JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---By means of this appeal, preferred under section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. the appellant has impugned the Judgment dated 25-8-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 302, in the alternative under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and 201 , in the alternative under section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. 2.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :- The field of the solitary eye witness Anusuya Dhondiba Gore P.W. 1 adjoins that of the deceased Bapu. On 7-1-1983, sometimes in the morning, Anusuya had gone to her field to protect her crops from birds. At that time, Bapu and his sister Nanda were present in their field. Both Anusuya and Nanda warmed themselves by making bonfire. Thereafter, Nanda went to attend school. Anusuya then extinguished the fire and plucked beans of pawata. Thereafter, she went home to take her meals. At that time, her mother was present there. After taking her meals, Anusuya again went to her field for protecting the crops from birds. At that time, Bapu was sitting beneath a jambli tree, situated in the centre of his field and was taking meals. Time was about 1.30 p.m. Immediately, thereafter, the three respondents came to the said field. The respondents Bhimrao and Abasaheb caught hold of the hands and legs of Bapu and respondent Bhairavnath strangulated Bapu. After seeing the incident, Anusya went home and informed her mother Fulabai Dhondiba Gore P.W. 4 about what she had seen. She told her mother that whereas respondent Bhairavnath strangulated Bapu the other two respondents caught hold of his legs and hands. 3.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by one Balkrishna P.W. 2 at 11.30 p.m. on 7-1-1983 at Velha Police Station. It was recorded by Police Jamadar Shriram Udas, P.W. 6. On its basis, a case under section 302 I.P.C. was registered. Immediately after registering the F.I.R., Police Jamadar Udas accompanied by Balkrishna and some others visited the place of the incident, reaching there at 2 a.m. On the following morning, he prepared the inquest panchanama Exh. 10 and sent the dead body for autopsy. Thereafter, he prepared panchanama of the scene of the offence, Exhibit 11. He attached the rope under a panchanama. The said rope was tied on the mango tree. 10 and sent the dead body for autopsy. Thereafter, he prepared panchanama of the scene of the offence, Exhibit 11. He attached the rope under a panchanama. The said rope was tied on the mango tree. 4.Some investigation in the instant case was conducted by P.S.I. Shinde P.W. 7. The evidence of Shriram Udas is that on 8-1-1983 at about 1 or 1.30 p.m. P.S.I. Shinde took over the investigation from him. P.S.I. Shinde on 9-1-1983 interrogated Anusuya and Fulabai under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 17-1-1983, he was transferred and the charge sheet was submitted by P.S.I. Kardas on 18-3-1983. 5.Going backwards, the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Bapu was conducted on 8-1-1983 between 1.15 p.m. to 2.15 p.m. by Dr. K.J. Banerjee, P.W. 3. On the corpse, Dr. Banerjee found a circular shaped abraded bruise all over the neck. He also found two irregular abrasions just below right lower jaw of right side of neck. On internal examination, he found haemorrhage over pleura, and both lungs and left side of pericardium. He also found larynx and oesophagus to be congested. In the opinion of Dr. Banerjee, the circular shaped abraded bruise mark could be caused by sudden persistent forcible compression with a rough substance and abrasion could be caused by a substance like nail. Dr. Banerjee opined that the deceased died of asphyxisa due to sudden persistent forcible compression of neck. 6.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, the respondents were charged on the counts mentioned in para 1 of our Judgment. To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial Court, in all the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Only one out of them Anusuya Dhondiba Gore was an eye-witness. In defence, no witness was examined. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge recorded the impugned Judgment which has been assailed by means of the present appeal. 7.We have heard Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Ms Revati Dere-Mohite for the respondents. We have also gone through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned Judgment. We are absolutely satisfied that there is no substance in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 7.We have heard Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Ms Revati Dere-Mohite for the respondents. We have also gone through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned Judgment. We are absolutely satisfied that there is no substance in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 8.At the very outset, we would like to indicate that we are seized of the matter in an appeal against acquittal. The law as has crystallised through a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is that an Appellate Court would only be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal if the same is vitiated by any illegality or appreciation of evidence is perverse or grossly unreasonable. 