V. P. MATHUR, S., J. Mr. M. N. Kulshrestha, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge Budaun while disposing of Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1978 of his Court, convicted Dharam Dass under Section 302 I. P. C. and Bachey Lal under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentenced them both to imprisonment for life. This judgment and order is dated 6-9-78 and both Dharma Dass and Bachey Lal have come to this Court through this appeal. 2. The first informant is one Tota Ram resident of village Behta Kaura, Police Station Bisauli, district, Budaun. Dharam Dass is his brother-in-law and to him his real sister Smt. Ram Wati was married. This lady has since died and about one year prior to this occurrence Dharam Dass had married a second woman. Bachey Lal is a distant brother-in-law of Dharam Dasss brother. There is some evidence on record to show that Smt. Ramwati was ill for about one year prior to her death and was living with Tota Ram where her treatment was going on. She died after living with Tota Ram for about one year. There is also evidence to show that about 11 or 12 biswas of land had been purchased in the name of Smt. Ramwati which is in the actual physical posses sion of Tota ram. The contention of Totaram is that he had paid for the pur chase of this land while Dharam Dass contention was that it was his money which was used for the purchase of this land. Dharam Dass is resident of village Tandey Ki Gaunria, which lies within the police station Aonla. , District, Bareilly and this place is 8 to 10 Kose away from village Behta Kayra. Bachey Lal is resident of Ghaziabad. This occurrence took place about 3 or 4 p. m. on 3-1-78 in the open Gher of Tota Ram in village Behta Kaura and the first information report was lodged by Tota Ram at 5. 30 p. m. in police station Bisauli, which is at a distance of 8 kilometers from the scene of occurrence. 3. The prosecution story is that the deceased Shyam Lal who was second cousin of Tota Ram had arrived at Tota Rams house 2 or 3 days earlier. Search ing for him Dharam Dass and Bachey Lai also came to the village on 8-1-78. 3. The prosecution story is that the deceased Shyam Lal who was second cousin of Tota Ram had arrived at Tota Rams house 2 or 3 days earlier. Search ing for him Dharam Dass and Bachey Lai also came to the village on 8-1-78. They met Tota Ram in his Gher and learnt from him that Dharam Dass had arri ved. Then the followed Tota Ram upto the residential house. There they met Shyam Lal. It is said that: Shyara Lal had advanced some money to Dharam Dass and since it was not paid he had brought Dharam Dasss buffalo and sold it. In that connection Dharam Dass accompanied by Bachey Lal had come to meet Shyam Lal. It is contended that they had talks at the residential house of Tota Ram for some time where they also smoked Bins but thereafter all the three left the residential house and went to the open Gher. The story is that Tota Rams real nephew Sohan Pal, who was a child of 9 or 10 years accompani ed Shyam Lal, Dharam Dass and Bachey Lal upto the Gher. There, there was some exchange of words between the deceased and the appellants and Dharam Dass shot Shyam Lal dead and then the two appellants ran away from the spot. This informal on was communicated to Tota Ram by Sohan Pal (P. W. 2) and on its basis Tota Ram got the first information report scribed by Sultan Ah mud (P. W. 6) and lodged it in the Thana on 2-1-78 at 5. 30 P. M. 4. The investigate a was made by Sri Chandra Mohan Dixit (P. W. 7) who took the deadbody into custody, interrogated the witnesses and arranged /or the postmortem examination. Dr. R. P. Jauhari (P. W. 1) conducted the post mortem examination on the deadbody of Shyam Lal at 4. 00 p. m. on 9-1-78. His report has bean exhibited and marked as Ext. Ka 2 and according to it, the following ante mortem injuries were noted on the deadbody : 1. Multiple gun shot wound of entry each measuring. 7 cm. + 0. 5 cm surrounded by blackening in an area 8 cm. + 5 cm on front of lower half of neck and adjoining sternum and inner ends of cla vicle. 2. Abrasion 0. 5 cm + 0. 5 cm on the outer aspect of left elbow. Multiple gun shot wound of entry each measuring. 7 cm. + 0. 5 cm surrounded by blackening in an area 8 cm. + 5 cm on front of lower half of neck and adjoining sternum and inner ends of cla vicle. 2. Abrasion 0. 5 cm + 0. 5 cm on the outer aspect of left elbow. 