V. P. GOEL, J. Fateh Bahadur and Vijay Bahadur were convicted by Sri P. N. Dubey, Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 1978 under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Smt. Samarthi aged about 40 years and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. That on 12-6-1978 at about 5. 30 p. m. near the pumping set of Ram Sumer, in village Shera Patti, Police Station Khutahan in the district, Jaunpur. The accused-appellants armed with knife in furtherance of their common inten tion, intentionally and knowingly committed the murder of Smt. Samarthi by inflicting knife injuries on her and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, IPC. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 12-6-1978 at about 5. 30 p. m. Smt. Samarathi alongwith her son Suresh who were returning after throwing manure in their Chak. When they reached near the pumping set of Ram Sumer, accused Fateh Bahadur and Vijay Bahadur suddenly came out from behind the pumping set and asked Smt. Samarathi to stop. When Smt. Samarathi stopped there, accused Fateh Bahadur knocked her down and both the accused assaulted her with knife. On alarm being raised by the lady and her son Suresh, Sita Ram and several others were attracted to the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, the accused persons ran towards their house. Smt. Samarathi succumbed to her injury on the spot. The motive alleged in the First Information Report in the said crime was that there was a theft at the house of Baburam, Baburam suspected the complicity of Ram Ghulam and it was on their account that Baburam and the members of his family had feel ing of hostality against Ram Ghulam and his wife. 4. The First Information Report of the incident (Ext. Ka-2) was written by one Shobhnath at the dictation of Sitaram PW 2 and the same was lodged at Police Station Khutahan at 7. 00 p. m. The Police Station is at a distance of one kilometre from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the First Information Report a chick report Ext. Ka-5 was prepared by PW 7 Ikram Ali constable Moharrir and a case under Section 302, IPC was registered vide the General Diary (Ext. Ka-6) at the Police Station. 00 p. m. The Police Station is at a distance of one kilometre from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the First Information Report a chick report Ext. Ka-5 was prepared by PW 7 Ikram Ali constable Moharrir and a case under Section 302, IPC was registered vide the General Diary (Ext. Ka-6) at the Police Station. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri Achutan and Dubey PW 9 who immediately interrogated Sita Ram PW 2 at the Police Station and dispatched some constable to the place of occurrence to keep a watch over the deadbody of Smt. Samarathi. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of Sita Ram PW 2 reached on the spot at about 8. 30 p. m. He held inquest on the (deadbody of Smt. Samarathi and prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-8), in the presence of the witnesses, he also prepared Photo-lash Ext. Ka-9, Challan nash Ext. Ka-11 and dispatched the deadbody for post-mortem examination. In) the same night, the Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses of the inquest report and then, interrogated Suresh PW 6, Shobhnath, scribe of the written report and two eye-witnesses Sahdeo and Sadanand mentioned in the First Informa tion Report. All this took the whole night. In the morning of 13-5-1978 the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and collected blood-stained and plain earth from the place of assault and also prepared the recovery memo in respect of Jhauwa Ext. 1 which was found thrown near the scene of occurrence. He made a search of the accused persons but they were not available. On 19-6-1978 the Investigating Officer came to know that the accused persons had surrendered in the Court. 5. Dr. R. P. Rastogi conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Samarathi on 13- 6-1978 at 4-40 p. m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body vide the post- mortem report Ext. Ka-3 :- (1) Incised wound, semi-circular 6 cm. x| cm. X skin deep, extending from outer 3rd of left eye brow, 1 cm. outer angle of left eye. (2) Incised wound, 3 cm. xli cm. X chest cavity deep, on the inner aspect of left shoulder near the base of neck, 7$ cm. inner to top of shoulder, horizontally placed. (3) Incised wound, 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. x| cm. X skin deep, extending from outer 3rd of left eye brow, 1 cm. outer angle of left eye. (2) Incised wound, 3 cm. xli cm. X chest cavity deep, on the inner aspect of left shoulder near the base of neck, 7$ cm. inner to top of shoulder, horizontally placed. (3) Incised wound, 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. X muscle deep, oblique on the outer aspect of left shoulder. (4) Incised wound, 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. x through and through, on the open ing of left hand in between thumb and index finger. (5) Incised wound 3ixcm. xli cm x chest cavity deep directed downwards and inwards on the left side of chest 9 cm. above and outer to nipple at 2 Oclock position, vertically placed. (6) Incised wound, 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. X skin deep on the outer and base of right index finger. (7) Incised wound, 21/2 cm. xf cm. X muscle deep, on the left side of chest x scapular region just outer to spine. 