JUDGMENT ON BOARD : Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Case No.44/2021 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 3.2.2021 at about 3.30 A.M. present appellant Jaysingh Baghel assaulted deceased Lakhmi Bai for intention of her murder, he assaulted the deceased by bamboo stick and later she died. It is alleged that informant Maniram Baghel along with Up-Sarpanch Rameshwar Bisai and Devinath Baghel went to the Police Station Nagarnar on 3.2.2021 and registered a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) to the effect that the night before the date of incident his brother-in-law Jaisingh Baghel, his wife Lakhmi and children were sleeping at home after taking dinner. At around 4 A.M., wife of Jaisingh Baghel did not wake up after waking up her, she was lying dead. After Jaisingh informed his brother Jagbandhu, Jagdandhu called him and informed him, then he went to Jaisingh Baghel’s house and saw Lakhmi lying dead. The police went to the spot. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-2. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-3. Inquest over the body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses vide Ex.P-6. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-8 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, bamboo stick was seized from his possession vide Ex.P-9. The appellant was arrested on 6.2.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P-10. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-19. Dead body of deceased Lakhmi Bai was sent for postmortem to Medical Hospital, Dimrapal vide Ex.P-13, where Dr.Ashish Babu Patel (PW- 11) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-14 and found following injuries vide Ex.P-14A:- 1. Contusion at right side of forehead along scalp hairline, 2cm x 1 em, reddish-brown colour. 2. Abraded Contusion above right eyebrows, Spindle shaped, 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm, reddish-brown colour. 3. Contusion at right side of forehead along scalp hairline, 2cm x 1 em, reddish-brown colour. 2. Abraded Contusion above right eyebrows, Spindle shaped, 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm, reddish-brown colour. 3. Abraded contusion over left forehead above eyebrows, two in number, separated born each other by 2 mm of, normal uncontused- unabraded skin, Contusion are numbered 3(a) and 3(b), 3(a)- round shaped, 1cmx1cm. 3(b)- elliptical shaped, 4cm x 1.5 cm. Reddish- brown colour. 4. Abraded Contusion between two eyebrows, triangular shaped, 1.5cm x 1cm, faint bluish purple colour. 5. Abraded Contusion over left side of nose between inner Canthus of both eye, 1 cm x 1cm, square shaped, reddish brown colour with underlying nosal bone fracture. 6. Contusion in left upper and lower eyelid, bluish-pumple to black colour. 7. Abraded contusion over left side of nose, Crescentic shaped, two in number, Size 1cm x 0.5cm and 0.5 X0.5cm. 8. Contusion below and Lateral aspect of right eye, 2cmx1.5cm, Bluish-purple colour. 9. Contusion, over sking right zygomatic arch, round shaped, three in number, size - 0.5cm x 0.5cm, 0.5 cm x0.5cm, 1 cm x1 cm. 10. Contusion over sking right Zygomatic arch Crescentic shape, 0.5 cm X 0.2cm, reddish brown colour, 11. Linear contusion over left eye-brow outer aspect, 3cm x. 0.3cm, bluish- purple colour. 12. Contused obrasion over left cheek, 6cm x 6cm, reddish- brown colour, three round shaped contusion present in abraded area, size. 1 cm x 1 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 1 cm x 1 cm. 13. Contusion of skin in front of left ear, sound shaped, 0.8 cm X 0.5cm. 14. Contusion of left ear. 15. Abrasion over skin, below and front of left ear, 0.4 cm - 2cm. 16. Abraded Contusion below left ear, triangular in shape, base is convex and toward occiput, apex of abrasion is directed toward front of neck, size 2 um x 1 cm. 17. Contusion encircling the mouth from nose to chin, Including lips and corners of mouth. 18. Abrasion over chin, 1cm x 1cm, reddish-brown colour. 19. Abraded Contusion below chin, 3cm x 3cm, reddish- brown colour. 20. Contusion of right ear. 21. Lacerated wound in right ear between helix and ear lobule, 1 cm x0.2cmxhalf thickness of helix, reddish-brown colour, 22. Lacerated wound in inner surface of lower lip, two in number, vertical, size - 0.5cm X 0.1cm X 0.2emdeep, 0.4cm X- 0.1cm ×0.2 cm deep. Abraded Contusion below chin, 3cm x 3cm, reddish- brown colour. 20. Contusion of right ear. 21. Lacerated wound in right ear between helix and ear lobule, 1 cm x0.2cmxhalf thickness of helix, reddish-brown colour, 22. Lacerated wound in inner surface of lower lip, two in number, vertical, size - 0.5cm X 0.1cm X 0.2emdeep, 0.4cm X- 0.1cm ×0.2 cm deep. one lacerated wound in lower lip near left corner of mouth, size 1 cm X 0.3cm x 0.2cm deep. 23. Patterned abrasion over left side of neck, 10 um 20.5im in dimension. A round shaped contusion below the abrasion, size-0.5cm×0.5cm present, reddish-blue colour. 