5. The internal examination revealed fracture of the upper part of the sternum at the joint of first ribs, puncture of the apex of the right pleura and trachea below larynx. The upper lobe of the right lung was also punctured. Aorta of the heart had also been punctured at the thoracic part. There was digest ed fluid 2 dozs in the stomach, gases in the small intestine and faeces in the large intestines. In the opinion of the Doctrine the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the ante mortem injuries and the time since death was one day. 6. Seven witnesses were examined for the prosecution. P. W. 1 is Dr. R. P. Jauhari, P. W. 2 is the child witness, namely, Sohanpal. P. W. 3 is the first infor mant Tota Ram. P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 are Jograj and Anokhey Singh, who have been examined to say that immediately after the occurrence when they rushed towards the Gher of the first informant on hearing the sound of the firing, they saw the two accused persons running away from the Gher side, Dharam Dass with a pistol and Bachey Lal with a lathi. Out of these witnesses, Jograj has not supported the prosecution case and says that he did not see anybody running P. W. 6 is Sultan Ahmad who scribed the first information report at the dictation of the first informant and P. W. 7 is the Investigating officer, Mr. Chandra Mohan Dixit. 7. The accused persons denied their guilt. Their contention is that the wife of Dharam Dass, who was the sister of Tota Ram had purchased land in village Behta Kaurha and Dharam Dass and paid for the price. Chandra Mohan Dixit. 7. The accused persons denied their guilt. Their contention is that the wife of Dharam Dass, who was the sister of Tota Ram had purchased land in village Behta Kaurha and Dharam Dass and paid for the price. Since the lady died after remaining ill for one year at the house of Tota Ram, and since there is no issue alive from this marriage, Tota Ram has now refused to part with the land of the lady and is also not prepared to return her ornaments to Dharam Dass and with a view to eliminate Dharam Dass completely he has falsely implicated him in this ease along with Bachey Lal. It is further contended that the two appellants had visited Tota Ram a number of times prior to this occurrence to demand the land of Smt. Ramwati and her ornaments and Tota Ram, had refus ed to oblige them. 8. No defence evidence has been adduced. 9. This case clearly rests upon the sole testimony of the Child witness Sohanpal P. W. 2 and in order to provide him with corroboration the prosecution lias tried to examine two other witnesses Jograj (P. W. 4) and Anokhey Singh (P. W. 5 ). The position of child witness should be very clearly understood. In the case of Mohammad Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v. King, AIR 1946 PC 3, which was followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 , it was held that even though legally there is no bar in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness yet prudence requires that courts should not act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child whether sworn or unsworn. In the case of Raja Ram v. State, 1959 AWR 602, also it was held that the evidence of a child witness should be accepted with great caution. It is absolutely clear that a child witness is always anauthroisely dangerous witness capable of being tutored and, there ore, unless the possibility of coaching is eliminated and independent corroboration is available, the courts shall be very slow in accepting the solitary testimony of a child witness. It is absolutely clear that a child witness is always anauthroisely dangerous witness capable of being tutored and, there ore, unless the possibility of coaching is eliminated and independent corroboration is available, the courts shall be very slow in accepting the solitary testimony of a child witness. In the case of Ram Hazoor Pandey v. Stale, 1959 AWR 248 also it has been impressed that independent evidence should be available to corroborate a child witness and this corroboration should not be only about the factum of crime but should also reasonably connect the accused with the offence. 10, In the present case the first information report has been lodged by Tota Ram and it is based on what he learnt allegedly from Sohan Pal. in this manner Tota Ram is not an eye witness. He claims to have lodged the first information report after recording the facts on the basis of the information com municated to him by Sohan Pa and in support of Sohanpal Anokhey Singh (P. VV. 5) has come to say that immediately after the occurrence when he rushed towards the scene of occurrence on hearing the sound of the firing he saw the two accused persons running away from the side of the Gher. 11. Let us now analyse the evidence which has been adduced in this case to connect the two appellants with this occurrence. P. W. 3 Tota Ram is the first informant. In the first information report he has clearly mentioned two facts, namely. Jograj and Anokhey of the village had seen the two appellants running away after the commission of the crime. Secondly, he mentions that Dharam Dass had obtained in the last month of Jeth some loan from Shyam Lal and when Shyam Lal did not receive the money back he went and brought the buffalo of Dharam Dass and sold it oil". Shyam Lal ones used to live at Dharam Dasss place for about one year or 1-1/2 years. In his oral statement recorded as P W. 3 he says that the story regarding the advance of loan, bringing of the buffalo and its sale is not based upon any writing. It is only based upon what he has heard. Shyam Lal ones used to live at Dharam Dasss place for about one year or 1-1/2 years. In his oral statement recorded as P W. 3 he says that the story regarding the advance of loan, bringing of the buffalo and its sale is not based upon any writing. It is only based upon what he has heard. He also admits that his only sister Smt. Ramwati was married to Dharam Dass and one year prior to this occurrence she died at Tota Rams house while she was ill. She came ill from the house of Dharam Dass. Two or three years prior to her death 10/12 biswas of land was purchased in her name in the village and this laud was in the possession of Tota Ram. It was, however, denied that payment was made by Dharam Dass. It is admitted that this lady remained at the house of Tota Ram till she died and one year prior to this occurrence Dharam Dass married again. 