6. On internal examination the Doctor found the 5th rib completely cut and the 6th rib cut on the upper part under external injuries Nos. 2 and 5. The left pleural cavity contained about 1 pint blood. The left lung on the upper part was found cut under external injury No. 2. The lower part of the left lung was also found cut through and through. The stomach was found empty. The small intestine contained faeces and the large intestine contained scanty faeces and gas. The bladder was empty. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 2 and 5. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as ! 1 wit nesses. Out of them PW 1 Sahdeo (who turned hostile ). PW 2 Sita Ram, PW 4 Chhangu, (who turned hostile), PW 6 Suresh as eye- witnesses of the incident, PW 8 Ram Ghulam was examined who proved the motive, Dr. R. P. Rastogi has proved the post mortem report and PW 9 Achutanand Dubey is the Investigating Officer. 8. The accused persons denied the guilt and have asserted that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. They did not produce any witness in defence. R. P. Rastogi has proved the post mortem report and PW 9 Achutanand Dubey is the Investigating Officer. 8. The accused persons denied the guilt and have asserted that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. They did not produce any witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW 2 and PW 6 and convicted the appellants as stated above. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecu tion story as disclosed in the First Information Report and narrated by the eye-witnesses is highly improbable and unnatural, secondly the two eye-witnes ses namely Sita Ram and Suresh produced in this case are chance and partisan witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony as their presence at the scene of the incident is highly doubtful that the medical evidence is not consistent with the eye-witnesses account and the prosecution case is liable to be rejected. He has further contended that the witnesses tried to improve the case at the trial stage and no explanation has come forward by the witnesses as to why they made material omission in the First Information Report as well as in their statements under Section 161, Cr PC. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant Sri D. S. Tewari on the other hand contended that two witnesses produced by the prosecution are wholly reliable and their statements are corroborated by the ^medical evidence as well as by the statement of PW 1 Sahdeo and the learned Sessions Judge has com mitted no error in appreciating the evidence produced in the case and holding that there was no immediate motive on the part of the accused persons to com mit the murder of Smt. Samarathi. 11. We have carefully scrutinised the evidence of Ram Ghulam PW 8 whose name was not mentioned in the First Information Report and who was examined by the Investigating Officer after long time. Accordingly to PW 8 Ram Ghulam there was a theft in the house of Babu Ram suspected his complicity and since then they had hostality and on that account they committed this murder. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is impossible for us to hold that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the motive. 12. A certified copy Ext. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is impossible for us to hold that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the motive. 12. A certified copy Ext. Ka-7 which was filed in the case to prove the motive was not admissible in evidence as the same was not proved in accord ance with law. It is settled law that motive looses its importance if there is evidence of eye-witness account to support the prosecution evidence. The pro secution case rests on the evidence of two eye-witnesses namely, PW 2 Sita Ram and PW 6 Suresh. PW 6 Suresh is admittedly as child witness and his testimony requires close scrutiny and without corroboration cannot be acted upon. 13. The prosecution has succeeded in proving that Smt. Samarathi died due to injuries inflicted on her about 5-30 p. m. in the evening. Dr. R. P. Rastogi has stated in his statement that ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased Smt. Samarathi could have been caused at 5-30 p. m. He further opined that injuries could be caused by knife. The Investigating Officer also found the dead body of Smt. Samarathi at 8. 30 p. m. near the pumping set of Ram Sumer and also took blood-stained earth and plain earth from the place of incident. In view of the statement of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer, it is established that Smt. Samarathi received injury near the pumping set of Ram Sumer at about 5. 