JUDGMENT - B.A. MASODKAR, J.:---By the side of Poona-Bangalore Highway within the limits of Satara City Police Station is road that goes to Godoli Village. Near that road, Balu (P.W. 11) with his family was residing in a hut. His family consisted of his wife Shalan, two sons and one daughter. Ashok, the victim of the offence was of 16 years of age, while the other son, Hambirrao (P.W. 3) was about 8 years of age when the incident occurred. The daughter was by name Chhaya. It has been the case of the prosecution that upon information given by Shalan, the mother of Ashok, the offence was registered. However, Shalan was not available, she having died admittedly some time in July 1984. 2. The present appellant-original accused stood charged for having committed the murder of Ashok during the night of 30th May, 1983 while Ashok was sleeping outside the hut of Balu. It has been the prosecution case that during the course of that day, the brother of the accused by name Rambhau had visited Balu and both Balu and Rambhau had gone to the employer of Rambhau and recovered a sum of Rs. 100/- and thereafter Rambhau, Balu as well as accused Vijay had all taken drinks costing Rs. 2/- each. That was all during the day-time. At about 7 p.m., Rambhau had approached Balu and demanded Rs. 2/-. Balu explained that he had no such money and thereupon, it is the case of the prosecution, there was some altercation between Rambhau and Balu. The accused had then told Rambhau to go home and that he would look into the matter. The prosecution does not allege that in the entire incident, the deceased, Ashok was, in any manner, concerned. However, it is the case of the prosecution that on the same night at about 9. p.m., while Ashok was sleeping along with Hambirrao (P.W. 3), it was the accused who came and assaulted Ashok by means of a knife, as a result of which Ashok received homicidal injuries and when he was taken to Dr. Sangale (P.W. 8), he was already dead. Dr. Prakash Ahivale (P.W. 9), eventually, subjected the dead body of Ashok to post-mortem examination. The body had seven external injuries showing consistently that Ashok must have been assaulted by means of a knife. 3. Sangale (P.W. 8), he was already dead. Dr. Prakash Ahivale (P.W. 9), eventually, subjected the dead body of Ashok to post-mortem examination. The body had seven external injuries showing consistently that Ashok must have been assaulted by means of a knife. 3. For the purpose of the present appeal, it is not in dispute that Ashok met with a homicidal death and the evidence of Dr. Sangale and Dr. Ahivale is quite enough to hold so. 4. To bring home the guilt to the accused, the entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of Hambirrao (P.W. 3), who claimed to be the lone eye-witness. 5. It may be stated that apart from the direct testimony of Hambirrao, the prosecution tried to rely upon the identification parade, which has been rejected by the trial Court and, in our view, rightly. Similarly, to corroborate the testimony, the prosecution tried to put forth the seizure of the clothes of the accused, being articles 1, 2 and 3, under the panchanama at Ex. 15 and Chemical Analyser's report, showing that all the articles sent to the Chemical Analyser were stained with blood of 'A' group. The deceased had the same blood group, but the prosecution cannot avoid the confusion that is created in the record, particularly in the Chemical Analyser's report, under which it is not possible to understand which clothes belonged to the accused, Similarly, the accused too possesses the same blood group, that is A, group, and the panchanama at Ex. 15 does show that he had some injuries. Thus, this circumstance too is not available to the prosecution. 6. What remains is the lone testimony of Hambirrao. Admittedly, he is a child witness and as at the time of the incident of eight years of age. He had not been administered oath. We have gone through his testimony and it appears to us that without corroboration Hambirrao can hardly be believed. Even on the aspect as to whether Hambirrao was sleeping along with Ashok outside the hut, there is no corroboration worth the same. Balu (P.W. 11 ), his father, tried to say that both the deceased Ashok and Hambirrao were sleeping outside the hut, but material contradiction in this regard has been brought forth from his police statement recorded by the police, Before the police, he had not said anything of such kind. 7. Balu (P.W. 11 ), his father, tried to say that both the deceased Ashok and Hambirrao were sleeping outside the hut, but material contradiction in this regard has been brought forth from his police statement recorded by the police, Before the police, he had not said anything of such kind. 7. What Hambirrao states is that he and his brother Ashok were sleeping and he woke up by reasons of someone putting a foot on his body and when he woke up, he saw a person sitting on the chest of Ashok and dealing knife blows. As he woke up he was even threatened and, eventually, that person ran away. According to him, after his hue and cry, his mother Shalan also came out and he himself and his mother were weeping failing on the person of injured Ashok and that is how he got blood on his clothes which are at Articles 4 and 5. The cross-examination of Hambirrao clearly shows that without corroboration, such a narration can hardly be adequate. Apart from the fact that Hambirrao is a child susceptible to tutoring by his own father, it is obvious that he has been made to identify the accused even in the identification parade. He gave a very unnatural answer in the cross-examination when details were asked to him about the assault, by saying that the assailant did rot even rise from the chest of Ashok even when he was showing knife to the witness and threatening him. He has further admitted that he was told by his mother that the accused was arrested and that too at about 10 a.m. or 11 a m. and that is how he came to know that the assailant was Vijay. He has further admitted that in the police statement he had not given the description of the assailant. He was contradicted with his earlier statement before the police even with regard to the timing of his waking up and his mother appearing on the scene and shouting. The contradiction is proved. Before the police he had stated that his mother was shouting when he woke up. 8. This being the state of affairs of the testimony of Hambirrao, hardly we can conclude that there is adequate material to bring home the guilt to the accused. 9. The contradiction is proved. Before the police he had stated that his mother was shouting when he woke up. 8. This being the state of affairs of the testimony of Hambirrao, hardly we can conclude that there is adequate material to bring home the guilt to the accused. 9. In the result, the appeal of the accused is accepted, the order of conviction and sentence passed against him is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge for which he was tried and has been found guilty. He released forthwith. Order accordingly. -----