JUDGMENT (Per R. Balasubramanian, J.) The appellant in this appeal is the accused in S.C.No. 129/92 on the file of the Court of Sessions, North Arcot at Vellore. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and on being found guilty, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Therefore he is before this Court in this appeal questioning the correctness or otherwise of the said judgment. Heard Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused, ably assisted by Mr. V. Karthic and Mr. R. Karthikeyan learned Government Advocate appearing on the criminal side for the State. 2. The following is the sum and substance of the case of the prosecution: (a) The deceased in this case is a female by name Mala. The accused is her husband. They were married seven years before the date of occurrence, which was on 14-06-91. They have two off-springs out of that lawful wedlock P.Ws.1 and 3 are the younger brothers of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 6 are the younger sisters of the deceased. Suspecting that the deceased was in illicit intimacy with a person called Perumal., a panchayat was convened to sort out the problem between the spouses. It was decided in the panchayat that the deceased and the accused should live separately. Accordingly the deceased settled down in her father's house at Pandithapatty. The accused continued to have custody of the off-springs. Vellamunji Kounder is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 continued to live with her father in the same house. At 7.00 p.m. on 14-06-91, P.W.2 and the deceased were in the house. Next day was the first day of the next Tamil month. Therefore both of them decided to clean the front yard and then have dinner. After cleaning the front yard, they went inside the house to take dinner. The accused also entered the house with M.O.1 in his hand and by holding the head of the deceased by his hand, attempted to cut her neck. P.W.2 shouted that her sister may be spared. P.W.2 also assaulted on the back of the accused, with a view to save her sister. However the accused kicked aside P.W.2; with M.O.1 cut on the front side neck of the deceased and then ran away. P.W.2 saw the occurrence. Mala was profusely bleeding through the injuries sustained by her. Water was attempted to be given to her. P.W.2 also assaulted on the back of the accused, with a view to save her sister. However the accused kicked aside P.W.2; with M.O.1 cut on the front side neck of the deceased and then ran away. P.W.2 saw the occurrence. Mala was profusely bleeding through the injuries sustained by her. Water was attempted to be given to her. But however, she could not take it. Vellamunji Kounder/father of the deceased and P.W s. 1, 2, 3 and 6 asked the accused as to why he is running away after cutting his daughter? The accused kicked him with his leg, wearing the chappels, just below the hip and ran away. P.W.1 is having a Video Cassette Shop at Tiruvannamalai. It was drizzling on 14-06-91. P.W.1 is residing at Pandithapattu. He returned home at 7.00 p.m. on the day in question and saw his sister/Mala lying with her neck cut. P.W.2 told him that the accused had cut the deceased and ran away. As it was raining and as it was already late in the night. P.W.1 decided not to go to the police station and give a complaint immediately. (b) At 8.00 a.m. on 15-06-91, P.W.1 reached .the police station at Tiruvannamalai and gave EX.P-1 complaint. It was registered by P .W. 13 /Head Constable in Crime No. 165/91 for the offence punishable tti1der Section 302 IPC 15-06-91 was a General Election day. Therefore the Inspector of Police was on bandoubust duty. As directed by the Superintendent of Police, P.W.141 Sub-Inspector of Police, commenced the investigation in this case. He went to the house of Vellamunji Kounder, where the occurrence took place. He prepared Ex.P-17/observation mahazar in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. He also prepared Ex.P-18 1 plan. M.O.5 series are the photographs of the deceased taken from different angles and M.O.6 series are their negatives. From the scene of occurrence, in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5, he recovered M.O.7 series under Ex.P-19. On the morning of 15-06-91, in the presence of parichayatdars and witnesses, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-20 is the inquest report. At 4.00 p.m. on 15-06-91, P.W.8fMedicai Officer conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased. During postmortem, the symptoms as found in EX.P-9 /Post-mortem certificate, were noticed. (Since Ex.P-9 is in English, we are not re-stating the same in this judgment, in order to save time). Ex.P-20 is the inquest report. At 4.00 p.m. on 15-06-91, P.W.8fMedicai Officer conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased. During postmortem, the symptoms as found in EX.P-9 /Post-mortem certificate, were noticed. (Since Ex.P-9 is in English, we are not re-stating the same in this judgment, in order to save time). The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 18 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem and the cause of death is due to the deep cut injury in her neck, cutting larynx, pharynx and blood vessles causing damage to the vital organs. External Injury noticed on the body of the deceased is fatal. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation in this case with effect from 17-06-91, during which time, P.W.14 assisted him. At 11.30 a.m. on 17-06-91, in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 9. P.W.15 arrested the accused. On being examined, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as EX.P-21 in this case. Pursuant to that statement, the accused took the police personnel and the witnesses to the "well" situated in the house of Vellamunji Kounder and showed that as the place where the weapon was thrown. P.W.7 dived into the "well" and M.O.1 was recovered under Ex.P-lO attested by P.W.7 and 9. The accused was sent for judicial remand on 17-06-91. After post-mortem, P.W.10 recovered M.Os. 2 to 4 from the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same at the police station. The case properties were sent to the laboratory as an enclosure to Court's letter. Exs.P-14 and P-15 are the chemical examiner's report and serologist's report respectively. After completing the investigation, P.W.16 the succeeding Investigating Officer, filed the trial report against the accused in Court on 09-03-92 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstance put up against him as false and contrary to facts. He would also state that he and his wife were living happily; his wife went to her mother's house to stay there for a few days, since she was un-well and beyond that, he does not know anything. A witness had been examined on his side as D.W.1. He would also state that he and his wife were living happily; his wife went to her mother's house to stay there for a few days, since she was un-well and beyond that, he does not know anything. A witness had been examined on his side as D.W.1. He was the President of the local village panchayat for two terms. His evidence shows that he is the agnate of Vellamunji Kounder; at 9.00 p.m. on 14-06-91, when he returned home. P.W.1 appeared before him and stated that an unknown person had cut the neck of his sister/Mala; he did not know as to who is the assailant; D.W.1 advised him to go to the police station and give a complaint. 3. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the prosecution relies upon only the oral evidence of P.W.2, as the eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is a child witness. Though there would be no difficulty at all in acting upon the evidence of the child witness, if it is otherwise found trustworthy, yet it is always desirable, even in such circumstances, to look for corroboration. If the entire prosecution evidence is analysed, then it would show that besides. P.W.2, Vellamunji Kounder and P.W.3 were also in the house. P.W.3 turned hostile and the father of the deceased, who has suffered an injury at the hands of the accused during the same transaction, had not been examined, when an elderly person namely, the father of the deceased is available to be tendered as an eye-witness to the occurrence, it is rather surprising that the prosecution wants to rely upon the evidence of the child witness, who was aged about 10 or 101/2 during the relevant time. P.Ws.3 and 6 are none else than the younger brother and sister of the deceased respectively. P.W.3 had turned hostile and it assumes importance, especially when his presence in the house is spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. These circumstances namely, P.W s. 3 and 6 turning hostile, though may not necessarily affect the case of the prosecution in normal circumstances, yet in a case like this, where the deceased is thickly related to P.Ws.3 and 6, it would only show that the evidence of P.W.2 may not be reliable at its face value. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that she and her sister/deceased went inside the house to take dinner. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that she and her sister/deceased went inside the house to take dinner. But however, the postmortem report shows that the stomach of the deceased contained rice particles. This eliminates, in all probability, the presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence. The contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 elicited during the examination of the police officer, would clearly show that P.W.2 could not have witnessed the occurrence at all. In the face of the above infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution, the learned senior Counsel would press in his favour the inordinate delay of almost 12 hours in lodging the complaint with the police regarding the occurrence. The evidence of D.W.1 would show that P.W.1 told him on the night of the day in question itself that he did not know the assailant. Therefore the delay in lodging the complaint, assumes considerable importance. To sum up the argument of the learned senior Counsel is that though the evidence of P.W.2 shows that she saw the occurrence, yet this Court would not be committing any wrong in looking for corroboration from other sources. Even otherwise, the learned senior Counsel would submit that, P.W.2 cannot be treated as an eye-witness to the occurrence. We heard the learned Government Advocate on all these points. 