D.N. Baruah, J.:- The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.91 passed in Sessions Case No. 18(WT/S) 91 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, convicting, the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Khaleque Maissan of Bejimara, PW-8, informed the Officer-in-Charge of Sonamura Police Station on 10.10.90 that at about 8.05 pm. there was some disturbance in the house of Alek Hussain. On receipt of information, the Officer-in-Charge of Sonamura Police Station made a GD entry No. 342 dated 10.10.90. After making the GD entry, the OC proceeded to the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence Shamala Khatun, PW-1 filed a First Information Report (FIR) before the Officer-in-Charge, stating, inter alia, that on that day at about 7 p.m. her husband was taking food in their kitchen of southern hut and she was serving the food. Suddenly two persons, namely : Bachhu Miah and Ali Noyaj broke open the door of the eastern side of the house and entered into the kitchen with a large sharp dao. They pushed her away and started hacking her husband with the help of the 'dao'. After some time, some other persons viz : Mohan Mia, Mustafa, Mafij Mia, Dula Mian, Rul Amin, Ashan Mian, entered into her room armed with dao and began to hack her husband. Dula Mian, Ali Miah and Bachhu Mian had pistols and gun in their hands. At that time some more persons were outside. After hacking her husband they picked him up and carried to the western side. She and her mother-in-law raised alarm and some villagers rushed to the place. On seeing them the assailants ran away leaving her husband on the road. Thereafter, she saw her husband lying dead with his neck cut with multiple injuries on his person. According to her, these persons killed her husband due to previous enmity. She further stated that she could identify these persons with the help of the light of 'kupi bati' (bottle lamp). 3. On receipt of the ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge registered a case U/s 148/149/302/448 IPC and 25 (A) of Arms Act and he himself took up investigation. According to her, these persons killed her husband due to previous enmity. She further stated that she could identify these persons with the help of the light of 'kupi bati' (bottle lamp). 3. On receipt of the ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge registered a case U/s 148/149/302/448 IPC and 25 (A) of Arms Act and he himself took up investigation. He seized one colored towel stained with blood, one wooden piri stained with blood, blood stained earth, one severed ear with hair, one empty cartridge, one kupi bati, one dish. He prepared a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. He prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrences. He also sent the dead body for postmortem. On 11.10.90 the Investigating Officer recorded the evidence of some persons and seized some blood stained earth, one pillow cover, one kupi bati, one hurricane from the house of Ambar Ali, PW. 3. Again on 13.10.90 and 18.10.90 he recorded statements of some witnesses. On 8.11.90 he arrested the accused persons- Bachhu Miah, Ali Noaz, Mohammad Mustafa, Rul Amin, Mohan Mian, Dula Mian, Mafiz Miah, Aminul Haque, thereafter, they were forwarded to the Court. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 148/149/448/302 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, against the accused appellants and six other persons. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses, including the police officers, PWs 13, 17 and 18 and the Doctor PW-7. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, by his judgment dated 16.12.91 found the accused Bachhu Miah and Ali Noaz guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and after hearing the accused persons on the question of sentence and considering their young age, convicted them to undergo life imprisonment and other accused persons were acquitted. However, the learned Additional Session Judge did not give any reason why the other accused persons who were also charged along with the present appellants were acquitted. Hence this appeal by the appellants. 5. Now the question to be determined is whether the story told by the prosecution regarding commission of offence can be believed and whether the accused persons can be held guilty under section 302/34 IPC. 6. Hence this appeal by the appellants. 5. Now the question to be determined is whether the story told by the prosecution regarding commission of offence can be believed and whether the accused persons can be held guilty under section 302/34 IPC. 6. As per the prosecution story the occurrence took place on 10.10.90 at about 7 p.m. at the residence of deceased Alek Hussain, when he was taking food in his kitchen. The story narrated Smti Shamala Khatun, P.W.-1, wife of the deceased, was that while her husband was taking food at about 7 p.m. in their kitchen suddenly the accused persons along with some other persons broke open the door of the eastern side of the house and entered into their kitchen with a sharp dao and started hacking her husband with the help of the 'dao' and thereafter some other persons also entered into her room armed with dao and started giving dao blows on her husband. After assaulting her husband, they took him to western side and on seeing this she and her mother-in-law raised alarm. Hearing the hue and cry, the neigh­bouring villagers rushed to the place and on seeing the villagers, the assailants ran away leaving her husband on the road. 7. Chandra Bhan Bibi, PW-4, mother of the deceased reiterated the story of PW-1. However, she also deposed that she was short sighted and could see only from a cubit distance. She stated that the accused persons entered into their kitchen while her son was taking food and his wife (PW-1) was also standing nearby. The accused Bachhu Miah started striking her son with a dao on the left side of his head and his left ear was severed and fell on the dish. Some more persons were also present, but she could not recognise them. She also received some injuries for which she was taken to the hospital and she was unconscious after the incident. Next day she came to know about the death of her son. Her specific statement was that the Investigating Officer did never ask her about the occurrence nor her statement was recorded. 