JUDGMENT/ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. These appeals have been filed by accused-appellants Anil @ Lala and Kamla against common judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the trial court') whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated below: Name of Accused-appellant Section Sentence Anil @ Lala 302 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10, 000/-. Kamla 302 read with 34 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10, 000/-. (1) Anil @ Lala (2) Kamla 201 IPC Seven years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10, 000/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bheeva Ram (P.W.10) submitted a written report to S.H.O., Police Station Udaipurwati at 5.10 P.M. on 06.09.2009 (at the bottom of the written report date was indicated as 05.09.2009) alleging therein that he had one son Chittar and three daughters, who all were married. His son had two sons and two daughters, who all were unmarried. Name of wife of his son was Kamla, who belongs to Nawalgarh. He owns agricultural land admeasuring 25 bighas in Village Chirana whereupon houses were constructed. A piece of land admeasuring 8 bigha was situated half a kilometer away from his house. Out of 25 bigha of land, 15 bigha of land and 8 bigha of land was being cultivated by his son Chittar. He had sold the land situated in Village Chirana for a sum of Rs. 35 lacs and purchased a residential pot in Nawalgarh town out of the sale proceeds thereof. Those Plots were purchased in his own name and his wife's name Lalki Devi, in the name of his son Chittar and in the name of his son's wife Kamla. Since then, Sundarlal, father-in-law of his son, who is resident of Nawalgarh started visiting his house frequently. He used to advise him (informant) that the land situated in Village Chirana should be sold out and he would get him some other land in Nawalgarh at cheaper rates. The informant refused to act according to his advise. Sundarlal thereupon quarreled with him. The informant never had any dispute with his son. In fact, he had given house built by him to his son and his family where they were residing. The informant refused to act according to his advise. Sundarlal thereupon quarreled with him. The informant never had any dispute with his son. In fact, he had given house built by him to his son and his family where they were residing. The informant along with his wife was staying in a kuchha house about 20-25 feet away. In the previous night of the incident, Chittar, his wife and children were at home. While wife of the informant was sleeping in his house, informant himself had gone to his agricultural field and slept there. In the morning, when he came back home, his wife Lalki Devi told him that she could not sleep the whole night because of loud noises that were coming from the house of Chittar. In the morning around 10.00-11.00 A.M., his grandson Anil told his elder brother Jaisa Ram that he saw a freshly dug pit in their agricultural field, which was covered by sand. Jaisa Ram then asked Anil to dig the pit, which he refused to do so. Then the informant dug the sand with 'fawda'. When he did so, a dead body was found buried in the pit, which the informant immediately identified to be that of his son Chittar. His son had sustained multiple number of incised wounds. They immediately called the Sarpanch of the village and informed the police about the incident. It was alleged that wife of the deceased, i.e. Kamla was a woman of bad character and that he had doubt that she with the help of some other person committed murder of his son and buried his body in the sand. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 260/2009 (Exhibit P-25) for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and commenced the investigation. During the course of investigation, accused-appellant Anil Meena @ Lala, Kamla as also son of the deceased and Kamla, Anil Saini were arrested. Since, Anil Saini was juvenile, his matter was sent to Juvenile Justice Board concerned for further proceedings. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet before the trial court. The trial court framed charges against accused-appellants for offence under Sections 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet before the trial court. The trial court framed charges against accused-appellants for offence under Sections 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to secure conviction of the accused-appellants, produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence no witness was produced, but 5 documents were exhibited. On conclusion of trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. Niklesh Katara, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Kamla argued that recovery of various articles at the instance of the accused-appellant is doubtful and does not inspire confidence. Recovery of shirt at the instance of accused-appellant Kamla vide memo Exhibit P-9, allegedly of her son, Anil Saini, who was juvenile. Therefore, it cannot be read against her, even if the same is found to be blood stained. It is argued that though recovery of shirt (Exhibit P-9) was shown from the room of the house of the deceased/appellant Kamla, but recovery of five broken pieces of teeth allegedly of the deceased (Exhibit P-11), were recovered almost from the same place, was shown from the roof top of the same room, which is evident from the site plan (Exhibit P-10). Learned counsel argued that attesting witnesses of the recovery of shirt, Om Prakash (P.W.2), however, has stated that shirt that was recovered was of the deceased. Another attesting witness, Bheeva Ram (P.W.10) has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel argued that as per the evidence of various prosecution witnesses, it is proved that as soon as the news about murder of Chittar spread, lot of villagers assembled at the place of occurrence and it cannot be ruled out that these recoveries have been planted. It is argued that learned trial court has erred in law in relying only on the testimony of Arvinda (P.W.4) and Anvesh (P.W.12) respectively daughter and son of the deceased and Kamla. It is argued that learned trial court