9.There is a solitary eye witness of the incident namely Anusuya Dhondiba Gore P.W. 1. In para 2, we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in her examination-in-chief and hence, we would not like to elaborately spell out the averments contained in her statement. Briefly speaking, her evidence is that her field and that of the deceased Bapu adjoined one another. At the time of the incident, she was in her field protecting her crops from birds. The time was about 1.30 p.m. At that time, Bapu was taking meals. The respondents came. While respondent Bhimrao and Abasaheb caught hold of the hands and legs of Bapu, respondent Bhairavnath strangulated him. She thereafter ran away from her field and informed her mother Fulabai Gore P.W. 4 as to what she had seen. We have gone through the statement of Anusuya and we are constrained to observe that it does not inspire confidence for a variety of reasons. We have to evaluate her statement in the backdrop of the fact that she is a child witness. It appears from her evidence that she was aged about 9 years at the time of the incident. The law is that the testimony of a child witness can only be accepted after the greatest circumspection. The rationale for such an approach is that children on account of their impressionable age, are prone to fantasy and imagine things. They can also be easily tutored. And once having been tutored, they describe what they have been tutored to state in a parrot-like manner. The rationale for such an approach is that children on account of their impressionable age, are prone to fantasy and imagine things. They can also be easily tutored. And once having been tutored, they describe what they have been tutored to state in a parrot-like manner. We are not inclined to accept her testimony for the reasons stated hereinafter:- a) She has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that while the deceased Bapu was taking meals, he was strangulated. The post mortem report falsifies this assertion of hers because, the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. K.J. Banerjee found in the stomach of the deceased 10 ounces of semidigested food. If her statement is correct, then undigested food and not semi-digested food should have been present in the stomach of the deceased. b) Her statement is that in her field and in the adjoining field of Bapu, there was jowar crop up to the height of a man. Her statement further is that the jambli tree beneath which Bapu was taking meals was situated in the centre of his field. If that was so, then we are at a loss to understand as to how she could witness the assault on Bapu. c) There has been an inordinate delay in the recording of her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The incident took place on 7-1-1983 at 1.30 p.m. and she was interrogated by P.S.I. Shinde as late as on 9-1-1983. The Apex Court in the oft-quoted decision of (G.B. Patil v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court, page 135 (paras 15 and 18) has observed that a delay in recording of statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. introduces a suspicion in the prosecution case when, it appears that the prosecution was trying to buy out time to give a shape to its case. In our view, no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for the delay in recording her statement. We also feel that the police thought her, in the circumstances of the case, to be a most convenient witness. From her cross- examination, it appears that her father was doing business in illicit liquor and the same was stopped about 15 days prior to the incident. It also appears therefrom that Police Patil was insisting upon her to depose. We also feel that the police thought her, in the circumstances of the case, to be a most convenient witness. From her cross- examination, it appears that her father was doing business in illicit liquor and the same was stopped about 15 days prior to the incident. It also appears therefrom that Police Patil was insisting upon her to depose. In such a situation, elementary common sense permits us to infer that she could not have said no to the dictates of the police to depose in this case lest its wrath may fall on her family members. Another circumstance which falsifies her claim of having seen the incident is that although she categorically stated that immediately after the incident, she disclosed the incident in detail to her mother, but, her mother Fulabai strangely enough, did not disclose the same to the Police, although it was on the place of the incident, till the afternoon of 8-1-1983, as per her statement in cross-examination. In our Judgment, had she really told Fulabai, then the latter in turn would have informed the police and both Anusaya and Fulabai would not have been interrogated on 9-1-1983 but, on 8-1-1983, itself. 10.For the said reasons, we are squarely satisfied that the statement of Anusaya Gore has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. There is no other evidence on the basis of which, the prosecution can press for conviction of the respondents. 11.Pursuant to the above discussion, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents on various counts is confirmed. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. We are appreciative of the Counsel for the parties of the assistance rendered by them in the disposal of this case. In case an application for a certified copy of this Judgment is made, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeal dismissed. *****