30 p. m. and had succumbed to these injuries on the spot. 14. PW 1 Sahdeo is named in the First Information Report as eye witness and PW 4 Chhangu have been declared hostile and had not supported the version alleged to have been given by them to the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. There are therefore only two witnesses, namely PW 2 Sita Ram and PW 6 Suresh on whose testimony the prosecution placed full reliance to fasten the guilt on the accused persons. PW 2 Sita Ram is the brother of the husband of the deceased (Jeth) and PW 6 Suresh is the son of the deceased, therefore, both are interested witnesses, both eye-witnesses fall within the category of chance witnesses and interested witness. The witnesses of the locality who have been examined turned hostile. 15. PW 2 Sita Ram is the brother of the husband of the deceased (Jeth) and PW 6 Suresh is the son of the deceased, therefore, both are interested witnesses, both eye-witnesses fall within the category of chance witnesses and interested witness. The witnesses of the locality who have been examined turned hostile. 15. Thus we have to see whether implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 2 Sita Ram and PW 6 Suresh who are named in the First Information Report and examined by the prosecution deserve credence. PW 2 Sita Ram and PW 6 Suresh are closely related to the deceased and therefore their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. 16. PW 2 Sita Ram has corroborated the prosecution case. He has stated in his statement that at about 5. 30 pm, on 12-6-1978 has was going to Pachhim Purwa Shera Patti to attend a marriage function through the Chak Road. When his sister-in-law was killed. When he reached at the scene of occurrence, he saw that the accused persons were causing knife injury to Smt. Samrathi, at that time PW 6 was at a distance of 12 paces from the place of occurrence and from there he was raising alarm. When Sita Ram PW 2 Sahdeo PW 1 and Sadanand has been at a distance of about 15 paces from the place of occurrence he saw both accused persons fleeing away towards their house and at that time they had knives in their hands, Lot of blood had fallen on the scene of occurrence. He proved the First Information Report lodged at the Police Station Khutthan district Jaunpur. In cross-examination he has stated that he had received an invitation card from one Rajdeo and he was going to attend the marriage function through Chak Road. He further admits that he had not mentioned this fact in the First Information Report that he was going to attend the marriage function and while he was on his way, he was attracted to the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Suresh. He also admits that he had not disclosed those details even to the Investigating Officer. He also admits that he had not disclosed those details even to the Investigating Officer. It has come in evidance of this witness and the site plan prepared by the investigating officer that the Chak of Ram Ghulam is situated at a distance of two furlongs from his house and the place of incident i. e. the pumping set of Ram Sumer falls in the mid way. The distance of the place of incident and the house of PW 2 Sita Ram as disclosed in his statement is one and half furlongs and PW 2 therefore Sita Ram could not reach at the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Suresh and Smt. Samrathi in such time short to make his presence probable and natural at the scene of the inci dent, he invented a new case in bis statement before the court that he was going to attend a marriage function. This fact was neither mentioned in the First Information Report nor in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. It being so, his presence at the scene of the incident becomes doubtful. P. W. 6 Suresh who claims himself to be with his mother at the time of assault by the accused- appellants, stated in his statement that he was at a distance of 5-6 paces towards North when both appellants attacked upon his mother with the knife but he did not try to save her. He has further stated that at the time when the appellants made attack on his mother with the knife, he and his mother raised alarm but nobody had arrived there. He has further stated that 15-20 persons came at the scene of the incident after the accused had run away and at that time his Tau Sita Ram reached there and on seeing these persons, the accused persons ran away. The statement of PW 6 Suresh excludes the presence of Sita Ram at the scene of the incident. We are, therefore, not pre pared to accept this part of the statement of Sita Rarn PW 2 that he was going to attend a marriage function to Pachhim Purwa in Shera Patti though Chak Road and he was attracted to the scene of the occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by PW 6 Suresh. We are, therefore, not pre pared to accept this part of the statement of Sita Rarn PW 2 that he was going to attend a marriage function to