24. Linear abrasion over right upper chest below clavide 4cm ×0.2cm, reddish brown colour scab present. 25. Contusion over right arm anterior aspect 2.5 cm x 1.5cm, bluish purple colour. 26. Abrasion over right elbow outer aspect, 2cm x 1cm, reddish brown colour. 27. Abrasion over sight elbow inner aspect, 6 cm x reddish brown colour. 28. Abrasion over inner aspect of right knee, round shaped, three in number, size- 0.5cm x 0.5cm, 0.5cm ×0.5cm, 1cm x 1 cm, reddish- brown colour. 29. Multiple abrasion over lower half of right leg, size from 0.1cm × 0.1cm to 1.5 cmx 1 cm. 30. Contusion over anterior aspect of lower end of toff leg. right leg and ankle, margins are diffuse, bluish-purple colour. 31. Lacerated wound with flaying of skin at inner aspect of left foot, size 3cm x 4 cm, subcutaneous issue deep, floor is reddish brown colour 32. Lacerated wound in webspace between 4th and 5th toe of left foot, 0.5cm x0.5cm, subcutaneous issue deep, reddish-brown colour. 33. Puncture wound at inner aspect of middle of left lay Size 1cm x 0.8 cm, muscle deep. Series of multiple round to rectangular tiny contusion present in the margin of wound. Margin is reddish brown in colour, floor is red coloured, Oozing of blood present. 34. Contusion at middle of left leg X0.8 cm, reddish brown colour anterior aspect, size- colour, multiple sound to rectangular tiny contusion present at morgin of contouring the Central Contused skin. 35. Ring shaped patterned abrasion present at middle of anterior aspect of left leg below injury number-17. reddish brown in colour, size - 1cm x0.8cm. 36. Contusion over left leg lower one third and left ankle and dorsum of left foot, bluish purple colour. 37. 35. Ring shaped patterned abrasion present at middle of anterior aspect of left leg below injury number-17. reddish brown in colour, size - 1cm x0.8cm. 36. Contusion over left leg lower one third and left ankle and dorsum of left foot, bluish purple colour. 37. Abraded Contusion at outer aspect of left knee, 4cm x 3cm, bluish-purple to reddish brown colour. 38. Contusion at left knee anterior aspect, 4cmx3cm, bluish- purple colour. 39. Contusion over outer aspect of lower half of left thigh, 17cm x 9cm, bluish purple colour. 40. Contusion over upper and anterior aspect of left arm, 5cm X 3cm, Bluish-purple colour 41. Abraded contusion over lower end of left forearm outer aspect, 5cm x 5cm, bluish- purple colour. 42. Contusion over dorsum of left hand and knuckles, 6 cm x 4cm, bluish purple colour. 43. Contusion over left buttock, 5cm x 2 cm, bluish purple Colour. 44. Two parallel line of contusion present over back of right shoulder, 6 cm x2cm, bluish-purple colour. All injuries mentioned above from point 1 to 44 point in are antemortem and fresh. After having careful postmortem examination, the doctor came to the conclusion that cause of death was smothering and death was homicidal in nature. Seized bamboo stick was sent to FSL for chemical examination and in FSL report Ex.P-23, human blood was found on blouse, petticoat, sari and gauge piece. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bastar at Jagdalpur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 4. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has caused the murder of his wife, proceeded to convict and sentence him under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 6. 6. Mr.Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the alleged offence, particularly when the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is taken as its face value, then also, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC would not be attracted against the accused/appellant as there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was killed by the appellant except memorandum and all the witness of memorandum have turned hostile. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not established intention of the accused/appellant to commit murder of deceased Lakhmi Bai. He also submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no eye witness in the instant case, therefore, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises. The case of the prosecution is fully based upon the circumstantial evidence, whereas chain of events are missing and are incomplete to prove the offence against the appellant. He contended that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement/deposition of the prosecution witnesses, which has been overlooked by the trial Court. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submit that statement of Ku.Urmila (PW-4) is wholly reliable and trustworthy as she was 09 years at the time of examination and her testimony inspires confidence and she has rightly been relied upon and it is not universal rule that unless testimony of child witness is corroborated by further evidence, her testimony cannot be relied upon and no conviction can be recorded on sole testimony of child witness. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 and submits that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court and as such, the criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Lakhmi Bai was homicidal in nature ? 10. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Ashish Babu Patel (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Lakhmi Bai vide Ex.P-14, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Lakhmi Bai was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 11. The next question is that the appellant has been convicted on sole testimony of Ku.Urmila (PW-4), daughter of deceased Lakhmi Bai, whether sole testimony of child witness should be relied upon to base conviction unless it is corroborated by other appropriate valid piece of evidence. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 118 of the Evidence Act, which states as under:- “118. Who may testify.-All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.” 13. Before discussing the evidence of the child witness, it would be advantageous to refer to the law relating to child witness. Section 118 of the Evidence Act deals with the question of competency of persons to testify. Under this section, all persons are competent to testify, unless they are, in the opinion of the Court, (a) unable to understand the questions put to them, or (b) to give rational answers to those questions, owing to (I) tender years, (ii) extreme old age, (iii) disease of mind or body, or (iv) any other such cause. Even a lunatic, if he is capable of understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers, is a competent witness. Even a lunatic, if he is capable of understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers, is a competent witness. With respect to children, no precise age is fixed by law within which they are absolutely excluded from giving evidence on the presumption that they have not sufficient understanding. A child is not an incompetent witness by reason of its age. A child of tender years is not, by reason of its youth, as matter of law, disqualified as a witness. There is no precise age which determines the question of competency. According to Section 118 of the Evidence Act, a child of tender age is a competent witness if it appears that it can understand the questions put to it and give rational answers thereto. This section vests in the Court the discretion to decide whether an infant is or is not disqualified to be a witness by reason of understanding or lack of understanding. When a young child is a witness, the first step for the Judge or Magistrate to take is to satisfy himself that the child is the competent witness within the meaning of Section 118 of the Evidence Act and for this purpose, preliminary inquiry should be held. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain in the best way, which it can, whether from the extent of his intellectual capacity and understanding the child witness is able to give a rational account of what he has seen, heard or done at a particular occasion or in other words, the witness understands the duty of speaking truth or not. Competency of young children can be ascertained by putting a few questions to them in order to find out whether they are intelligent enough to understand what they had seen and afterwards inform the court thereof. The holding of a preliminary inquiry is merely a rule of prudence and is not a legal obligation upon the judge. It is desirable that after holding a preliminary inquiry, Judges and Magistrates maintain record incorporating opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking truth. Though no precise criteria for appraising the evidence of a child witness can be laid down, yet one broad test is whether there was possibility of any tutoring. It is desirable that after holding a preliminary inquiry, Judges and Magistrates maintain record incorporating opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking truth. Though no precise criteria for appraising the evidence of a child witness can be laid down, yet one broad test is whether there was possibility of any tutoring. If this test is found in positive, the Court will not, as a rule of prudence, convict the accused of a major offence on the basis of child evidence unless it is corroborated to material extent in material particulars, directly connecting the accused with the crime. At the same time, if otherwise the testimony of a child witness is not shown to be tainted with any such infirmities, it calls for due credence. A child in the innocent purity of its mind and unsophistication is more likely to come forth with version which is unbiased, unsoiled, natural and forthright. It is less prone to manipulation, motivation and spirit of vendetta. It can as well be spontaneous and inspiring, once the child is enabled to overcome the initial shock and awe, and ensured protection, security, compassion and given confidence to come out with what was seen. Further, some of the children are fairly intelligent, truthful and straight forward, and there is no reason to start with a presumption of untrustworthiness in the assessment of their evidence. The merit of evidence has to be judged on the touchstone of its own inherent intrinsic worth. 