Short Note : 1. Appellant Jagdis Prasad had challenged his conviction under section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife. It was based on the duly eye-witness Munna (P. W. 1), who was not only a "child witness" but also a hostile witness. 2. Held: Taking first the evidence given by Munna (P. W. 1), this Court finds it very difficult to believe his statement There are two infirmities in the evidence of his First is that he is a 'child witness' and secondly, he is a "hostile witness" also. The evidence of 'child witness' should be scrutinised with care and caution. Munna is not only a teenager but the only witness claimed to be an eye-Witness added to it, he is also a hostile witness. The Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence. There is no corroboration of this child witness On the contrary there are many contradictions as far as the presence of the accused is concerned. If these infirmities are taken into consideration, then in the opinion of this Court; the evidence of the child witness will have to be discarded altogether as not trustworthy. Shivji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 , K. Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 980 , relied on. One more aspect of the case also should be taken into consideration. The Court is aware that in an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the question of motive carries no much weight, but when the Court has to judge the offence under circumstantial evidence, then, the question of motive becomes important. In this case, all the witnesses have said that accused and his wife were carrying on well with each other. There was no fight or quarrel as such between them and, therefore, no motive can be imputed to the appellant. Shiv Charan v. State of M.P., 1968 Cr. A. R. (SC) 268 relied on. Conviction quashed. Appeal allowed.