JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---By means of this appeal the appellant-The State of Maharashtra, has impugned the judgment and Order dated 31-8-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1983 acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under : The prosecutrix Anita Balu Mandke (P.W. 3), aged 5 years, was a resident of Vithalnagar, Shivram Lalvani Road, Gangurchi Chawl, Mulund, Bombay-80. The respondent-Suresh Thorat was a resident of Vithalnagar Zopadpatti, Mulund, Bombay. He was known to the prosecutrix from before the incidence. The prosecutrix had three brothers viz: Ashok, Santosh and Arvind. She had one sister Sampada. Sometimes before the incidence she started going to Balmandir School, which was near her house. Her brother Ashok also used to go to school and she had seen the said school. There is an open space around the building of Ashok's school. The prosecutrix used to play in the compound of that shcool. On 23-2-1983 while the prosecutrix was playing near her house, the respondent took her. Thereafter, he himself took her near the taps in the school of Ashok. He told her that he would give her ten paise for sweets. There were no lights at that place. Thereafter, the respondent took out her under-wear and his full pant; made her lie on the ground and raped her. She started bleeding and her frock became smeared with blood. Thereafter one boy pushed her. Again there was bleeding from her private parts and she could not know the reason for it. She did not know the name of the boy, who pushed her. In her statement, the prosecutrix says that the bleeding commenced after Suresh (respondent) had raped her. In her statement in examination in chief, she also stated that she did not know what the respondent did after removing her under-wear. After the incident the prosecutrix came to her father. She was crying. When her father asked her whether she had fallen down or not, she did not reply. Her clothes had become stained with blood and there was blooding from her private parts. The mother of the prosecutrix Laxmibai Balu Mandke, who was also there questioned the prosecutrix. She told her that the respondent had done something on account of which there was pain in her private part. Her clothes had become stained with blood and there was blooding from her private parts. The mother of the prosecutrix Laxmibai Balu Mandke, who was also there questioned the prosecutrix. She told her that the respondent had done something on account of which there was pain in her private part. Since the prosecutrix was profusely blooding, she made her lie down on the cot. 3.Thereafter, Laxmibai Balu Mandke and her husband Balu took the prosecutrix to a doctor, who had a dispensary in the zopadpatti, at a distance of about 25 feet, from their house. The doctor examined the prosecutrix and asked them to take her to Jasraj Hospital. They accordingly took her to the said hospital. 4.The injuries of the prosecutrix were medically examined by Dr. Shyamlal Mukhi (P.W. 6) of Jasraj Hospital, at about 9 p.m., the same day. The doctor stated that the prosecutrix told him that one male person took her in dark and tried to do something on account of which bleeding started. Dr. Mukhi sensing the gravity of the matter sent a note to Mulund Police Station to the effect that, an alleged raped victim had been admitted in the hospital. On examining the prosecutrix Dr. Mukhi found swelling of vulva, vaginal tear communicating with rectum and anal canal and there was profuse bleeding. In Dr. Mukhi's opinion these injuries must have been caused by forcible sexual intercourse by an adult male. The injury report of the prosecutrix is Exhibit 17. Since the condition of the prosecutrix was precarious Dr. Mukhi advised that she be taken to J.J. Hospital. Consequently, her parents took her to J.J. Hospital, where the evidence is, she was admitted for about two months and had to undergo three operations. 5.Going backwards, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged the same day at about 9 p.m. by Balu Mandke (P.W. 1), the father of the prosecutrix, at Police Station Mulund. 6.After the F.I.R. had been recorded, S.I. Gurav recorded the statement of the informant. Thereafter, he alongwith P.I. Ashok Ingle proceeeded to Jasraj Hospital. S.I. Gurav drew up the panchnama regarding blood sample of the prosecutrix and the sample of her hairs. The frock of the prosecutrix was taken into possession under a panchnama. Thereafter, P.I. Ashok Ingle visited the place of incident that very night. He alongwith S.I. Tambvekar arrested the respondent. Thereafter, he alongwith P.I. Ashok Ingle proceeeded to Jasraj Hospital. S.I. Gurav drew up the panchnama regarding blood sample of the prosecutrix and the sample of her hairs. The frock of the prosecutrix was taken into possession under a panchnama. Thereafter, P.I. Ashok Ingle visited the place of incident that very night. He alongwith S.I. Tambvekar arrested the respondent. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by P.I. Sawant-Bhosale, who ultimately after completing the same submitted the charge-sheet on 16-4-83. 7.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court the respondent was charged on a dual count namely under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. To the said charges, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial Court in all the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Only one of them viz. the prosecutrix Anita Balu Mandke is an eye witness of the incident. In defence no witness was examined. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the statement of the respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution had lamentably failed to prove the charges against the respondent and consequently acquitted him. It is this acquittal of the respondent which has been taken offence to by the State of Maharashtra which has challenged it by means of this appeal. 8.We have heard Mr. Mohmad Iqbal Galeria for the appellant and Ms. Aruna Kamath for the respondent. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibit tendered by the prosecution; the statement of the respondent recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment. After thoughtfully reflecting over the matter, we have no hesitation in endorsing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. 