12. The most important witness is Sohan Pal. He says that Dharam Dass is his Phoopha and that his Buwe is dead. According to him, Bachey Lal used to visit his house along, with Dharam Dass as he was related to Dharam Das. Two or three times prior to this occurrence these two persons had visited the house of Tota Ram. He also says that. Shyam Lal deceased was his uncle. According to him, Shyam Lal had arrived at his house: at about noon and he was fast followed by Dharam Dass and Bachey Lal. Talks continued for some time. They smoked also and thereafter all the three went to the Gher and he accompanied them. There they sat down on a Charpoy (cot) Dharam Dass asked Shyam Lal "you have brought my buffalo. " Shyam Lal said I have not untethered it. You better pay my money. " Then Dharam Dass said "i will shoot you down" and Shyam Lal retorted" Shoot if you may. " Then according to this witness while he was lighting some Biris at the bidding of Dharam Dass, Bachey Lal took out a pistol from the pocket of his coat and 1 sanded it over to Dharam Dass and Dharam Dass promptly shot Shyam Lal with h. Then Sohan Pal ran away and reported it to Tota Ram. " Then according to this witness while he was lighting some Biris at the bidding of Dharam Dass, Bachey Lal took out a pistol from the pocket of his coat and 1 sanded it over to Dharam Dass and Dharam Dass promptly shot Shyam Lal with h. Then Sohan Pal ran away and reported it to Tota Ram. It is now clear that in his statement under Section 161, Cr PC this witness had not anywhere said that Dharam Dass and Bachey Lal has visit ed his house 2 or 3 times prior to this occurrence. This statement was made by him for the first time as P. W. 2. His contention that Shyam Lal had arrived at his house in the noon and was fast followed by Dharam Dass and Bachey Lal is proved to be wrong by the testimony of the first informant, who says that Shyam Lal had already come to his house 2 or 3 days earlier. The entire talk which allegedly ensued between Dharam Dass and Shyam Lal as has been given out by Sohanpal has not been narrated by him in the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. It is for the first time coming in evidence that Bachey Lal took out the Tamancha from his pocket and handed it over to Dharam Dass. In his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. this witness has not named Bachey Lal at all. On the contrary he has said that Dharam Dass was accompanied by one other person. If this witness knew Bachey Lal from before and also knew that Bachey Lal was related to Dharam Dass, as he claims, he should have named Bachey Lal or at least told the Investigating Officer that Dharam Dass was accompanied by a person who was his relative and who had visited Tota Rams house a number of times prior to that occurrence. The statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. simply shows that the second person who was accompanying Dharam Dass was a stranger to this witness. He further says that when after receiving the shot Shyam Lal fell down on the ground, his back was towards the sky and his face was towards the earth and in the same condition he was found by the Investigating Officer. He also says that the Investigating Officer did not find any part of the body covered. He further says that when after receiving the shot Shyam Lal fell down on the ground, his back was towards the sky and his face was towards the earth and in the same condition he was found by the Investigating Officer. He also says that the Investigating Officer did not find any part of the body covered. Both these facts are proved to be wrong when we find from the testimony of the Investigating Officer as well as from the inquest memo that the deadbody was lying on its back with face up-ward and the face was covered. The witness further says that Shyam Lal had taken food all alone on that day prior to noon. The postmortem examination report reveals that Shyam Lal had not taken any solid food and it was only 2 dozs. of fluid which was found in his stomach. Whatever he had eaten had digested itself and had come down to the large intestines in the form of faecal matter. The reason for the child to have accom panied Dharam Dass, Bachey Lal and Shyam Lal from the residential house to the Gher is not forthcoming. Then again there does not appear to be any reason why Shyam Lal should have agreed to go from die house to the open Gher. ft is clear from the testimony of Sohan Pal that he has spoken about some facts which he narrated to the Investigating Officer when he was interrogated and which he perhaps did not tell Tot: Ram because Tota Ram does not speak about the same. There has been thus embellishment in his testimony and it is clearly indica tive of tutoring at some stage. Sohanpal is, therefore, not a really reliable witness, besides being a child witness. 