Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The sole appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 16.7.1991 passed by the 2nd. Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T.No.109 of 1990, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife, Sabitri Karwa, on 10.10.89. 2. The prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. is that on 10.10.89 at about 12.00 noon, when the informant, Keshbati Karwa, the minor daughter of the appellant, was taking bath in the bathroom, she heard her father (appellant) and her mother (deceased) abusing each other and thereafter she heard sound of assault on her mother by her father and she came out taking her bath quickly and found the room of occurrence closed and her father beating her mother who was crying for help, whereupon she opened the door forcibly and saw her mother lying in dying condition and his father sitting in another room. Seeing the condition of her mother deteriorating, she approached Yakub Khes (P.W.2) and Madhusudan Das (P.W.3) who came to the place of occurrence and told her that her mother had already died. Thereafter, the informant along with P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 went to the police station where she lodged the F.I.R. naming her father as the person who has killed her mother by iron rod. The I.O. went to the spot of occurrence and made enquiry and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination and after receiving the said report, the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of session for trial. 3. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 who is the informant and is said to be the only eye-witness has been declared hostile. P.ws. 2,3 and 4 are not the eye-witnesses and when they reached the place of occurrence, they found the dead body of the deceased lying. They accompanied the informant to the police station where the F.I.R. was lodged. P.W.5 is the I.O. and P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body. 4. P.ws. 2,3 and 4 are not the eye-witnesses and when they reached the place of occurrence, they found the dead body of the deceased lying. They accompanied the informant to the police station where the F.I.R. was lodged. P.W.5 is the I.O. and P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body. 4. The triaf court had convicted the appellant on the evidence of P.W.1, who was declared hostile, holding that "the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that accused Gopi Nath Karwa assaulted his wife, Sabitri Karwa, till she died". In support of the above finding, the trial court has also held that the evidence of P.Ws.2,3,4 and I.O. (P.W.5) have supported the entire facts and circumstances which find place in the F.I.R. It has rejected that part of the informants testimony wherein she has said that she has seen nothing because she was not present at the relevant time on the place of occurrence as she had gone to township to see Durga Puja, with the observations that she wants to help her father. 5. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness declared hostile can also be taken into consideration and relied upon by the courts to the extent it corroborates the prosecution case provided it is dependable In this connection, reference may be made to Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V/s. Stale of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1991 SC 1853 ). But for the reasons given below, the present case is not a case where conviction should be recorded on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 who was declared hostile: (i) P.W.1 was minor at the time of occurrence and recording of her fardbeyan at the police station. The testimony of a minor requires scrutiny with care and caution. On the careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, it is apparent that although in paragraph 1 of her testimony, she has said that her father has beaten her mother to death but she has not expressly stated that she herself has seen her father beating her mother to death. On the careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, it is apparent that although in paragraph 1 of her testimony, she has said that her father has beaten her mother to death but she has not expressly stated that she herself has seen her father beating her mother to death. In fact, in paragraph 3 of her testimony, she has categorically stated that the date on which her mother died/killed was the day of Durga Puja and at the time of occurrence she had gone to township to see the Puja and as such she had neither heard mother and father abusing each other, nor did she see her father beating/killing her mother. At this stage, she was declared hostile by the prosecution and thereafter, she was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. During cross-examination, she has reiterated in paragraph 12 of her testimony what she has said earlier in paragraph 3 saying that she does not know anything about the incident. In paragraph 4, she has denied the version of F.I.R. But in latter part in paragraph 1 she has stated that she went to police station along with P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 where her fardbeyan was recorded. There are some other contradictions also in her evidence. Her testimony is of doubtful nature, not worth reliance. (ii) Madhusudhan Das (P.W.3), who was one of the persons who accompanied P.W.1 to the police station where F.I.R. was lodged in her name, does hot appear to be having good relation with the appellant. He has himself admitted in his cross-examination about his litigation with the appellant. The informant being minor, the probability of she being under the influence of the persons hostile to her father cannot be excluded. (iii) Even the medical evidence does not fully support the prosecution case. In the post-mortem report, the Doctor, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body, has opined that out of the four injuries on the dead body of the deceased, first two can be caused by sharp-cutting weapon. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was beaten and killed by an iron rod with which the deceased was allegedly killed was having sharp-cutting edge capable of causing the first two injuries. 6. As regards P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 are concerned, they are not the eye-witnesses. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was beaten and killed by an iron rod with which the deceased was allegedly killed was having sharp-cutting edge capable of causing the first two injuries. 6. As regards P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 are concerned, they are not the eye-witnesses. In their testimonies before the trial court, they have categorically stated that when they reached the place of occurrence, the deceased was already dead and her dead body was lying over there. They have further said that they accompanied the informant to the police station where F.I.R. was recorded on her behalf. P.W.5 is the I.O. All these witnesses have partly corroborated the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. They being not eyewitnesses, they have not and could not have corroborated the fact of alleged murder of the deceased by the appellant. 7. For the reasons given above, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.7.91 passed by the 2nd. Add Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T.No. 109/90 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case(s). A.K.Prasad, J. 9 I agree.