JUDGMENT: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Each of the appellants was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) for allegedly committing murder of one Baban Misal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in the night between 9th July, 1998 and 10th July 1998. It was further alleged that they had buried him in his agricultural land, a short distance from his house. Ranjana Baban Misal who was the accused No. 1 and the appellant No. 1 before the High Court, had expired and therefore, the appeal was held to have abetted so far as she is concerned. Appellants 2 & 3 were claimed to be her paramours and appellant No. 4 is the son of appellant No. 1 and the deceased. He had other siblings one of which was examined as an eye witness to the incident.

3. The prosecution version in a nutshell was that deceased appellant Ranjana had extra marital affairs with appellants 2 and 3 since the deceased objected to such activities. They together with her son committed the murder of the deceased and disposed of the dead body by burying it in his own agricultural land near his house and by disposing of the blood, blood stained clothes and other articles.

4. The case of the accused persons was one of denial. The trial court placing reliance on the evidence of the daughter of the deceased PW 13, who was aged about 12 or 13 years at the time of the incident, found the accused persons guilty.

5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no credence should have been attached to the evidence of PW 13. It was submitted that unexplained delay in making search for the deceased and ultimately missing report was given. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment.

6. We shall deal with the acceptability of child witness PW 13. There are certain other factors which also have relevance. The recovery of the weapon of the assault led to further investigation. PW 9 is shop keeper who sold the said weapon to the appellant No.3 on the date of incident. This was followed by another purchase by appellant No. 4 from PW 11 of 9 kgs of salt. The trial Court and High Court noted that salt acts as a preservative. So far as evidence of PW 13 is concerned it goes to show that the deceased was sleeping alone in his hut and eating in his brothers house. There was an extremely estranged relationship of the deceased with his wife and it was known to the relatives. The recovery of the dead body from the pit in the agricultural land at a short distance also has relevance.

7. PW 13 has deposed that her mother of the deceased appellant No. 1 washed the blood of the father with a bucket of water and cloth. She poured it outside the house. The appellants spread shawl on tiles. They put the dead body on the shawl and put gunny bag on the dead body. They lifted it by holding the shawl. They carried the body to their field. They buried it in the pit. Thereafter they returned home. Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 went to their respective houses. The appellant No. 1 locked the house where the deceased was killed and she went to the hut to sleep. She went near her brother who had continued to sleep through the incident and slept. Her evidence is as concise and precise and as it is specific and vivid. It is neither embellished nor embroidered. It is the evidence of a child who has seen through the unusual and cruel incidence. She was a girl of tender age who saw the killing of her father by her mother and others.

8. The age of the witness during examination was taken to be about 12 years. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") 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