13. The testimony of P. W. 4 Jograj is that he was at his tube-well towards the north of the Gher of Tota Ram when he heard the sound of shot. He rushed towards the village side and reached running upto the place of occur rence. In the way he did not see anybody running from the side of the place of occurrence. He, however, says that when he reached the spot Anokhey Singh was also with him. He rushed towards the village side and reached running upto the place of occur rence. In the way he did not see anybody running from the side of the place of occurrence. He, however, says that when he reached the spot Anokhey Singh was also with him. He has thus not proved the prosecution version of having seen the two appellants running away but he has very clearly said that he and Anokhey Singh reached the place of occurrence together on hearing the sound of the shot. 14. P. W. 5 Anokhey Singh, however, says that he and Jograj were at his field and they both rushed together towards the Gher. According to him, he was still inside his field 8 to 10 paces away from his western boundary, when he saw the two appellants running away from the side of the Gher of Tota Ram, Dharam Dass with a Tamancha and Bachey Lal with a lathi. P. W. 2 Sohanpal does not credit Bachey Lal with any lathi. Had he been armed with the lathi, he would have definitely made a mention of the same. Anokhey Singhs testi mony is reduced to naught when he says that when he reached the Gher 40 to 50 persons had already assembled there and this crowd consisted of children and aged persons also. He also says that Jograj had ail along accompanied him. The testimony of Jograj contradicts this witness completely. It also appears that although Anokhey Singh and Jograj rushed from their litlds which were not far away from the scene of occurrence by the time hat they reached the Gher a large number of persons had already collected there. Naturally it means that Anokhey Singes testimony that he could see the culprits running away becomes extremely doubtful. He could see the culprits only if he had managed to reach the place of occurrences without loss of time, but since he reached after a large number of persons had already collected there, it means that he did not reach at once and hence the testimony of his seeing the culprits running away is completely negatived. In our opinion, after going through the statement of Jograj and after perusing the testimony of Anokhey. Singh it appears that they did not sec anything except the deadbody and thus the prosecution has completely failed to provide any corroboration to the testimony of Sohanpul. 15. In our opinion, after going through the statement of Jograj and after perusing the testimony of Anokhey. Singh it appears that they did not sec anything except the deadbody and thus the prosecution has completely failed to provide any corroboration to the testimony of Sohanpul. 15. It is undoubted that Smt. Ramwati had a good piece of land in her name and this land was in the actual physical possession of Tota Ram. It is also established that one year prior to her death she was living with Tota Ram. The contention of Dharam Dass is that her ornaments are also with Tota Ram. Tota Ram admits that there is no living issue of Dharam Dass and Ramwati. It also established that Dharam Dass had already married a second woman. It appears, therefore, that Tota Ram could have a reason to falsely implicate Dharam Dass in this case in order to grab the land of Smt. Ramwati and pos sibly her ornaments. The defence suggestion in this respect has some force, Bachey I. al has been clearly falsely implicated in this case- because even according to Sohanpal, the persons who had accompanied Dharam Dass was a stranger and could not be Bachey Lal. With these infirmities in the evidence and in view of the uncorroborated defective testimony of the child witness, we are of the opinion that the case is not free from doubt and should not be held to have been satis factorily made out against the appellants. This being so, the appellants would not be liable to be convicted and sentenced. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of Dharam Dass under Section 302 I. P. C. and that of Bachey Lal under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. as recorded by Sri M. N. Kulshresthra, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, vide his order dated 6-1-1978 as well as the sentence of imprisonment of life awarded to them are set aside. The appellants are not found guilty and are acquit ted. They are on bail and they need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .