JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. In this appeal, the appellant-Chandra Sekhar Bahalia @ Baja has assailed his conviction U/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C." for brevity) and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara vide judgment dated 24.06.1998 in S.T. Case No.20/190/1997. 2. Tersely put, the appellant was tried for filicide of his deceased-son, Debasis, while sleeping in the bedroom with his wife-P.W.6, daughter-P.W.7 and two sons (deceased-Debasis and Snehasis) on 13.02.1997 at about 11 P.M. night in his native at Kesharpur. As per accusation, the accused stabbed his three children and wife by means of knife-M.O.I (vegetable cutter), as a result of which his wife and children suffered injuries. Deceased-Debasis succumbed to cut injuries on his neck. The wife-P.W.6 could not resist. She yelled. Hearing hallah, the informant-the father of the accused and neighbours came and took the injured persons to Kendrapara Hospital. The Deceased-Debasis was found dead, while the wife and two other children were treated for their injuries by the Doctor. The father of the accused on next day orally reported the matter at Kendrapara P.S. which was reduced into writing (Ext.3) and was registered vide Kendrapara P.S. Case No.41/97 for the offence U/s.302/323 and 326 of IPC. In course of investigation, inquest and post-mortem were made. The accused was found to have concealed himself in the ceiling of a thatched house adjacent to the spot. He led discovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife, which was seized by the I.O. under seizure list-Ext.2. The seized weapon was sent for chemical examination and found to have stained with human blood. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The accused faced trial for the charge of offence U/s. 302 of IPC. 2.(a) Accused took the plea of alibi in defence. 2.(b) Prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Defence examined none. Inquest report, post-mortem report, F.I.R. and chemical examination report as well as injury report and seizure list are marked as Ext.1 to 11. P.W.1 is Umesh Ch. Bahalia who is a witness to the inquest. P.W.2 is auto-rickshaw driver, who took the deceased and the injured persons to the hospital. P.W.3 is Bijaya Kumar Bahalia, who is a post-occurrence witness. Inquest report, post-mortem report, F.I.R. and chemical examination report as well as injury report and seizure list are marked as Ext.1 to 11. P.W.1 is Umesh Ch. Bahalia who is a witness to the inquest. P.W.2 is auto-rickshaw driver, who took the deceased and the injured persons to the hospital. P.W.3 is Bijaya Kumar Bahalia, who is a post-occurrence witness. P.W.4 is the informant, who is the father of the accused. P.W.5 Dhirendra Bahalia is a post occurrence witness, who brought the Tempo to take the injured persons to Kendrapara hospital for treatment. P.W.6-Saraswati Bahalia, who is the wife of the accused and P.W.7-Debasmita Bahalia, daughter of the accused who is the eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem. P.W.9 is a post occurrence witness and witness to seizure. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who examined the injured. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. 2.(c) Learned trial court disbelieved the plea of alibi. He found the witnesses i.e. P.W.6 and P.W.7, who are the wife and daughter of the accused as reliable eye-witnesses. He also held that recovery of knife-M.O.-I at the instance of accused is a fact, corroborative to the oral testimonies of the eye-witnesses. Accordingly, he convicted the accused U/s.302 of IPC and sentenced as stated above. 2.(d) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Mr. Devasish Panda would submit that the learned trial court has committed error in Law by relying upon the statement recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. and also relying upon the discovery statement which is not recorded separately. He further submits that P.W.7 being a child is not a reliable witness. According to him, when the motive behind the crime is not established, the complicity of the accused cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and for that the conviction should be set aside. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. J. Katikia supports the conviction and sentence on the ground that the eye-witnesses are injured persons and motive is not required to be proved when case is proved by eye-witnesses. 3. The situational facts, as evidenced and not disputed, reveal that the scene of crime was the bedroom where the accused and his wife (P.W.6), three children including deceased and P.W.7 were sleeping on a cot after taking supper on 13.02.1997. Informant-P.W.4 and neighbours (P.W.2. 3. The situational facts, as evidenced and not disputed, reveal that the scene of crime was the bedroom where the accused and his wife (P.W.6), three children including deceased and P.W.7 were sleeping on a cot after taking supper on 13.02.1997. Informant-P.W.4 and neighbours (P.W.2. P.W.3 and P.W.5) approached the spot soon after incident and saw the wife and children with bleeding injuries. P.W.2-Karunakar Bahalia, auto-rickshaw driver shifted the injured to hospital. Doctor treated injured wife-P.W.6, children namely Debasmita-P.W.7, and deceased son-Debasis Bahalia. But the deceased was found dead. 3.