has erred in law in relying only on the testimony of Arvinda (P.W.4) and Anvesh (P.W.12) respectively daughter and son of the deceased and Kamla. Learned counsel has taken the Court through the statements of these witnesses and argued that even as per their own showing, these witnesses are tutored witnesses inasmuch as they have admitted that ever since the incident, they were residing with their paternal aunt and have come to the Court in their company. Besides, the fact that they were tutored, their conduct also makes them unreliable. The incident took place in the night intervening 4-5th of September, 2009, there is no reason why they did not find anything so serious about the incident involving murder of their father till 10th September, 2009 and opened their mouth for the first time on 11th September, 2009 when the police recorded their statements. It is argued that statements of these two witnesses suffer from various contradictions and inconsistencies. Major contradiction has been pointed out in the statement of Arvinda (P.W.4) , who in examination-in-chief stated that dead body of his father Chittar was buried by all the three accused whereas in the cross-examination she stated that accused Anil Meena telephonically informed his brother Anil Saini that dead body of their father was buried in the agricultural field. Before that her brother Anil Saini was not aware about this fact. 5. Learned counsel argued that weapon of offence 'dantli', which was recovered at the instance of Anil Saini, juvenile, has not been produced as article in the court and therefore that evidence cannot be used against the accused-appellant. Even otherwise, Dr. Manohar Prasad Meena (P.W.6) and Dr. Gopal Singh Tanwar (P.W.7) have both stated in the Court that 'dantli' which is an angular weapon with a handle of wood could not cause nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. 'Dantli', even otherwise, has not been connected with the offence because FSL Report (Exhibit P-36) merely proves that it contained human blood, but without ascertaining group of the blood, it cannot be said that the blood was that of the deceased. It is argued that broken pieces of teeth of the deceased were not produced before the trial court and motive of the murder has not been proved by the prosecution. It is argued that broken pieces of teeth of the deceased were not produced before the trial court and motive of the murder has not been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel argued that the accused Kamla in her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken specific defence that sisters of the deceased Chittar wanted to grab the land of their father so as to deprive Chittar of his legitimate share. It is they who were responsible for his murder. Reliance in this connection has been placed on sale deed (Exhibit D-5), which was executed by the informant in favour of three daughters on 05.11.2009. Learned counsel argued that accused-appellant Kamla in any case has not been assigned any active role and there is no evidence that she shared any common intention of murder and if it was there, it was not with the co-accused Anil Meena and therefore, she could not have been convicted for the offence of murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC. At the maximum, the evidence that has emerged from the statements of prosecution witnesses may prove the offence of Section 201 IPC. 6. Mr. Shamsudeen Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Anil @ Lala apart from adopting arguments advanced by Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, argued that FIR in the present case is based on surmises and conjectures. Allegation that the accused-appellant Anil @ Lala committed murder of the deceased has not been substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Weapon of offence, i.e. 'dantli' has been recovered at the instance of Anil Saini, son of the deceased, who was juvenile and not from the accused-appellant Anil Meena. Learned counsel again argued that Arvinda (P.W.4) and Anvesh (P.W.12) were tutored witnesses and not speaking truth. Time and place of the death/murder is uncertain. It is argued that aforesaid argument is fortified from the fact that while in the written report complainant mentioned 5th September, 2009 as the date, but the proceedings drawn by the police thereupon indicate that written report was received at 5.10 P.M. on 6th September, 2009. This discrepancy has not been clarified by the investigating agency. Motive of the murder has also not been proved. Group of blood found on various articles as per FSL Report has not been established in the absence of which it cannot be said that blood on these articles was that of the deceased and none else. This discrepancy has not been clarified by the investigating agency. Motive of the murder has also not been proved. Group of blood found on various articles as per FSL Report has not been established in the absence of which it cannot be said that blood on these articles was that of the deceased and none else. It is argued that dead body was discovered on 6th September, 2009, but even then the medical board in the post mortem report (Exhibit P-14) opined duration of death to be between 24-72 hours. Arvinda (P.W.4) has made tremendous improvement over her earlier version given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-3) on 11.09.2009 and thereafter before the Magistrate in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-2) on 01.10.2009. 7. Mr. R. S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Arvinda (P.W.4) and Anvesh (P.W.12) , daughter and son of the deceased and Kamla, have categorically proved the role of both the accused-appellants in the crime. It is argued that in a case where there are eye witnesses, motive relegates to the background and what assumes significance is the statements of eye witnesses. Statements of eye witnesses in the present case clearly proves common intention of both the accused-appellants and therefore, they have been rightly convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It is argued that pant and shoes of the accused Anil Meena recovered vide memo Exhibit P-30, as per FSL Report (Exhibit P36) have been found to contain human blood. It is argued that learned trial court has also commented adversely on the conduct of the accused Kamla because when it was put to her while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that dead body found in the pit was of her husband, she even denied this fact. It is argued that the deceased sustained eight incised wounds, which as per statement of one of the doctors, i.e. Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Meena, could have been caused by such kind of weapon. Even otherwise, testimony of expert witnesses cannot be relied to totally discard statement of eye witnesses. It is argued that the deceased sustained eight incised wounds, which as per statement of one of the doctors, i.e. Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Meena, could have been caused by such kind of weapon. Even otherwise, testimony of expert witnesses cannot be relied to totally discard statement of eye witnesses. It is argued that minor contradiction and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses especially when two witnesses of the prosecution are minor being only 15 years (Arvinda) and 11 years (Anvesh) can be overruled in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise available on record. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of various witnesses including investigating officer and exhibits, reference of which shall be made at the appropriate place hereinafter. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the record of the case. 9. The evidence in the present case clearly proves that the accused Anil Meena was having close relations with the entire family of the deceased so much so, he used to often visit house of the deceased and many times, would have his meals there and even spent night. He was even regularly making use of the motorcycle of the deceased, a fact stated by Arvinda (P.W.4). Learned trial court has heavily relied on the testimony of Arvinda (P.W.4) and Anvesh (P.W.12), therefore, we have to scrutinize their statements to determine whether conviction of the accused-appellants on the strength of such evidence can be sustained. 10. Arvinda (P.W.4) has stated that on 04.09.2009, Anil Meena came to their house around 12.00-1.00 in the noon on the motorcycle, which was purchased by the deceased. Then, Anil took bath and had his lunch in their house. Then, Anil had afternoon nap in their house. Thereafter, her mother and father went to the house of her aunt on the motorcycle with Anil Meena and returned back in the night around 8.00-9.00 P.M. When they came back, Anil Meena was drunk and forcing her father to have liquor. Her father refused saying that he does not consume liquor. Then, Anil threw a 'lota' towards his father. After some time they settled their dispute and again became friendly. Thereafter, Anil Meena asked her brother Anil Saini to bring 'dantli' saying that he would today cut her father into pieces. Anil Saini brought 'dantli' (a sharp edged weapon) and gave it to Anil Meena. Then, Anil threw a 'lota' towards his father. After some time they settled their dispute and again became friendly. Thereafter, Anil Meena asked her brother Anil Saini to bring 'dantli' saying that he would today cut her father into pieces. Anil Saini brought 'dantli' (a sharp edged weapon) and gave it to Anil Meena. Then, Anil Meena stated that if this was done inside the house, lot of blood would be spread, therefore, he dragged her father outside the house where he with the help of 'dantli' slit the neck of her father as a result of which he died. Anil Meena threatened her (this witness) that if she discloses this fact to anyone, she would also be met with same fate. At that time, her brother Anil Saini and mother were there. Thereafter, Anil Meena asked them to bring gunny bag ('bora'). Dead body of her father was lying outside the house for about two hours inasmuch as all his blood was drained out and thereafter it was put in the gunny bag and then brought inside room of the house. Sand, which was soaked with blood, was separately put in another gunny bag. Anil Meena left the house about 2.00-2.30 A.M. on the motorcycle. On the following day at the mid night around 12.00-1.00 A.M., Anil Meena returned back and dug a pit under a tree adjacent to their house. Thereafter, Anil Meena with the help of her brother Anil Saini and mother Kamla threw gunny bag containing dead body of her father as also another gunny bag carrying blood soaked soil, into that pit. Face of her father was covered by bed sheet and shawl so that he could not be recognized by anyone. 11. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she gave information of the incident to the police only after Anil Meena was arrested. Her mother Kamla and her brother Anil Saini were arrested on the same day. This part of her statement has to be understood in the light of the fact that she has stated in examination-in-chief that Anil Meena had threatened to kill her if she disclosed about the incident to anyone. Her mother Kamla and her brother Anil Saini were arrested on the same day. This part of her statement has to be understood in the light of the fact that she has stated in examination-in-chief that Anil Meena had threatened to kill her if she disclosed about the incident to anyone. Apart from the factum of fear, Arvinda (P.W.4) , a child witness of tender age was also in a dilemma whether or not to speak against her mother and brother, even then, her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 11.09.2009 (Exhibit D-3) and statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.10.2009 (Exhibit D-2) substantially canvassed what she has stated in the trial court, barring few omissions and contradictions, which explains that with whatever part of those statements, this witness was confronted with cross-examination, she did not dilute the core allegation against the accused-appellants that not only Anil Meena but Kamla also played an active role in the crime. No doubt in the cross-examination, this witness has been made to state that Anil Meena telephonically told his brother Anil Saini about the burial of dead body in the pit. But then, this part of her statement has to be viewed in the light of the fact that as per version of this witness, her father was murdered in the night intervening 4th 5th September and dead body was buried in the pit on the next day, i.e. in the night intervening 5th - 6th September and this part of the statement and answer to the question that as to when this witness learnt about location of dead body appear to be leading questions, which were put to elicit some response in favour of the accused-appellants but the same does not cause any substantial damage to evidentiary value of statement of this witness, which otherwise finds corroboration from recovery of blood stained pant and shoes of the accused Anil Meena as also blood stained shirt of Anil Saini and blood stained 'dantli', weapon of offence, which was recovered at the instance of Anil Saini, juvenile. 