9.The short and the crucial question in this appeal is whether the evidence of the prosecutrix Anita Mandke discloses beyond all shadow of doubt the commission of offences under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent. Our answer to the said question is in the negative. In paragraph 2 of this judgment, we have set-out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix. Hence we do not feel it necessary to reproduce here her statement verbatum. Our answer to the said question is in the negative. In paragraph 2 of this judgment, we have set-out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix. Hence we do not feel it necessary to reproduce here her statement verbatum. In short, what the prosecutrix has stated is that she knew the respondent from before the incident. On the date of the incident the respondent came to her house where she was playing; gave her 10 paise for sweets and thereafter took her to the water tap in the shcool of her brother Ashok. Thereafter, he took off her underwear and his full pant; raped her resulting in profuse bleeding from her private part; and at that juncture a boy whose name she did not know pushed her and she again started bleeding as a consequence of the fall resulting from her being pushed. Had only the prosecutrix stated the facts mentioned above in her statement we would have had no difficulty in believing her statement. But she made matters really difficult for us. In her cross-examination she stated that there was no light on the place of the incident and that she was not sure whether it was the respondent, who had raped her. In her cross-examination she further stated that a boy called Bhaskar had told her that it was the respondent, who had raped her. In view of the aforesaid admissions emerging from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it was imperative for the posecution to have examined Bhaskar. We find that, for reasons best known to it the prosecution has not examined Bhaskar nor furnished any explanation for not doing so. In such a situation, we find it extremely difficult in accepting the statement of the prosecutrix as making the respondent culpable for offences under sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. To make the matters still worse Dr. Mukhi, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, stated in cross-examination that the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix could have been caused if a child fell on a compound having sharp pointed iron bars. In paragraph 6, during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that at the place of the incident there was fencing having sharp pointed iron bars. In paragraph 6, during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that at the place of the incident there was fencing having sharp pointed iron bars. 10.For the reasons mentioned in the proceeding paragraph, in our view, the learned trial Judge acted rightly in not placing any reliance on the statement of the prosecutrix. Apart from her statement there is precious little which is with the prosecution in the instant case. Mr. Galeria urged that the parents of the prosecutrix stated that she had been raped. This would not in our judgment make any difference. Firstly, a perusal of the evidence of the parents does not indicate that the prosecutrix had told them that it was the respondent, who had raped her and secondly, the evidence of the parents is hear-say evidence and legally no reliance can be placed on it. This is all the more significant in a case where we have found the evidence of the prosecutrix to be unreliable. 11.It is a pity that a case in which a girl aged 5 years, who in all probability was ravished, is going unpunished. But we however, cannot cloud our judgment by sentimentality. What we have to see is, whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, reliable and unimpenchable. In view of the infirmities pointed out above, in the statement of the prosecutrix, her evidence cannot be classified in the said category. 11A.It should also be well borne in mind that the prosecutrix was a girl aged 5 years and although there is no legal impediment in the way of accepting the testimony of a child witness, but the same should only be done if it inspires confidence after being subject to the closest scrutiny. The proposition is far too well settled to require amplification by judicial pronouncements, but those who have a penchant for authorities would be well advised to refer to two Division Bench decisions rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the cases of :---(i) (Ram Hazoor-appellant v. State-respondent)1, 1959 Allahabad Law Journal Page 239; and (ii) (Raja Ram v. State)2, 1959 Allahabad Law Journal Page 736. In 1959 Allahabad Law Journal Page 239 (supra), Mukerji, J., speaking for the Court observed thus: "The difficulty with child witnesses often is that they can be made to believe in things which they themselves have not seen and this belief, when once it gets hold of a child witness, is difficult to shake, It is also well known that child witnesses can be tutored much better than adults and further that when once a child witness has been properly tutored then such a child witness cannot easily be shaken in cross-examination." In 1959 Allahabad Law Journal Page 736, D.N. Roy, J., speaking for the Division Bench observed thus : "There are no more dangerous witnesses than young children. Any mistake or discrepancy in their statements are a scribed to innocence or failure to understand; and undue weight is often given to what is merely a well-taught lesson. They are easily taught stories and they live in a world of make-believe, not that they often become convinced that they have really seen the imaginary incident which they have been taught to relate. The evidence of a child witness should therefore be accepted with great caution." When the statement of the prosecutrix is tested on the anvil of the ratio laid down in the said two cases, we feel implicitly satisfied that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in rejecting her evidence and in acquitting the respondent, on both the counts. 12.In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent for offences under sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. recorded vide the impugned judgment is confirmed. The respondent is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. In case an application for a certified copy of this judgment is made by Counsel for the parties the same shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeal dismissed.