P.W.5) did suffer injury on the date and time of the incident. He also opined that head injury sustained by the injured was sufficient to cause death. 9. From the medical evidence on record given by the medical officer of the Government Combined Hospital, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, it is established on the record that Manmohan Juyal (P.W.5) did suffer injury on the date and time of the incident. Now, this Court has to examine whether accused/appellant, in an attempt to commit murder of Manmohan Juyal, caused injury on his person or not. 10. P.W.1 Smt. Vajyanti Devi (complainant) has stated that on 21.07.1997 at about 7.30-8:00 p.m., when she was out of her home, accused Rakesh Mohan beaten her children, which was told to her by her children. On this, her husband had scolded the accused. Her husband was lying in a cot and she was making tea. At that time, accused inflicted injury on her husband’s head with Gandasa. On scream of her daughter, she arrived at the spot and saw that blood is oozing out from the head of her husband and the accused had fled away. On her shouting, some villagers, namely, Ramswaroop, Ramesh and others gathered at the spot, who took the injured to the hospital, from where her husband was referred to Dehradun for further treatment. 11. P.W.2 Km. Pooja, aged 13 years, has stated that the accused is her cousin. On 21.07.1997 at 7-8 pm, her brother Bhaskar had complaint that when he was smoking, accused Rakesh Mohan beaten them. Her mother was in the field and father had gone to market. When her father returned, she told him that accused beaten them on which her father scolded the accused, where after the accused went away and her father had laid down on the cot. She and her brother Bhaskar were playing in the courtyard. Her mother was in the kitchen when accused caused injury to her father with Gandasa. She has stated that the incident took place at about 7-8 pm. After the incident, accused had fled away. 12. P.W.3 Ramesh Chandra has stated that on 21.07.1997 after hearing the voice of wife of Manmohan (injured), he went to their house, where he saw that Manmohan was lying unconscious and was taken to the hospital. Manmohan Juyal had received head injury. He has also stated that he had scribe the written report on the request of the P.W.1 Jayanti Devi. Manmohan Juyal had received head injury. He has also stated that he had scribe the written report on the request of the P.W.1 Jayanti Devi. He further stated that he was told by wife of injured that accused Rakesh has caused injury to Manmohan Juyal. 13. P.W.4 Bhaskar, aged 10 years, has supported the prosecution story and has stated that the accused has caused injury to his father with Gandasa. 14. P.W.5 Manmohan Juyal is the star eye witness of the case who had suffered injuries in the incident. This witness has stated that on 21.7.1997 at about 07.30 p.m., he had come to his house. He had scolded the accused because his children had complaint that the accused was quarrelling. Thereafter, he lay down on the cot and took a nap. Accused inflicted injury on his head with Gandasa where after he became unconscious. He got admitted in hospital for treatment. In cross-examination, he denied to the suggestion that that he has falsely implicated the accused and that he suffered injury by falling somewhere in drunken state. 15. P.W.7 Sri Satya Prakash Sharma has stated on 21.7.1997, he was posted as Constable (Pairokar) at Police Station Kotdwar. He has stated that S.N. Sharma, I.O. of the case, has retired. He has proved the chik report (Ext.A-6), G.D. entry (Ext.A-7), Fard (Ext. A-8), site plan (Ext.A-9) and charge sheet (Ext. A10). 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant. He submitted that there is no eyewitness of the incident, except the injured himself and his two minor children, Puja and Bhaskar. According to him, they are child witness and can be tutored easily. Learned counsel further stated that the F.I.R. is delayed by three days and the entire prosecution story is concocted. 17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and has submitted that the trial court has passed the judgment, after proper appraisal of evidence, leaving no scope of interference for this Court. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. Though, there is no other eyewitness of the incident, except the injured himself and his two children viz. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. Though, there is no other eyewitness of the incident, except the injured himself and his two children viz. PW2 Pooja and PW4 Bhaskar, and it is true that a child witness is susceptible to be swayed by what tell him or her and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring, but when the evidence lead by a child witness is found reliable, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the same has been made by child witness. It is well settled in law that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection and must find adequate corroboration. In the present case, statements of PW2 Pooja and PW4 Bhaskar finds full corroboration from the statement of PW5 Manmohan Juyal (injured) and the medical evidence brought on record. That apart, PW2 Pooja was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from her statement which may create doubt in her statement. Moreover, PW5 Manmohan Juyal, has also deposed in his testimony that on 21.7.1997 at about 07.30 p.m., he had come to his house. He had scolded the accused because his children had complaint that the accused was quarrelling. Thereafter, he lay down on the cot and took a nap. Accused inflicted injury on his head with Gandasa where after he became unconscious. A suggestion was made to PW2 Pooja as well as PW5 Manmohan Juyal, during their cross-examination that PW5 (injured) had suffered injury by falling in drunken state but this suggestion was categorically denied by both these witnesses. Not only this, PW1 Jayanti Devi has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that on the shouting of her children, when she went at the spot, she found that blood was oozing out from her husband’s head and the accused had fled away. With the help of villagers, she took her husband to the hospital for medical treatment. The statements of above witnesses are throughout consistent and are also supported by medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, who has stated, in his testimony that the injury was caused by sharp-edged object, was fresh in duration and was grievous in nature. He has opined that the head injury sustained by the injured was sufficient to cause death. The statements of above witnesses are throughout consistent and are also supported by medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, who has stated, in his testimony that the injury was caused by sharp-edged object, was fresh in duration and was grievous in nature. He has opined that the head injury sustained by the injured was sufficient to cause death. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court finds that the accused/appellant Rakesh Mohan in an attempt to commit murder of PW5 Manmohan Juyal, caused injury on his person, due to which he suffered grievous injury on his head. 19. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, as against Rakesh Mohan Juyal. It is pertinent to mention here that the injury caused in the present case is on head, i.e., on vital part and dangerous to life as stated by P.W.6 Dr. Ashwini Kumar Gupta, as such the trial court has rightly held accused Rakesh Mohan Juyal guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.31 of 1998, is hereby affirmed. Accused Rakesh Mohan Juyal is on bail. Let him be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court and thereafter affirmed by this Court. 21. Lower court record be sent back.