4. The accused is the husband of the deceased, Vellamunji Kounder is the father of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the younger brothers of the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 6 are the younger sisters of the deceased. The deceased P.W.2. P.W.3 and Vellamunji Kounder are stated to be residing in the same house at Pandithapattu. The marriage between the accused and the deceased had taken place seven years prior to the date of occurrence, which was on 14-06-91. There are two off-springs out of that lawful wedlock. The accused did not dispute his relationship as stated above. The case of the prosecution is that, since the accused had suspicion in his mind about his wife having illicit intimacy with one Perumal, a panchayat was convened and in that, it was decided that the accused and the deceased should live separately. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant, nothing prevented the prosecution from placing some documentary evidence before Court to show that a panchayat was infact convened, in which such a decision was taken. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant, nothing prevented the prosecution from placing some documentary evidence before Court to show that a panchayat was infact convened, in which such a decision was taken. P.W.1 would state in his evidence that the decision of the panchayat was reduced into writing and both the accused and the deceased signed in it. This document is also not produced by the prosecution. Therefore except the oral evidence, there is no other acceptable documentary evidence before Court to sustain the case of the prosecution in this regard. P.W.1 would infact state that, after the spouses parted three months before the date of occurrence, the accused never visited the house of the deceased. But however the accused had taken a stand in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was living happily with his wife; she was unwell; therefore the deceased went to her mother's house to stay there for a few days and beyond that he does not know anything. In the absence of any positive material, which could have been placed by the prosecution to show that there was infact as estrangement between the accused and the deceased, it is not possible to rule out the stand taken by the accused that he continued to live with his wife happily. In any event, the probabilities are in his favour. 5. The occurrence had taken place on the night of 14-06-91. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that he returned from Tiruvannamalai around 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. on that day and at that time he saw P.Ws.2,3 and Vellamunju Kounder in the house. In Ex.P-1/complaint, it is found stated that the father of the deceased and P.W.3 were outside the house at the time when he reached the house on the night of 14-06-91. His evidence is that, on entering the house, he found his sister lying dead; forty or fifty people gathered around the house; P.W.2 told him that Mala was cut by the accused and then ran away. Therefore it is clear that P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and he relies upon the information passed on to him by P.W.2. We therefore analysed the evidence of P.W.2 with great care and caution. Therefore it is clear that P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and he relies upon the information passed on to him by P.W.2. We therefore analysed the evidence of P.W.2 with great care and caution. Her evidence shows that, after cleaning the front yard of the house, she and her sister/Mala entered the house to have dinner; at that time the accused also entered the house with M.O.1: the accused cut the accused; despite P.W.2's plea to spare her sister, the accused continued to attack her sister and then ran away. Her evidence also shows that her father asked the accused as to why he is running away after cutting his daughter and for that, the accused kicked him, resulting in an injury to him. P.W.2 would also state that she suffered an injury on her thigh; the police did not send her to the hospital for taking treatment but her father was sent to the hospital for treatment. Therefore it is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that her father was very much available in the house at the time of occurrence and her father was also injured in the occurrence. In the back ground of the fact that the father of the deceased had been sent to the hospital for treatment, caution and fair play demands that the prosecution should have tendered him in Court as an eyewitness to the occurrence. But, as we have already noticed, for obvious reasons, the prosecution had with-held him from the eyes of the Court. 6. Even the evidence of P.W.2 is open to a serious doubt. As we have already noticed, her evidence is that, she and the deceased, after cleaning the front yard of the house, went inside the house to have dinner. Ex.P-9 is the post-mortem report. It shows that the stomach of the deceased contained rice particles. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who did post-mortem on the body of the deceased and he had given evidence on the basis of the findings in the post-mortem report. Therefore the presence of rice particles in the stomach of the deceased at the time of postmortem, clearly shows that only after the deceased took her dinner, she had been attacked. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who did post-mortem on the body of the deceased and he had given evidence on the basis of the findings in the post-mortem report. Therefore the presence of rice particles in the stomach of the deceased at the time of postmortem, clearly shows that only after the deceased took her dinner, she had been attacked. Though the medical evidence is an opinion evidence, yet on the totality of the circumstances available in this case, we are not in a position to close our eyes to the oral evidence of P.W.8 coupled with Ex.P-9/ post-mortem certificate that the stomach of the deceased contained rice particles. Why we are laying so much of emphasis on the presence of rice particles in the stomach of the deceased is that, the possibility of P.W.2 being an eye-witness to the occurrence can be doubted, since according to her, she and the deceased had gone inside the house to take dinner. This is all the more so because, P.W.1 when he was examined during investigation by the police, did not tell the police that P.W.2 told him that the i1ccused attacked her sister/Mala fatally with M.O.1. A careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 15 with reference to the contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 as noticed above and the presence of rice particles in the stomach of the deceased, would show that the occurrence could not have taken place at the time and in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In the context of the above facts noticed by us, the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence is open to serious doubt. P.W.2 had identified M.O.1 as the knife used by the accused in perpetrating the crime on the deceased. P.W.7 is the witness, who dived into the "well" and recovered M.O.1. P.W.7 had given evidence in Court that M.O.1 is not the weapon recovered by him from the "well". Therefore there is a 'doubt regarding the identity of the weapon of offence itself used by the accused. The accused was arrested on 17-06-91. P.W.2 in her evidence in cross would state that the weapon was shown to her on 15-06-91 and she was examined. Therefore we have an additional doubt in our mind about the identity of the weapon used by the accused. The accused was arrested on 17-06-91. P.W.2 in her evidence in cross would state that the weapon was shown to her on 15-06-91 and she was examined. Therefore we have an additional doubt in our mind about the identity of the weapon used by the accused. On top of all the above legal infirmities, P.Ws.3 and 6, who are none else than the brother and sister of the deceased respectively, have turned hostile. P.W.6 was aged about 23 years and P.W.3 was aged about 16 years on the date of occurrence and therefore they definitely had a more matured mind than P.W.2 who was aged about 10 or 10/12 years on that day. 7. The learned senior Counsel brought to our notice the following judgments to show as to what should be the approach of the Court when a child witness is examined to speak about an occurrence: (a) B. Bhika v. State of Gujarat AIR 1971 SC Pg. 1064; and (b) State of U.P. v.Ashok Dixitand another 2000 SC Crl.Pg. 579. The learned Government Advocate brought to our notice the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that context: (c) Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka 2001 Crl.L.J. 705. In the first judgment referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that, "even if there is no infirmity in the evidence of a young boy, it is desirable to seek corroboration of his evidence in view of his tender age. In the second judgment referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that" the evidence of the child witness must be evaluated carefully as a child may be swayed by what others tell him and is an easy prey to tutoring. Wisdom requires that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on." In the third case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that "under the circumstances of the cases and relying upon the testimony of P.W.2 (child witness) which is found to be not suffering from any infirmity and is corroborated in all material particulars, we find no substance in this appeal". Therefore it is clear that though there may be no infirmity in the evidence of a child witness even in such cases, looking for corroboration from other witnesses stands accepted as a well settled position in law. Therefore it is clear that though there may be no infirmity in the evidence of a child witness even in such cases, looking for corroboration from other witnesses stands accepted as a well settled position in law. In this case, as we have already noticed, P.Ws.3 and 6, who are none else than the brother