(a) P.W.6 has stated that the accused is her husband. The deceased is her son. The incident took place in between 10 to 11 P.M. The accused took his meal and slept in the bedroom prior to her. In the said room, her daughter Debasmita, deceased Debasis and younger son Snehasis were also sleeping. After completion of work, she went to sleep there. While she was in asleep, she heard sound and got up. The accused gave a blow by means of a knife on her forehead. She sustained injury on her right palm. She tried to come out from the room. In the mean time, the accused gave a knife blow on her younger son on his neck and she brought him out and again went inside the bedroom. When she wanted to bring her daughter by holding her, the accused gave a cut blow on the neck of her deceased son Debasis by means of knife. Thereafter when she wanted to save her son, the accused gave another blow in her head by means of knife. The accused also gave blow to her daughter on her lips, chin and neck by means of knife causing bleeding injuries. She brought out her children and closed the doors. Thereafter people came and took them in a Tempo to Kendrapara Hospital. P.W.7 has stated that the accused is her father. Deceased Debasis is her elder brother. The accused gave a blow to Debasis by means of a knife to his neck. She herself, her brothers and her parents were in the bedroom at the time of incident. On hearing hullah of her mother, she got up and found her father was assaulting her mother. Her father also assaulted to her on lips, chin and neck causing injuries. The accused also assaulted her younger brother by means of knife to his neck. She herself, her brothers and her parents were in the bedroom at the time of incident. On hearing hullah of her mother, she got up and found her father was assaulting her mother. Her father also assaulted to her on lips, chin and neck causing injuries. The accused also assaulted her younger brother by means of knife to his neck. She stated that her mother took us to outside. 3.(b) P.W.10-Dr. Khetramohan Swain found following injuries on P.W.6-wife of the accused:- i. incised wound of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. X bone depth over frontal aspect of head. ii. Two incised wounds measuring 3 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. over left side of the neck. iii. One incised wound of size 1 1/2 x 1 cm. X 1 cm. over left thumb. iv. Incised would 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. over right fore arm. He found following injuries on Debasmita BahaliaP.W.7:- i. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm. over right side neck. ii. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm. over anterior aspect of neck. iii. Incised wound 2 x 1 x 1/2 cm. over right side of neck. iv. Incised wound of 3 x 1 x 1/2 cm. over the cheek. v. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. over lower lip. vi. Incised wound of 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. over left side of the neck. vii. Multiple small incised wounds of 1 mm. x 2 mm. over right fore arm. He also examined Snehasis Bahalia, younger son of the accused and found the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 5 x 1/2 x 1 cm. over anterior neck. 2. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm. of right side neck. 3. One incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm. over right side neck. 4. One incised wound 3 x 1 and half x 1 cm. over left side neck. 5. Incised wound 1cm. x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. on right thumb. 6. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm. and half cm. over left side neck. He opined that all the injuries found on above named injureds except injury no.1 of Snehasis were simple in nature. Snehasis was referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital for injury no.1. From the above, the eye-witnesses are found to have sustained injuries. 6. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm. and half cm. over left side neck. He opined that all the injuries found on above named injureds except injury no.1 of Snehasis were simple in nature. Snehasis was referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital for injury no.1. From the above, the eye-witnesses are found to have sustained injuries. Their testimonies inspire confidence and stand in high pedestal of truth and trustworthiness. 