BHATNAGAR, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.10.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by which appellant Gordhan Ram @ Goda Ram was held guilty for the charges under sections 302, 364 & 404 IPC, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 months simple imprisonment on the first count; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 1 months simple imprisonment on the second count and 1 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one months simple imprisonment on the third count with the order that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. (2). Briefly stated the prosecution case leading to the trial of the appellant is that on 4.1.1986 deceased Chenia alongwith PW 4 Leela and PW 10 Mohani went to the Shop of PW 12 Bhagaram father of Chenia. He was given sugar and tea leaves by his father, which he took to his house. On reaching his house, Gordhan Ram, who was standing out side his own house, situated nearby, called Chenia to have sweet drops. Chenia gave sugar and tea leaves to his brother Lakha standing out side his house and himself went to Gordhan Ram, Leela & Mohani went to their houses. PW 2 Moda Ram is said to be sitting at the shop of Bhagaram when the three children had gone there. When Chenia did not return till late in the night, PW 5 Jimni, mother of Chenia went to inquire of Leela about her son and was informed that Chenia was called by Gordhan Ram and had gone to him. She sent to Moda Ram and told about Chenia not returning home. On that day sister of Moda Ram and Bhaga Ram had come to the house of Bhaga Ram. She had returned to her house after taking tea and as such the family members thought that Chenia might have gone with her. He was searched at the bus stand also. After making the search in the village, he went to Pipad and did not return for 3-4 days and tried to search the boy. She had returned to her house after taking tea and as such the family members thought that Chenia might have gone with her. He was searched at the bus stand also. After making the search in the village, he went to Pipad and did not return for 3-4 days and tried to search the boy. On 8-1-1986 in the morning when PW 1 Smt. Ghisi wife of Bhanwar Lal son of Gokul Ram opened the door of her house for going to milch the buffalo in the Bada, she saw her uncle-in-law appellant Gordhan Ram placing the dead body of Chenia by the side of the wall of the House of Gokul Ram and going away from there. She closed the door and went inside the house and informed her husband Bhanwar Lal about what she had seen. Bhanwar Lal went to inform Moda Ram and Bhaga Ram what his wife had seen. Moda Ram came to the site where the dead body of Chenia was lying. PW 3 Nimba Ram, Sarpanch, was called at the site. He asked Moda Ram to inform the police. Moda Ram went to the Police Station, Dangiawas and lodged the report (EX.P.1). PW 15 Sohan Lal on the basis of that information chalked the informant FIR (Ex.P.16) and proceeded for investigation. He saw the dead body lying by the side of the wall of Gokul Rams house. He prepared the necessary memos. He went to the house of Gordhan Ram and had a talk with him. The dead body of Chenia was sent to M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur, where on 9-1-1986 Dr. Dharmendra Sharma Medical Jurist (PW 16) conducted the autopsy over the dead body. The doctor prepared the post mortem Report (EX.P. 22). He noted ligature mark around the neck. He found one rubber string tied around the neck of the dead body and on taking off the string rigor marks around the neck 36 Cm. x 3Cm. at the level of thyroid Cartilage, traverse in nature. On cut underlying tissues are ecehymosis. The doctor also noted injuries on the ribs. The cause of death according to the doctor was strangulation and duration of death was 3 to 5 days. Viscra was preserved at the request of the police. The string found tied around the neck of the dead body was taken in possession by the police. Vide memo Ex. The doctor also noted injuries on the ribs. The cause of death according to the doctor was strangulation and duration of death was 3 to 5 days. Viscra was preserved at the request of the police. The string found tied around the neck of the dead body was taken in possession by the police. Vide memo Ex. P. 17, SHO Sohan Lal on 24-1-1986 arrested the appellant Gordhan Ram. (3). On 28-1-1986 while in custody Gordhan Ram furnished information Ex.P. 18 to SHO for getting recovered one Under-wear from the room situated in his Baba. In pursuance of that information, the SHO got recovered one under-wear from the room of the appellant in the Bada and took it in his possession vide Ex.P.10. On 28-1-1986, the appellant while in custody furnished information to the SHO to get recovered golden ear-tops (Loongs) from slab in the room of his house. The SHO in pursuance of that information recovered the ear-tops and prepared the memo Ex.P.8. The beddings were also taken from the house of the appellant as they were suspected to be stained with blood. During the course of investigation Kachha of the appellant and plaster from his house were also taken in possession by the police and sent for chemical examination because of the suspicion of stains of semen. (4). Upon completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet against the appellant was filed in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur which on transfer reached to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charge sheeted the appellant for the offence under sections 302,364 & 404 IPC and recorded his plea. Accused denied the charges and trial proceeded. Sixteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C, the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that there was dispute for partition between him and his brother Gokul Ram, Basti Ram & Bhura in which Nimba Ram Sarpanch played mischief and was against him. No defence witness