8. Araber Rahman (PW-11), son of the deceased, was aged about 8 years on 11.9.91, i.e. on the date of occurrence he was only 7 years. He also narrated the same story as PW-1 and PW-4. Her specific statement was that the Investigating Officer did never ask her about the occurrence nor her statement was recorded. 8. Araber Rahman (PW-11), son of the deceased, was aged about 8 years on 11.9.91, i.e. on the date of occurrence he was only 7 years. He also narrated the same story as PW-1 and PW-4. He stated in his deposition that his father was taking food and his mother was by his side. His grand mother was also in the kitchen. Suddenly he heard sound of gun fire and then he saw that his father was being beaten by some persons and also saw the appellant. Thereafter, he ran to the market and informed Sheru member that his father was being murdered. While returning home along with others he found his father lying on the road dead with multiple injuries. 9. From the evidence of these witnesses it appears that the occurrence took place at the house of the deceased Alek Hussain, where the accused appellants and other persons gave dao blows and thereafter took the deceased away from the house to a distance. They left him on the road and ran away seeing the neighbouring villagers running towards them. PW-1, Shamela Khatun, however, gave a little different story in her deposition than what she told before the Police officer at the time of giving the FIR. She in her cross-examination stated that she heard that her husband some how went to the house of Ambar Ali at the time of incident. This is an improvement. 10. Smti Afia Khatun (PW-2) and her husband Ambar Ali (PW-3) gave a different story. PW-2 stated in her deposition that at about 7 p.m. the deceased was murdered. She heard cries from his house and suddenly the deceased Alek Hussain ran into her kitchen and closed the door. Her husband was also in that house. As some people tried to enter into her house. Her husband and the deceased - Alek Hussain, were trying hard to keep the door closed. After some time, Alek left their house and those persons went away. She could not identify the accused persons because of her eye trouble. She specifically stated in her cross-examination that it was a dark night and the deceased Alek did not say anything when he entered into their house and he was there for about ten minutes. 11. After some time, Alek left their house and those persons went away. She could not identify the accused persons because of her eye trouble. She specifically stated in her cross-examination that it was a dark night and the deceased Alek did not say anything when he entered into their house and he was there for about ten minutes. 11. PW-3, Ambar Ali, stated in his deposition that his house was at a distance of 50 cubits from the house of the deceased. While he was saying 'Namaz' the deceased entered into his kitchen. He saw bleeding injuries on his person. He heard hue and cry outside and tried to keep the door closed, he lost his sense because of the incident and the deceased left the house. He did not go out during the night. He heard that the deceased dead body was found at a distance of ½ kani from his house. This witness was declared hostile by prosecution and the Court allowed the public prosecutor to cross examine him. Certain questions were put to this witness to show that the witness stated something before the police which he now denies. The relevant portion of his statement recorded by police under section 161 Cr.PC was exhibited as Exhibit-P/1. However, this statement was not confronted to the Investigating Officer (PW-18), even though, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment observed that this was so done. 12. It is well established principle of law that the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. can only be used for the use of contradiction and not for corroboration. But even for contradiction such statements must be confronted to the Investigating Officer. 13. PW-5 Abdul Rahim and PW-6, Sheru Miah in their evidence stated that they came to the place after the occurrence was over. They stated that PW-1 informed them that the appellants and other accused persons killed her husband. However, PW-1 in her evidence did not say that she told that her husband was killed by the appellants and other persons. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses to that effect cannot be relied upon. PW-8, Khaleque Maissan, who informed the police that there was some disturbance at the house of deceased Alek Hussain, also did not see the occurrence. PW-10 Santosh Das was a witness to the seizure articles. PW-12 was a photographer. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses to that effect cannot be relied upon. PW-8, Khaleque Maissan, who informed the police that there was some disturbance at the house of deceased Alek Hussain, also did not see the occurrence. PW-10 Santosh Das was a witness to the seizure articles. PW-12 was a photographer. PWs 14, 15 and 16 actually were not present at the time of occurrence. 14. Now we have to see on the basis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, whether the accused persons can be convicted under section 302/34IPC. As already stated above, there are two versions regarding the occurrence. From the evidence of the witnesses, however, one thing is definite that incident took place on 10.10.90 at about 7/8 p.m. and the deceased was killed. Now the question to be determined is whether the accused persons were responsible for causing the death of the deceased, Alek Hussain. 15. We have already indicated that the two sets of witnesses gave different story about the incident. The story narrated by PW-1, PW-4 and PW-11, wife, mother and son of the deceased, was that the incident took place in their kitchen and the accused persons along with the appellants entered into their kitchen and hacked the deceased with dao and thereafter carried him away and when the neighbouring villagers rushed to the place, they left the deceased on the road and ran away, but the PW-1 in her cross-examination added that she heard that her husband went to the house of Ambar Ali (PW-3) during the incident. This statement of PW-1 is definitely an improvement to her original story. A completely different story was narrated by the PW-2 and PW-3. According to them, the deceased ran into their kitchen and closed the door. As some people were trying to enter into the house the PW-3 and the deceased pressed the door to keep it closed. After some time the deceased left their house. 