12. This child witness despite the fact that she was aged only 15 years has remained quite cohesive and consistent. 12. This child witness despite the fact that she was aged only 15 years has remained quite cohesive and consistent. Even then she remained so much consistent at all the stages of recording of her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D3) ; statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate (Exhibit D-2) and thereafter in the trial court negates the argument that she was a tutored witness. Although at the same time, it may be noted that there are few contradictions here and there, mostly in cross-examination part of her statement. While examination-in-chief of Arvinda was hardly in two pages, but her cross-examination was spread over into as many as seven pages. This can easily be understood that a child witness, who is not mature enough, may not be in a position to withstand the scrutiny of lengthy cross-examination. It is common knowledge that an expert cross-examiner may frequently put leading questions to a witness to elicit some favourable response even from a very mature witness and succeed. But here, the child witness Arvinda (P.W.4) was 15 years of age and another child witness Anvesh (P.W.12) was of 11 years of age and it is in this view of the matter that while appreciating their testimony, we have to keep in mind the factum of their age and that they were not mature enough to understand the implication of the complicated questions put to them so as to answer them. 13. Similarly examination-in-chief of another child witness Anvesh (P.W.12) runs into hardly one page but his cross-examination was spread over three pages. Anvesh (P.W.12) , son of the deceased and Kamla, was aged 11 years when his statement was recorded. He has stated that at that time his father was working as a cook to prepare the food in marriages and Anil Meena also used to work with him. At time, he used to stay in their house. On the day of incident, Anil also came to their house with motorcycle. He had lunch in their house and also had afternoon nap. Thereafter, his parents went with Anil on the motorcycle to Dolakheda and returned back around 9.00 P.M. On return, he noted that Anil was drunk whereas his father had not consumed liquor. His father went to sleep in the chowk of the house. He had lunch in their house and also had afternoon nap. Thereafter, his parents went with Anil on the motorcycle to Dolakheda and returned back around 9.00 P.M. On return, he noted that Anil was drunk whereas his father had not consumed liquor. His father went to sleep in the chowk of the house. When his mother, brother Anil Saini and Anil Meena were talking to each other, he heard them say that in the night of that day, they would finish the task, which he could not comprehend and went asleep. In the following morning, he got up and enquired from her mother Kamla as to where his father had gone. His mother told that his father had gone to Jaipur to collect the passport. This witness then stated that as usual, he after taking bath went to school. Thereafter, on Sunday, his brother Anil Saini noticed a freshly dug pit in the agricultural field. He called Jaisa Ram, elder brother of his grandfather and when Jaisaram asked Anil to dig the pit, he refused to do so. Jaisaram called Sarpanch and thereafter, the police was called. Then his grandfather Bheenva Ram gave written report to the police. Dead body, which was found in the pit, was of his father. Anil Meena murdered his father and his mother Kamla and brother Anil Saini were also involved in the murder. In the cross-examination, thus, this witness provided substantial corroboration to support allegation made by his sister. 14. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh & Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 , after revisiting its previous judgments, laid down the law as to how the evidence of a child witness should be assessed. Para 14 of the judgment is worth reproduction, which is as under: "14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition." 15. The Supreme Court in Gagan Kanojia & Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516 held that part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the untutored part, in case such remaining untutored part inspires confidence. In such an eventuality the untutored part can be believed or at least taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. 16. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master & Others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 held that there is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the facts in his memory. A child is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious nature. 17. The Supreme Court in Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 712 held that The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern between right and wrong and the court may find out from the cross-examination whether the defence lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and wrong. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 712 held that The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern between right and wrong and the court may find out from the cross-examination whether the defence lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and wrong. The court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by putting questions to him and even if no such questions had been put, it may be gathered from his evidence as to whether he fully understood the implications of what he was saying and whether he stood discredited in facing a stiff cross-examination. A child witness must be able to understand the sanctity of giving evidence on a oath and the import of the questions that were being put to him. 18. The Supreme Court in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 12 SCC 565 while dealing with the child witness has observed as under: "10. 6....... 7......... 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, shaken 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." 19. The Supreme Court in Panchhi & Others Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 while placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. The Supreme Court in Panchhi & Others Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 while placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that, "the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatised. 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" 20. In Mangoo and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1995) AIR(SC) 959, the Supreme Court while dealing with the evidence of a child witness observed that there was always scope to tutor the child, however, it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored. The court must determine as to whether the child has been tutored or not. It can be ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof as to whether there are any traces of tutoring. 21. In Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1952) AIR(SC) 54, the Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of Evidence Act, 1872 and held that every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise. The Supreme Court further held as under: ".....It is desirable that Judges and magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the witness may be seriously affected, so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the Magistrate or Judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate. " 22. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353 also followed its judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh & Another and observed that the court has to form an opinion from circumstances as to whether the witness is able to understand the duty of speaking the truth and further in a case of child witness, the court has to ascertain that the witness might have not been tutored. 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. Trial court must ascertain as to whether a child is able to discern between right or wrong and it may be ascertained only by putting questions to him. 23. Notwithstanding non-production of weapon of offence before the trial court as an article, FSL Report (Exhibit P-36) can still be read in the evidence, which clearly proves that 'dantli' was found positive for the presence of human blood. Besides, human blood was also found on the shirt of accused Anil Saini as also vest and underwear of the deceased and also blood smeared soil in the gunny bag. Mere fact that group of the blood found on various articles could not be ascertained by Forensic Science Laboratory would not comply demolish evidentiary value of the testimony of two child eye witnesses. FSL Report (Exhibit P-36) categorically stated that eight packets namely A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H were received in properly sealed condition bearing seal impression, which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded. Indraj Singh (P.W.15), Malkhana In-charge proved that eight packets in sealed condition were deposited by Suresh Chandra, Investigating Officer in the malkhana, which he entered in the malkhana register and copy thereof was Exhibit P-36A. Mukesh Kumar (P.W.9) constable has proved that he collected aforesaid eight sealed packets to be delivered in Forensic Science Laboratory and actually delivered the same against receipt (Exhibit P-21), which in turn he submitted to Malkhana In-charge. Mukesh Kumar (P.W.9) constable has proved that he collected aforesaid eight sealed packets to be delivered in Forensic Science Laboratory and actually delivered the same against receipt (Exhibit P-21), which in turn he submitted to Malkhana In-charge. Forensic Science Laboratory has given the reason for not being able to ascertain the blood group by stating that it remained inconclusive and this could be possible due to lapse of intervening time. Argument that group of the blood found on various articles should have been linked with the blood of the deceased has to be appreciated in the light of facts of a given case. Here human blood was found not only on the pants and pair of shoes of the accused Anil Meena, but also on the shirt of Anil Saini, Juvenile and 'dantli' weapon of offence, which was recovered at his instance and vest and underwear of the deceased as also gunny bags and blood smeared soil recovered from another gunny bag. All these cannot be a matter of coincidence. In an appropriate case where the accused himself is found to have injuries with blood stains being found on his own clothes, his own blood group needs to be established first to rule out that blood found on his clothes is not his own blood, but such are not the facts of present case and therefore argument to this effect cannot be appreciated. Suresh Chandra (P.W.14) Investigating Officer has proved all the stages of investigation. Despite there being some discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses in the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove charges against the accused-appellants by required standard of beyond reasonable doubt. 24. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The present appeals being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment passed by the trial court is affirmed. Accused-appellant Kamla is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and she is directed to forthwith surrender before the trial court to serve out remaining sentence. 25. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected case.