was examined. The learned Judge placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and passed the judgment under appeal. As the appellant was unrepresented Mr. Vasu Deo Vyas was appointed Amicus Curiae to plead on his behalf. (5). We heard Mr. Vasu Deo Vyas learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. No defence witness was examined. The learned Judge placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and passed the judgment under appeal. As the appellant was unrepresented Mr. Vasu Deo Vyas was appointed Amicus Curiae to plead on his behalf. (5). We heard Mr. Vasu Deo Vyas learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. S.M. Singhvi learned Public Prosecutor for the State. (6). At the very outset it may be observed that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence only. The circumstances brought on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime are his having been last seen with the deceased, seen placing the dead body by the side of the wall of the house of Gokul Ram by Smt. Ghisi in the morning of 8-1-1986, the recovery of Under-wear in pursuance of the information furnished by him; the recovery of ear-tops belonging to Chenia (deceased) in pursuance of the information furnished by him from his house and the recovery of beddings suspected to have stains of blood and semen. (7). The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that in this case, the First Information Report was lodged after a delay of 4 days of the missing of the boy which is sufficient to discard the prosecution case. According to him, in the natural course of events the father and the relatives of the missing boy should have informed the police instead of making efforts to trace the boy themselves. The learned Public Prosecutor is correct that in rural area people do not attach much importance to rushing up to the police in cases of boys not being found for some time thinking that they might have gone to relatives. The explanation coming forth from the prosecution is that the boy was being searched by all the members of the family and the father of the boy went to the villages nearby and till his return the mother and uncle cannot be blamed for the insignificance delay for not bringing the matter in the notice of the police. That, when the dead body was found near the house of Gokul Ram, Moda Ram called the Sarpanch and police was informed. (8). Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case provisions of section 157 Cr. That, when the dead body was found near the house of Gokul Ram, Moda Ram called the Sarpanch and police was informed. (8). Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case provisions of section 157 Cr. P.C. have not been complied with in as much as the First Informantion lodged on 8-1- 1986 at 10 A.M. did not reach the concerned Magistrate till 10 A.M. on the next day i.e. 9-1-1986. (9). The importance of sending the report forthwith to the concerned Magistrate need not to be over emphasized. The provision is meant to discourage any improvement in the prosecution version. It will, however, depend upon the circumstances of each and every case as to whether the case of the prosecution should be discarded on this count alone. If from other circumstances the case against the accused is proved this fact of delay in sending the information to the concerned Magistrate would not itself prejudice the case of the accused. (10). The first and the most important circumstances against the appellant is his being last seen with the deceased. The only witness examined by the prosecution on the point is Leela. The prosecution story is that in the evening of 4-1-1986, Chenia alongwith Leela and Mohani had gone to the shop of Bhaga Ram father of Chenia and took sugar and tea leaves from him. As stated by Moda Ram, Bhaga Ram told them that they may take sweet-drops and go to home as dark was setting in. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Moda Ram has stated about the children first going to take sugar and thereafter in the second round to have sweet-drops. Bhaga Ram does not speak about children coming to him second time. It is pertinent to note that Moda Rams presence at the shop of Bhaga Ram has not been stated by any other witness. Leela has categorically stated that Bhaga Ram, father of the deceased, was alone there in the shop at the time. Bhaga Ram has also not stated that Moda Ram was there. He has rather stated that about 8 PM Moda Ram came to his shop and informed him about Chenia not reaching home. Leela has categorically stated that Bhaga Ram, father of the deceased, was alone there in the shop at the time. Bhaga Ram has also not stated that Moda Ram was there. He has rather stated that about 8 PM Moda Ram came to his shop and informed him about Chenia not reaching home. Leela and Mohani have been examined by the prosecution to state that Gordhan Ram called Chenia to his house and Chenia went to him and thereafter he was not seen alive. Mohani (PW 10) has not been considered to be a fit witness to give statement by the learned trial Judge, and therefore, Leela (PW 4) remains the solitary witness on the point. She has stated about Gordhan Ram calling Chenia and his going to him. She has stated that he gave sugar and tea leaves to his brother Lakha who was standing there outside his house. It is important to note that Jimni (PW5) mother of Chenia has come with a case that as Chenia did not bring sugar for a long time, she went to Leela to ask her about his whereabout. She does not say about Lakha bringing sugar to the house. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the statement of Leela (PW4) is in firm because she has not been corroborated by any other witness. Whether a child witness is supported on a particular point by other witnesses is not material. What is material is as to whether there are other corroborating circumstances to support the testimony of a child witness, the courts are expected to look the testimony of a child witness with care and caution, because the children live in imaginary world and generally reproduce what they hear from others in a manner as if they themselves had seen the occurrence. On careful examination of witness Leela (PW 4), it is evident that she had replied answers relating to the incident in accordance with the prosecution case, but in cross-examination she could not reply other questions properly and her replies did not fit in with the prosecution version. For example, on being asked as to whether she had seen Gordhan Ram, the witness stated that she had seen him when she and her aunt (Bhua) went to fetch oil from his house. For example, on being asked as to whether she had seen Gordhan Ram, the witness stated that she had seen him when she and her aunt (Bhua) went to fetch oil from his house. She then stated that she had gone to Gordhan Rams house for this purpose a month after the day Chenia and she had gone to bring the sugar from the shop. This could not have been possible because Gordhan Ram as stated by Nimba Ram (PW 3) was taken by the police on 8-1-1986 and according to the SHO Sohan Lal (PW15) Gordhan Ram was not traceable at his house or elsewhere till 24- 1-1986 when he was arrested. It is also important to note that such an important witness has not been examined by the Police immediately, after its reaching at the site. She has rather been examined three days after the dead body was recovered, as admitted by the witness herself. The witness, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly truthfull witness. In order to press her version to service it will have to be seen as to whether there are other cogent and convincing circumstances establishing the guilt of the appellant. (11). Another important circumstance brought on record Smt. Ghisis (PW 1) seeing the appellant placing the dead body of Chenia near the wall of the house of Gokul Ram on 8-1-1986. The learned trial court has attached great importance to the testimony of this witness. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the witness has given different version in this regard and her conduct was so unnatural that what she has stated appears to be a subsequent improvement in the prosecution story. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that there cannot be any reason for Ghisi (PW1) telling a lie in order to falsely implicate her uncle-in-law Gordhan Ram. It has come on record that before the missing of Chenia there was some quarrel on petty point between Gokul Ram father-in-law of Ghisi and Gordhan Ram appellant and at the instance of the former Gordhan Ram was tied with a rope. It was at the instance of Moda Ram that he was untied. It has come on record that before the missing of Chenia there was some quarrel on petty point between Gokul Ram father-in-law of Ghisi and Gordhan Ram appellant and at the instance of the former Gordhan Ram was tied with a rope. It was at the instance of Moda Ram that he was untied. The trend of cross-examination is that appellant Gordhan Ram had committed murder of Chenia and placed his dead body near the house of Gokul Ram so that Gokul Ram and his family members may be implicated in the case of murder of Chenia. The argument is not appealing because it is most unnatural that the appellant might have committed the murder simply to implicate his brother and others with whom he has no serious enmity except hot altercation on a trivial point. Dealing with the statement of Gishi (PW1) the important point for consideration is as to whether she has stuck to her version is consistent throughout. She has stated before the police about her seeing the appellant placing the dead body of Chenia near the wall of Bada of Deepa Ram whereas in her statement before the trial court she has stated that she had seen appellant Gordhan Ram placing the dead body of Chenia near the house of Gokul Ram and going away from there. Her attention was drawn to portion A to B of her police statement Ex D.l , where she had stated that a dead body appearing to be that of Chenia was lying out side her house and she saw Gordhan Ram going at some distance. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that on seeing Gordhan Ram placing the dead body out side her house she returned inside the house and closed the door then she awoke her husband and told him the fact, at which her husband went to the roof and told Gokul Ram and Moda Ram about Gordhan Ram placing the dead body of Chenia out side his house. In cross-examination she has admitted that she had not told this fact to her husband or any body else till her statement was recorded by the police three days after her seeing the dead body being placed out side her house. Moda Ram (PW2) does not speak about Bhanwar Lal husband of Smt. Ghisi informing him about what his wife claims to have seen. Moda Ram (PW2) does not speak about Bhanwar Lal husband of Smt. Ghisi informing him about what his wife claims to have seen. He rather states that the information of dead body of Chenia lying out side the house of Gokul Ram was given by Adu Ram. Bhanwar Lal (PW6) also does not speak about informing Moda Ram or any body else about what his wife had seen. Statement of Nimba Ram (PW3) Ex-Sarpanch, is contradictory to that of Smt. Ghisi (PW1). According to him, when police came to the site and he saw police and others standing near the dead body of Chenia, Ghisi informed the police that she had seen Gordhan Ram putting the dead body of Chenia out side her house. She was examined three days thereafter. If in the natural course, if she has seen what she claims, she would have informed her husband or Sarpanch or the police on the same day and the police must have recorded her statement that very day. The delay in recording the statement of such an important witness casts a doubt on the truthfulness of her testimony and gives strength