16. The evidence of the PW-1 is not consistent. Her evidence before the Court is contradictory to her earlier statement. The PW-4 was an old lady of 80 years and she was short sighted. According to her own statement she could only see from a short distance of about a cubit. It is very difficult to believe that she could recognize the appellants in a dim light of 'kupi bad'. The PW-4 was an old lady of 80 years and she was short sighted. According to her own statement she could only see from a short distance of about a cubit. It is very difficult to believe that she could recognize the appellants in a dim light of 'kupi bad'. PW-11 was aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence. It is to be seen how far his evidence is acceptable. He was a child witness, child witnesses are a most untrustworthy class of witnesses for, when a tender age, they often mistake dreams for reality, repeat glibly as of their own knowledge what they have heard from others and are greatly influenced by fear of punishment, by hope of reward and by desire of notoriety. In considering the evidence of child witnesses, these observations should not be lost sight of, although each case would depend upon its particular facts and circumstances. The evidence of a child witness should be scanned carefully, if no flaws or infirmities are found therein, there is no impediment in accepting his evidence. The Court should also make endeavour to see whether there is sign of tutoring. The Court should always look for corroboration, more by way of caution and prudence and not as by a rule of law. In the instant case, the PW-11 in his deposition stated that he heard sounds of gun fire. He came out from the hut and saw that his father was being beaten by some persons. He saw it from a distance. It is an admitted fact that the night of occurrence was a dark night. Only a 'kupi bati' was burning in the room. PW-1 and PW-4 stated in their depositions that several persons came into the kitchen and gave dao blows on the deceased. In this circumstances how a body of seven years old could identify the appellants in taking part in the commission of offence. 17. The PW-2 and PW-3 gave a different story. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-1I have stated that the persons entered into their kitchen had given severe dao blows on the person of the deceased. And if so, after receiving such severe dao blows how a person could go to the house of PW-2 and PW-3, and the deceased could press the door to keep it closed and thereafter he went out from the house of PWs 2 and 3. And if so, after receiving such severe dao blows how a person could go to the house of PW-2 and PW-3, and the deceased could press the door to keep it closed and thereafter he went out from the house of PWs 2 and 3. The dead body was found at least 50 cubits from the house of PWs 2 and 3. 18. PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution. Now the question is how much importance should be given to the deposition of PW-3. A witness who states the truth cannot be dubbed as 'hostile' just because his statement does not suit the party producing him. Besides the testimony of hostile witness cannot be treated as washed off the record altogether. The testimony of hostile witness if not shaken on material point in cross examination cannot be brushed aside. The court should come to its own conclusion after weighing and assessing the same along with the other evidence. However, the evidence of hostile witness should be subjected to careful consideration and be sifted properly in the light of other evidence and attendant circumstances and after such a consideration, if any part of his evidence is found truthful, court should not hesitate to rely on such part of the deposition. There is no such evidence brought out by the prosecution to show that the PW-3 gave a totally different story contradicting his previous statement given before the Investigating Officer. Besides, the evidence of PW-3 was corroborated by the evidence of PW-2. This witness was not declared hostile. The evidence of PW 2 was also not discarded by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-2 and the materials seized from the house of PW-2 and PW-3 only suggest that some incident took place in their house where the deceased was present. May be the deceased was dragged out from the house of PW-2 and PW-3. That being the position, in our opinion, the evidence of PW-3 cannot be brushed aside entirely merely because he was declared hostile by the prosecution. If we compare the story stated by the PW-1, PW-4 and PW-11 with the deposition of PW-2 and PW-3, we find serious contradictions. If the story told by the PWs 1, 4 and 11 is accepted the deceased died on the road. If we compare the story stated by the PW-1, PW-4 and PW-11 with the deposition of PW-2 and PW-3, we find serious contradictions. If the story told by the PWs 1, 4 and 11 is accepted the deceased died on the road. The evidence of PW-7 the Doctor who held the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased also suggest that after receiving the injuries, it is not possible for him to go to the house of PWs 2 and 3, which was at a distance of 50 cubit. Therefore, the evidence of the PW-1 and PW-11 are quite contradictory to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 19. From the contradictory statements of the witnesses for the prosecution, we find that it will not be safe to convict the accused appellants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. We are, therefore, constrained to give them the benefit of doubt and acquit the appellants. 20. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 16.12.91 passed in Trial No. 18. (WT/S/91) by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, and acquit the appellants. The appellants-are set at liberty.