4. P.W.8, the Doctor conducted post-mortem vide Ext.4 on deceased and found sharp cutting injury present in front of neck below the thyoid bone of size of 4 x 1/2 x 1/2 inch and blood stains present on the neck. He opined that the injury was ante-mortem in nature. According to him, the injury caused profuse haemorrhage outside the body. He stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock. Beyond doubt, the prosecution is thus found to have proved that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. The deceased, injured and accused are related. Wife-P.W.6 and minor daughter (P.W.7), both injured, testified against accused as author of the injuries not only on their person but also on the body of deceased to which he succumbed. Their presence inside the bedroom is the natural consequence to their living traits. Statement of P.W.6 was found contradicted, through the Investigating Officer-P.W.11, to the extent that P.W.6 has not stated before him that:- "the accused gave blow to her elder son. P.W.6 has not stated before him that she again went to the bedroom and found the accused was holding her daughter and gave a blow to Debasis on his neck by means of knife and when she wanted to save her son-Debasis, the accused gave a blow on her hand by means of knife. P.W.6 has also not stated before him that the accused gave a blow to his daughter by means of knife and she sustained injuries on her lips and chin and brought her children to outside and closed the door. She has also not stated before him that she brought her children to another house where Debasis died. She has not stated before him that while she was snatching the knife she sustained injury on her right palm. She has also not stated before him that she brought her children to another house where Debasis died. She has not stated before him that while she was snatching the knife she sustained injury on her right palm. She has not stated before him that she found the accused giving blows to her son Debasis." 4.(a) The evidence of wife-P.W.6 is questioned to be unreliable for the contradiction brought out with her earlier statement recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P. C. The trial court has found that "the variance of her statement to the effect that in her statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., she found that the accused cut the neck of Debasis after she got up from sleep on receipt of blow. Whereas in her evidence she said, she again went inside the room to bring her daughter and the accused by holding her gave a cut blow on the neck of the deceased son Debasis by means of knife. Therefore, the fact remains she had seen the accused giving a cut blow to the neck of Debasis by means of knife. There is no variance in such statement before police and in the Court." Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Panda submits that the trial court has committed error in using statements of P.W.6 recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence and for that the judgment is vulnerable under law. 4.(b) Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of Md. Ankoos and others vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2010) 1 OrissaLR 556 (SC) has clarified that as follows:- "24. A criminal court can use the case diary in the aid of any inquiry or trial but not as an evidence. This position is made clear by Section 172(2) of the Code. Section 172(3) places restrictions upon the use of case diary by providing that accused has no right to call for the case diary but if it is used by the police officer who made the entries for refreshing his memory or if the Court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, it will be so done in the manner provided in Section 161 of the Code and Section-145 of the Evidence Act. Court's power to consider the case diary is not unfettered. Court's power to consider the case diary is not unfettered. In light of the inhibitions contained in Section 172 (2), it is not open to the Court to place reliance on the case diary as a piece of evidence directly or indirectly." 4.(c) In a decision in the case of Mahavir and another vs. State of U.P., (1990) CriLJ 1605 it is stated that "Court can look into the case diary of the case itself but cannot rely on it unless its extracts are proved after confronting the same to the witness concerned under Section 162 Cr.P.C." 4.(d) With regard to the method of proving the contradiction, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of V.K. Mishra & another vs. State of Uttarakhand & another, (2015) 9 SCC 588 has stated in para-18 as follows:- "Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it is said, empowers the accused to put all relevant questions to a witness before his attention is called to those parts of the writing with a view to contradict him. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Punjab, (1940) AIR Allahabad 291. Describes the procedure to be followed to contradict a witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act thus at page. 819 "Resort to section 145 would only be necessary if the witness denies that he made the former statement. In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, and if the former statement was reduced to writing, then Section 145 requires that his attention must be drawn to those parts which are to be used for contradiction." 4.(e) The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is well answered in the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh and Another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1959) AIR SC 1012, wherein it is stated that "It is for the trial Judge to decide in each case after comparing the part or parts of the statement recorded by the police with that made in the witness-box, to give a ruling, having regard to the aforesaid principles, whether the recital intended to be used for contradiction satisfies the requirements of law." 4.