Pachhim Purwa in Shera Patti though Chak Road and he was attracted to the scene of the occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by PW 6 Suresh. This statement of PW 2 Sita Ram appears to be an after thought just to make his presence natural at the scene of incident as he could net reach at the scene of occurrence from his house in such a short time. Therefore, Sita Ram PW 2 becomes a chance witness. Admittedly Sita Ram is a relative of the victim and deposed against the accused further he being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. In the instant case PW 2 Sita Ram is a relative of the deceased and the reasons given by him for being present at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true and the rinding of the trial court that Sita Ram PW 2 had arrived at the scene of the incident on hearing the cries of Suresh PW 6 is not sustainable in the eye of law. We, therefore, hold that Sita Ram PW 2 could not reach at the scene of the incident and did not see the incident. His testimony does not inspire confidence. So far PW 6 Suresh is concerned, he is child witness and it has been held in AIR 1973 SC page 56 that the children are the most dangerous witnesses for due to tender age, they often mistake, dream for reality, they are capable of cramming thing easily and reproducing them. They repeat as to their own knowledge that they have heard from others and are greatly influenced for fear of punish ment, by hope of reward and by desire of notoriety. Hence it is unsafe to rely uncorroborated testimony of a child. 17. PW 6 Suresh is a boy of 11 or 12 years at the time of incident and he claims himself to be with his mother at the time of incident. Hence it is unsafe to rely uncorroborated testimony of a child. 17. PW 6 Suresh is a boy of 11 or 12 years at the time of incident and he claims himself to be with his mother at the time of incident. According to him as he stated before the court that he had gone alongwith his mother to throw manure in his Chak which is situated at a distance of two furlongs from the place of his house and while he was returning alongwith his mother from his Chak and reached near the pumping set of Ram Sumer, two accused persons armed with knives emerged from behind the pumping set and had stopped his mother and Fateh Bahadur gave a push to his mother and his mother fell down on the ground and thereafter both the appellants inflicted knif injures en his mother and then he raised alarm and on his alarm, large number of persons arrived there including his Tau Sita Ram PW 2. He has stated in his cross-examination that Sitam Ram PW 2 and other persons arrived there when the accused persons ran away. He excluded the presence of Sita Ram PW 2 at the scene of the incident. 18. The story of the prosecution that on 12-6-1978 at about 5-30 p. m. the deceased Samrathi alongwith her son Suresh P. W. 6 who was aged about 12 years had gone to throw the manure in their Chak and when they were returning after throwing the manure in the aforesaid Chak. Smt. J Samrathi was assaulted by the appellants near the pumping set of Ram Sumer. The story of throwing the manure in the field and returning from there in the month of June at 4. 30 p. m. by the deceased in the company of her son appears to be highly unnatural and improbable. It appears that this story has been introduced to make the presence of Suresh PW 6 at the scene of the incident natural. 19. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of Suresh, we are not prepared to accept his testimony and place no reliance on him. 20. PW 1 Sadanand stated in his examination-in-chief that when he arrived at the scene of occurrence, the appellants ran away and he did not see the appellants. 19. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of Suresh, we are not prepared to accept his testimony and place no reliance on him. 20. PW 1 Sadanand stated in his examination-in-chief that when he arrived at the scene of occurrence, the appellants ran away and he did not see the appellants. The prosecution declared this witness hostiled and learned Session Judge held that his statement corroborates the statement of PW 2 and PW 6 with the time and place of incident. There is no dispute that the statement of hostile witness can be used for the purpose of corroboration but in the instant case it cannot be used as W3 have disbelieved the evidence of two eye-witnesses, namely PW 2 Sita Ram and PW 6 Suresh. 21. The evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability or acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to set upon it. A thorough and scrupulous examination of the facts and circumstances of the case leads to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against these appellants for not producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. The trial court acted perversely. 22. For all afore-mentioned reasons, we allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and acquit the appellants. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Appeal allowed. .