witness, there was any infirmity in his understanding of facts perceived, his ability to narrate the same correctly or that he was tutored. Being so we have no hesitation in holding that evidence of P.W. 2 Abdulla Singh inspires confidence and is fully corroborated by other'witnesses and msdical evidence and there exists no likelihood of being tutored. It is a settled principle of law that if the statement of child witness is reliable, truthful and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence, the ceurt can safely rely upon the statement of such witness and can form the tiasis of conviction as well. In this case, in his evidence but for minor contradiction P.W. 2 Abdulla Singh remained very firm and has reiterated as to the manner in which his mother was murdered by the accused/appellant. Ifthe evidence of this witness is weighed and visyalized minutely, it makes it clear that he is a reliable and trustwoFfSy wjtness. If his court statement is compared with his diary statemehf, tlienl also it becomes apparent that what he narrated in his diary statem:enf,t he stood firm in the said statement in the court. While answering in^para 6, in only one line he has stated that "whatever wastold tci.l-iitrfcinithe room he has narrated the same in the court". However fhisf^Hn alone will not nullify his entire statement which he has repeated again and again. Similar is the position when a question was put to him and he answered that he did not see the accused killing the deceased whereas in other line he has categorically deposed that he saw the accused/appellant killing the deceased. His one or two line cannot be read in isolation and entire evidence is to be seen and appreciated and ifthis is done, it makes it clear that he saw the entire incident and most importantly when he tried to intervene, he too was assaulted by the appellant and his medical report Ex. P-20 also supports the prosecution case. No question was put to him by the defence as to how the injury was sustained by thjs witness whereas prosecution has succeeded in proving that in the same incident he was beaten by the appellant. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that no question in the statement under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. was put to the appellant regarding the injury sustained by P.W. 2 Abdulia Singh is concerned, from perusal of the statement under Section 313