14. In the matter of Panchhi v. State of UP, (1998) 7 SCC 177 the Supreme Court has held as under:- “.....It cannot be said that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. 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 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.” 15. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully 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.” 15. With regard to the testimony of child witness the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji & others, (2009) 12 SCC 731 had noticed the case law and held as under: “The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease -- whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. {See Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001) 9 SCC 129 }. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [ (1997) 5 SCC 341 ] it was held as follows : (SCC p.343, para 5) :- “A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to given rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.” 16. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.” 16. The position of law relating to the evidence of a child witness has been dealt with also by the Supreme Court in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (12) SCC 565 and Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008(4) SCALE 569 . In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & Others, (2010) 47 OCR (SC) 263 the Supreme Court also has gone a step ahead in observing that a child of tender age who has witnessed the gruesome murder of his parents is not likely to forget the incident for his whole life and would certainly recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same at any point of time notwithstanding the gap of about ten years between the incident and recording his evidence. 17. Ku.Urmila (PW-4) is child eyewitness who has seen the appellant assaulting her mother. In para 1 of her evidence, she has stated that her mother’s name is Lakhmi, her mother has died. Her father Jaisingh has murdered her mother Lakhmi. In para 2, she has stated that on the night of the incident, her father Jaisingh had assaulted her mother with stick, axe, crow bar and bicycle saying that she had sold her rice which she saw and her mother died and her father also administered poison to her mother. In para 3 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she used to sleep early on the days when her parents did not fight and she did not sleep early on the days when they fight. She admitted that her parents drank alcohol. She denied that on the day her mother died, she was sleeping in another room with her brother, she automatically states that on that day she was sleeping with her mother. She denied that she could not see who was fighting. In para 4 of her cross- examination, she denied that today she is telling about the incident on the basis of what her aunt told her about the incident. She automatically states that she has seen the incident. 18. She denied that she could not see who was fighting. In para 4 of her cross- examination, she denied that today she is telling about the incident on the basis of what her aunt told her about the incident. She automatically states that she has seen the incident. 18. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court noticed hereinabove, in the present case, at the time of recording of the evidence of Ku.Urmila (PW-4), she was aged about 09 years. In order to satisfy himself, learned Sessions Judge asked certain questions from her like, what is her name, what is her father’s name, in which class she is studying, for which purpose she has come to the Court, what is her mother’s name, whether she should speak truth or not and having satisfied that she understand the questions put to her, her statement was recorded. She has been subjected to cross- examination, but nothing has been elicited to hold that she was not present at the time when the appellant assaulted his wife Lakhmi Bai by bamboo stick. As such, testimony of Ku.Urmila (PW-4) remained uncontroverted and merely on account that she is child witness, her testimony cannot be discarded. 19. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the statement of child eyewitness Ku.Urmila (PW-4), considering the material available on record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court and injuries report (Ex.P-14A) of Dr.Ashish Babu Patel (PW-11), we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.