and sister respectively of the deceased, have turned hostile. Vellamunji Kounder/father of the deceased had been sent to the hospital according to P.W.2. However he had not been examined as a witness in this case. P.W.2 would state that though she had also sustained an injury, she had not been sent to the hospital and yet she is examined as a witness. The credibility of the evidence of a witness, who has sustained an injury in the course of the same transaction and subjected to medical examination by the prosecution itself, would be definitely more commendable than the evidence of a witness, who though sustained an injury, had not been sent for any medical treatment at all. This is all the more so, when the witness of a former nature is an adult witness and more matured in mind and thought than the child witness. Under these circumstances, we have a grave doubt in our mind as to why the prosecution was not inclined to tender Vellamunji Kounder as a witness to the occurrence and this failure on the part of the prosecution makes us look at the evidence of P.W.2 with a suspicious eye. The prosecution had held back the injured witness/father of the deceased as well as P.Ws.3 and 6 from Court, especially when they are over matured than P.W.2 to speak about the above aspect. 8. Even on yet another aspect, we find that the prosecution case is open to a serious doubt. P.W.1 would state in his evidence that at 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. on 14-06-91, he had come to know that his sister/Mala is dead. The complaint had come to be lodged only around 8.00 a.m. on 15-06-91, which is almost 12 hours after the occurrence. The police station is at a distance of 10 kms. from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 in his evidence would state that about 40 or 50 people gathered around the scene of occurrence. The complaint had come to be lodged only around 8.00 a.m. on 15-06-91, which is almost 12 hours after the occurrence. The police station is at a distance of 10 kms. from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 in his evidence would state that about 40 or 50 people gathered around the scene of occurrence. Initially, P.W.1 would state that as it was raining, he was not inclined to give the complaint during the night of 14-06-91 itself and it is his stand in Ex.P-1. But however P.W.1 would later on State that as it was dark; he had been frigtened on account of his sister's death and it was raining, he thought not to give a complaint on the same day, appears to be a far convincing explanation. His evidence is that, about 40 or 50 people gathered around the scene of occurrence. Out of these persons, atleast a few must be obliging to them. He would also admit that all of them belong to the same village. If the reasons given by P.W.1 for not lodging the complaint with the police immediately is analysed in the context of the evidence of P.W.1 then we have the least doubt in our mind that P.W.1 is definitely not speaking the truth before Court. D.W.1 is a highly respectable person. He had been examined during inquest. His evidence shows that he returned to Pandithapattu at 9.00 p.m. on 14-06-91; P.W.1 appeared before him at that time and told him that the neck of his sister/Mala had been cut by an unknown person; he advised P.W.1 to go to the police station and give a complaint and accordingly P.W.1 left. P.W.1 wants the Court to believe that he met D.W.1 only on the morning of 15-06-91 in his house at Tiruvannamalai. The evidence of P.W.14 shows that P.W.1 resides in the scene of occurrence village. The evidence of P.W.1 is that, he informed D.W.1 about the occurrence and he took him to the police station. But, D.W.1 in his evidence, does not say so. If really D.W.1. had gone with P.W.1, then the police officer/P.W.13, who registered the crime would have definitely spoken about the presence of D.W.1 with P.W.1 at the Police station. P.W.13 no where states that D.W.1 was also present with P.W.1 at the police station on 15-06-91. But, D.W.1 in his evidence, does not say so. If really D.W.1. had gone with P.W.1, then the police officer/P.W.13, who registered the crime would have definitely spoken about the presence of D.W.1 with P.W.1 at the Police station. P.W.13 no where states that D.W.1 was also present with P.W.1 at the police station on 15-06-91. Therefore, the delay of almost 12 hours in lodging the information with the police, if analysed in the context of the evidence of D.W.1 to whom P.W.1 told that he does not know the identity of the assailant, really creates a suspicion in our mind that EX.P-l could not be the true version. In any event, the possibility of Ex.P-1 being a concoted document, cannot be totally ruled out. Looking from any angle, we have no doubt in our mind that the prosecution had definitely failed to establish the involvement of the accused in the crime. In other words, the judgment under challenge, convicting the accused, is without any legal evidence in favour of the State and against the accused. Accordingly the judgment under challenge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused will stand terminated forthwith.