to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the dead body was found lying out side the house of Gokul Ram, Ghisi was implanted as an eye witness of Gordhan Ram placing the dead body there. In view of the delay in recording the statement of the witness, her conduct is not telling the fact to any body till her statement was recorded by the police after three days, we do not feel inclined to place reliance on this witness. (12). So far as the recovery of Baniyan is concerned, suffice it to say that there being no report of the chemical examiner about the under-wear having blood stains, this circumstances cannot be taken against the appellant. Another circumstance brought on record against the appellant is recovery of golden ear-tops, Chenia is said to be wearing at the time of his missing, from the house of the appellant in pursuance of information furnished by him. While dealing with this point, the date of the arrest of the appellant assumes importance. Nimba Ram (PW3) has stated about the police going to the house of Gordhan Ram in his presence for the first time on its arriving in the village i.e. on 8-1-1986. While dealing with this point, the date of the arrest of the appellant assumes importance. Nimba Ram (PW3) has stated about the police going to the house of Gordhan Ram in his presence for the first time on its arriving in the village i.e. on 8-1-1986. It has also been stated by the witness that Gordhan Ram was taken hand- cuffed in a vehicle by the police on that very day. It has also been stated by him that police came as number of times thereafter with the accused and had also taken the search of his house. The SHO Sohan Lal (PW15) has come with an altogether different version. According to him, the accused was not available on the day when he went for investigation and despite his best efforts he could not be traced. That, it was on 24-1-1986 that the accused was found a little away from the police station and was arrested vide memo Ex.P. 17. The recovery of the ear-tops according to SHO Sohan Lal was made on 30-1-1986 in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant on 28-1-1986. On the other hand the statement of Nimba Ram (PW 3), the only motbir to the recovery and a political rival of the appellant as they both had contested election against each other, examined by the prosecution, is that 4-5 days after the recovery of the dead body, police came with Gordhan Ram and ear-tops were recovered. The statement regarding time and day of recovery are not reconcilable. Apart from it there is also discrepancies about the place where from the recovery is made. The relevant portion of the information said to have been furnished by the accused is that he had concealed the ear-tops beneath the cloths on the slab inside the room of his house. The recovery according to Nimba Ram was from a wooden box lock of which was opened by the accused with the key he had with him. Nimba Ram (PW3) had stated that accused opened the lock by the key he had with him and took out the ear-tops. The statement of Investigating Officer SHO Sohan Lal (PW 15) is that the accused in pursuance of information furnished by him,took the ear-tops from beneath the cloths lying on the slabs of his house. Thus, there is utter difference between the version of the motbir and the Investigating Officer. The statement of Investigating Officer SHO Sohan Lal (PW 15) is that the accused in pursuance of information furnished by him,took the ear-tops from beneath the cloths lying on the slabs of his house. Thus, there is utter difference between the version of the motbir and the Investigating Officer. Yet another important factor casting doubt on the genuineness of the recovery is that according to Nimba Ram (PW 3) the accused-appellant was having the key with him at the time of arrest of the accused as is clear from the arrest memo (Ex.P.17) and it was taken by the police. As such it could not be with the accused. Besides, Nimba Ram, Bhaga Ram father of the deceased has also stated about Gordhan Ram being arrested on the day police had come to the village on being informed of the dead body of Chenia being found. If it was so then the inference would be that the police had kept the accused in custody for a long period and showed the arrest on 24-1-1986. If Nimba Ram is to be believed that the ear-tops were recovered 5-7 days after 8-1-1986 then the accused having not been formally arrested till that time, the provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act would not be attracted. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that if police had taken the key from the accused on 24-1-1986 the possibility of the police implanting ear-tops in the room and showing the recovery at the instance of the accused cannot be ruled out. The statement of the witnesses concerning the recovery, as discussed above, not being in confirmity with each other, we do not feel inclined to consider the recovery of ear-tops in pursuance of the information furnished by the accused or at his instance. In this regard it is also to be noted that SHO Sohan Lal (PW 15) has stated that from 24-1-1986 up to 5-2- 1986 he went on interrogating the appellant but could not get out anything from him regarding the place of the murder or any other factor. In view of the above discussion we do not feel inclined to agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home against the accused. In view of the above discussion we do not feel inclined to agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home against the accused. When the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence only the circumstances should be convincing and forming a complete chain which is not the case in the matter on hand. (13). Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the accused-appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The order regarding disposal of the property passed by the trial court is maintained.