A. PASAYAT, J, J. ( 1 ) A child of tender age lost his life on 21-10-1990. Rani Sardar, the accusedappellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is alleged to be the perpetrator of the heinous crime of taking away his life and. thereafter throwing the dead body into the river. ( 2 ) FILTERING out unnecessary details, the prosecution version which led to her trial is as follows: On 21-10-1990 Repa alias Kalidas (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was playing with three other young children. Two of them, Kinki Sardar and Sakarmani Sardar (P. Ws. 2 and 3) were claimed to be the playmates. The accused came to the place where they were playing and persuaded them to go with her towards a river by holding out an assurance to give them some fruits. In this deceitful manner she took the deceased and the other children to the place of occurrence near river Khadakhai. Sending out the others on some pretext she caught-hold of the child forcibly made him lie down on the ground pressed his neck with her left foot which led ultimately to his death. After being sure that the child had breathed his last the accused threw the dead body inside the river. These acts were witnessed by P. Ws. 2 and 3 who were standing at a short distance. On being threatened by the accused of dire consequences in case of disclosure about the incident they chose to remain, silent. However when the father of the deceased, Banal Soren (P. W. 5) searched for the child, they could not hold the secret any longer and disclosed the ghastly acts to him. Information was promptly lodged in the police station investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was placed. ( 3 ) SEVEN witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case and as indicated above. P. Ws. 2 and 3 were claimed to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Placing reliance on the version of the two child witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge. Mayurbhanj, Baripada found the accused guilty convicted her for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short I. P. C.) and sentenced her to undergo R. I. for life. The accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Placing reliance on the version of the two child witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge. Mayurbhanj, Baripada found the accused guilty convicted her for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short I. P. C.) and sentenced her to undergo R. I. for life. The learned trial Judge with a view to ascertain whether they were able to understand the implications of their evidence in Court had put a few questions to each one of them, as required under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the Evidence Act) and- being satisfied about their competence to testify in the case, oath was administered to each one of them. He found the witnesses to be truthful and placed reliance on their evidence. The judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal from jail. ( 4 ) MR. Biswajit Mohanty, the learned counsel for the accused. Has pleaded that the evidence of the two child witnesses suffers from many infirmities and the learned trial Judge was not justified in placing reliance thereon. Mr. S. C. Satpathy, learned counsel for the State, however, supported the judgment. ( 5 ) IT has to be noticed that the fate of the casehangsgn acceptability of evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 who undisputedly were around, 6 years and 5 yectrs respectively at the time of occurrence. A child witness is not necessarily a non-reliable witness. The evidence of a child witness, however, has to be considered with care, caution and circumspection. A tender mind is very often subjected to tutoring with the result that a tutored version is presented in Court. Degree of understanding of the witness is the focal guideline while deciding the question whether the evidence of the child witness deserves to be accepted. The child witness can easily repeat in a faithful manner what has been taught to him. The rationality necessary for distinguishing between what he has seen and what he has heard or was tutored to be told is not always present. Therefore, a Court acting on the evidence of a child witness has to be careful to find out whether the version as presented by the witness is a true reflection of what he has seen or is the outcome of tutoring. Therefore, a Court acting on the evidence of a child witness has to be careful to find out whether the version as presented by the witness is a true reflection of what he has seen or is the outcome of tutoring. A Court has to be careful in marking the demeanour of the witness in Court to find out whether a childs version should be accepted. The decision of the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence and may resort to, any examination, which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence, as well as his understanding of the obligation of oath. As many of these matters cannot be phetographed into the Fecord, the decision of the trial Judge will not be disturbed on review unless from that which is preserved, it is clear that he waserrorieous. Evidence of children is notoriously dangerous. Unless immediately available and uhless teceived before any possibility of tutoring is eliminated. Evidence substantially true not infrequently assumes too perfect a form and witnesses such as children not infrequently get a story by heart which is none the less a true story. In childhood, the faculties of observation and memory are usually more active than in after life, while the motives for falsehood are then less numerous and powerful. But children can be easilytutorecl and so, in spite of the fact that they possess uncomplicated minds and hardly any motive to deceive, their evidence should be received with caution. No fixed rule can be laid down as to the credit that should be assigned to the evidence of a child witness. Obviously the question would depend on a number of circumstances. Young children can turn out to be difficult witnesses to be gauzed properly. Any mistake or discrepancies in their statements can be ascribed to innocence or failure to understand, and undue weight is often given to what is merely a well-taught lesson. Children generally have good memories, and no conscience. They are easily led to believe something untrue to be true and live in a world of make-believe, so that they often become convinced that they have really seen the imaginary incident, which they have been taught to relate. Children generally have good memories, and no conscience. They are easily led to believe something untrue to be true and live in a world of make-believe, so that they often become convinced that they have really seen the imaginary incident, which they have been taught to relate. The result is that they glibly repeat as of their own knowledge what has been told to them. As a rule of prudence and not of law, corroboration is sought for. But it is invariable to examine the evidence with great caution. ( 6 ) IN the aforementioned backdrop it has Tto be seen how far evidence ofthe child witnesses is credible, cogent and acceptable. A close reading of their evidence shows that there was tutoring. Certain crucial statements have been made by each one of them, which go to root of credibility of their version. P. W. 2 has stated that for the first time she disclosed about the incident to her parents in the night and had not disclosed about it to any person. She has further stated that her father asked her as to what she has to say. Before disclosing to her parents, she had not stated before any other person about the incident. Interestingly the First Information Report was lodged at 4 P. M. i. e. much prior to the time when the witness claimed to have disclosed for the first time about the incident. To similar effect is the statement of P. W. 2. These two witnesses also admitted about tutoring by their father as to what has to be stated. Said admission has been lightly brushed aside by learned trial Judge. It corroded credibility of their version. In their innocence they have blurted out the truth, which instead of helping the prosecution, has irreparably damaged its case. ( 7 ) ADDITIONALLY, we find that the relationship between the informant, i. e. the father of the witnesses (P. Ws. 2 and 3) and the accused was strained. Such strained relationship would not have assumed any importance, had the evidence of P. W s. 2 and 3 been credible and cogent. ( 7 ) ADDITIONALLY, we find that the relationship between the informant, i. e. the father of the witnesses (P. Ws. 2 and 3) and the accused was strained. Such strained relationship would not have assumed any importance, had the evidence of P. W s. 2 and 3 been credible and cogent. Though the learned trial Judge found the witnesses to be fairly consistent in their answers yet in view of the glaring infirmities and drawbacks in the evidence, more particularly, the accepted position regarding tutoring at several stages prior to trial, it would be unsafe to place reliance on their version. Prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused. Inevitable result is acceptance of the appeal. The conviction and consequently the sentence are set aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith unless she is required to be in custody in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. .