Honble PRASAD, J.–The present appeals arise out of the judgment dated 20.10.1992 given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in sessions case No.114/92 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Rohitash under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. (2). The prosecution initiated its story by lodging a F.I.R. on the statement of Dayawanti W/o Chandrapal who is deceased in this case on 8.8.1991. This information was recorded by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Hamirwas on the basis of the statement recorded by him when he arrived on 8.8.1991 at Sardarpura after receiving information that Chandrapal S/o Sudan Ram has been murdered by Rohitash. Though this information was recorded by the Station House Offi- cer as report No. 267/91 but the same was not considered a proper FIR. And proper FIR was latter recorded on the basis of the statement of Dayawanti. (3). Dayawanti in her statement stated to the Station House Officer that she had gone to attend a condolence meeting in nearby village of Shyamkalan with other ladies. At that time accused Rohitash, deceased Chandrapal and two children were at home. When she arrived back at 4.P.M. she was informed by her children that the accused has killed her husband by an axe, which he had taken away along with him. (4). The investigation was started. The accused was arrested. During investigation it is alleged that the accused gave information which was recorded by the Station House Officer as Ex. P-24 and in pursuance to this information the weapon of offence ``axe was recovered from the compound of the house of Dayawanti. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed, charges were framed and the accused claimed trial. At the trial 14 witnesses were examined. After considering the evidence of witnesses examined at trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the eye witnesses, namely, PW-3 Praveen and PW-10 Naveen are reliable. (5). Both the child witnesses deposed about the implication of the appellant. On the strength of the testimony of these witnesses it was found established that the accused caused injuries to the deceased. The weapon of offence axe recovered from the compound of the house, at the instance of the accused in pursuance of the information under Section 27 was used as corroborative evidence. On the strength of the testimony of these witnesses it was found established that the accused caused injuries to the deceased. The weapon of offence axe recovered from the compound of the house, at the instance of the accused in pursuance of the information under Section 27 was used as corroborative evidence. The accused was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment as aforesaid. (6). The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial Court. He criticised the testimony of eye witnesses on the ground that both the eye witnesses PW-3 Praveen and PW-10 Naveen are child witnesses. They are of very young age. They can be made to believe anything which is tutored to them. They being of tendered feelings, can be made to depose anything. Keeping this in view of the testimony of PW-3 Praveen is read, then it will be obvious that, he in his cross- examination said that his brother met him at about 3 P.M., when he was returning from school. At that time his brother informed him that the accused has killed his father. If this statement of this witness is correct then, his evidence is hear-say. He cannot be considered as an eye-witness. The other eye-witness PW-10 Naveen is a witness who makes this witness as an eye-witness then, he is also a dangerous witness. (7). The learned counsel for the appellant has further criticised the statements of these two witnesses on the ground that both these witnesses speak that the accused was consuming alcohol. Consumption of alcohol started at around 7.00 A.M. At about 8.00 A.M. their mother left the house. If the mother had left house at 8.00 A.M. and accused started consuming alcohol at 7.00 A.M., Dayawanti would have told about the consumption of alcohol. Dayawanti has not said anything about the consumption of alcohol by accused. Further the Investigation Officer has not found symptoms of drinking of alcohol. In this light it can be seen that these two witnesses were tutored and were made to believe that their uncle was of bad habit and was consuming alcohol. And under the influence of alcohol caused death of their father. (8). Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is against the alleged recovery of the axe. In this light it can be seen that these two witnesses were tutored and were made to believe that their uncle was of bad habit and was consuming alcohol. And under the influence of alcohol caused death of their father. (8). Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is against the alleged recovery of the axe. The recovery of the axe is alleged to have been made on the basis of the information given by the accused, at his instance, and after digging compound of the house of the deceased. Establishing thereby that the accused had concealed the axe in the house itself. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, in this regard, if read, shows that soon after the occurrence when he prepared site memo he has not seen any sign of fresh digging. At the site he did not see any attempted concealment. In this regard the learned counsel has also pointed out that the alleged eye witnesses saw the accused going out of the house along with the axe. For concealing the axe, in house returning of the accused is a must. There is no suggestion on the part of the prosecution that accused ever came to the house for concealing axe, therefore, this recovery is a planted one. If this cir- circumstantial evidence is eliminated then there remains nothing to support the prosecution case. (9). In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant the learned Public Prosecutor urged that though the two eye witnesses are child witnesses of the tender age of 5-6 years, yet they cannot be considered to be of that tender age that they would not be speaking correctly about the involvement of their uncle. Their testimony should be believed. The learned Public Prosecutor also urges that the Investigation Officer had nothing against the accused person and since there was no animus in the mind of the Investigating Officer why would he depose against the accused and in this light he relies on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Pattu Lal vs. State of Punjab (1), whereby the Honble Supreme Court has held that the statements of the Investigating Officer be believed in the absence of any animus against the accused. (10). We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. (11). (10). We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. (11). As regard the recovery of the axe is concerned if the eye witnesss testimony is considered then the axe was taken away by the accused at the time when he went out. There is nothing on the record to suggest that he ever came back to the house. If the accused had taken axe after he had committed the crime then there appears to be no reason as to how the recovery of that axe can be belie- ved to have been made from the place of occurrence itself. If this part of the statement of the eye witness is ignored and is tested otherwise that the accused instead of taking the axe along with him had concealed the axe there, then to it cannot be explained. The Investigating Officer is positive, that he had examined the place of occurrence and he has not seen any evidence of fresh concealment. In view of these two dimensions the recovery of the axe at the instance of the accused cannot be believed and is, therefore, excluded. (12). After the exlusion of the only circumstantial evidence, then prosecution has to fall upon the evidence of two child witnesses. Regarding their presence in the house, PW-3 himself states that he attends the school right from morning to 3.00 P.M. He has stated that he had attended school up to this time and while he was returning his brother gave information about the incident. If this state of affair is correct then this witness was not an eye witness. He has been designed as an eye witness. If this child witness is not an eye witness and poses to be an eye witness then his statement is worth nothing. (13). Further this witness has alleged to have informed the matter to one Jai Singh after occurrence but this Jai Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has not examined any other witness also, who could say that this witness disclosed the name of the accused soon after the occurrence. Occurrence took place at about 12 noon and mother of the children arrived at the house at about 4.00 P.M. From 12.00 to 4.00 P.M. they narrated anything to anybody has not been disclosed. The Investigating Officer has not examined any other witness also, who could say that this witness disclosed the name of the accused soon after the occurrence. Occurrence took place at about 12 noon and mother of the children arrived at the house at about 4.00 P.M. From 12.00 to 4.00 P.M. they narrated anything to anybody has not been disclosed. Thus in the absence of proper investigation the testimony of this child witness is not considered to be safe to be relied upon. (14). As regard other child witness PW-10 Naveen is concerned he gave information about the incident to his brother PW-3 Praveen yet he has claimed that PW-3 was an eye witness. By this he has tried to introduce an eye witness in the case. A witness cannot be of any worth if he has the tendency of introducing a false witness. Further this witness speaks that he had come home during interval for ta- king meals and also says that Praveen accompanied him but Praveen says nothing in this regard. This witness speaks of such phenomenon which is unbelievable. He also speaks about drinking of alcohol by the accused, but the same is not supported by their mother. No motive has been indicated. There is no immediate cause indicated to the commission of crime. Their testimony is result of tutoring. All these circumstances show that in the absence of any corroboration conviction cannot be based on the testimony of these child witnesses. Doing so will not be safe. (15). Since we are not inclined to hold that these two child witnesses are speaking truth. The state of affairs indicates that they are speaking what they have been told to speak. The Investigating Officer had taken things very lightly and had conducted investigation in a light fashion. There are lurking doubts about the implication of the accused,therefore, we are compelled to hold that it cannot be said that the accused alone was guilty of the crime. Therefore he is entitled to benefit of doubt. (16). Consequently, the accused is given benefit of doubt his appeal is accep- ted and he is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. His conviction and sentence are hereby et aside. He is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.