(f) The purpose of bringing contradiction is to test the reliability of the witnesses. In case of material contradiction, his credibility can be put to test, if the development from earlier to present is so glaring that his version is exposed to reasonable doubt. A doubtful version cannot form the basis to infer a fact which the Law necessitate to be established beyond reasonable doubt. We carefully read this part of analysis of the evidence of P.W.6-wife of the accused made in para-11 of the impugned judgment. What learned trial Judge has done, is nothing but verification of the contradicted portion to find its impact on the credibility of the witness P.W.6. He has not used the statement recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. to base conviction. 5. P.W.7-Debasmita Bahalia corroborates her mother. Her evidence is challenged as a child witness and was tutored by mother and grandfather. By the time of incident, she was aged about 9 years and 1 month and she deposed on 21.03.1998. In the case of Bhagwan Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 3 SCC 21 , it is held that the evidence of child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring and always court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony. In another case K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 73 it is stated in para-9 that:- 9. xxx xxx xxx. It is safe and prudent to look for corroboration for the evidence of a child witness from the other evidence on record, because while giving evidence a child may give scope to his imagination and exaggerate his version or may develop cold feet and not tell the truth or may repeat what he has been asked to say not knowing the consequences of his deposition in the court. Careful evaluation of the evidence of a child witness in the background and context of other evidence on record is a must before the court decides to rely upon it." The location of the incident, its time and their ways of living lead us to believe that not only she was a natural witness as an injured but also testified what had she experienced as a victim due to overt act of her father-accused. She neither claims nor can we attribute after reading her testimony in a plain way, that her version was a tutored one. She neither claims nor can we attribute after reading her testimony in a plain way, that her version was a tutored one. Rather being cogent and clear is acceptable U/s. 118 of the Evidence Act. She gets corroboration from her mother's evidence. 6. In the case at hand, the scanning of the evidence of P.W.6 qua the contradiction does not show that she has given a material departure from her direct knowledge which she had seen that her husband had sliced the neck of her deceased son resulting death and had inflicted injuries in the same process to her and two other children. This being the consistent core throughout, we accept P.W.6 as a trustworthy and reliable witness, so also P.W.7. P.W.6 does not speak to rope her husband guilty if he is not true perpetrator. P.W.7, minor daughter is an injured. She has seen her brother's murder and innocently spoke truth which unfortunately implicated and incriminated her father. 7. Once the eye-witnesses prove the guilty of accused, the motive behind murder becomes immaterial because Law does not insist to prove motive as an essential ingredient of an offence. 8. The evidence of Investigating Officer-P.W.11 and seizure witness-P.W.9 prove that accused was arrested while he was found concealed in a "SANGHA" (ceiling) in a thatched house near the spot. The accused being the father of the deceased did not react in the manner expected from an ordinary man in the situation. On his instance, the "knife" was found under the cot at spot which is marked as M.O.I. The said knife was a vegetable cutter. As per chemical examination report vide Ext.10, it was stained with human blood. The place from where accused was found, was so proximate to the place of recovery that non-recording of exact version of leading to discovery statement in the seizure list-Ext.2 cannot be said to be an infirmity to discard its admissibility U/s.27 of the Evidence Act. Here the knowledge of accused as to a blood stained knife lends assurance to the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.6 and 7. 9. The plea of alibi taken by the accused is not shown to have any sustainability from any thread of evidence on record. Such false plea fortifies the finding of guilty already proved by the eyewitnesses. On independent analysis of the evidence of record, we find no error in the appreciation of the trial Court. 9. The plea of alibi taken by the accused is not shown to have any sustainability from any thread of evidence on record. Such false plea fortifies the finding of guilty already proved by the eyewitnesses. On independent analysis of the evidence of record, we find no error in the appreciation of the trial Court. The conviction of appellant U/s. 302 of IPC recorded thereon suffers from no illegality. The sentence awarded is the minimum prescribed. The conviction and sentence do not warrant any interference in this appeal. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. LCRs. be returned immediately to the lower court.