JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd January, 1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 2/97 (4/97), convicting the accused appellant for offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of-Rs, 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story in short is that dead body of Kartar Kaur alias Nihal Kaur, aged about 32 years, was found on 27.10.1996 at about 11.00 AM in her locked room situated in Mohalla Sureshiya, Ward No. 40, Hanumangarh; She was allegedly done to death by inflicting sharp injuries on her neck in the night of 25.10.1996. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted vide Ex. R 12 on 29.10.1996. It has come into evidence that PW. 2 Banso, who was cousine sister of the deceased residing in the same mohalla, was informed by PW. 4 Premi that she has heard while picking cottons in the filed that Nihal Kaur has been done to death. On this information, PW. 4 approached PW. 1 Sukhdeo Singh and both of them went to residential 'kotha' of the deceased but found it locked from out side. Upon peeping through creek of the closed door, they found dead body of Nihal Kaur lying in the pool of blood and thereafter lodged Ex. R 2 FIR 11.15AM on 27.10.1996. 3. After usual investigation, charged and challenged accused appellant, husband of the deceased. In the trial court 10 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited relying which the accused appellant is convicted as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that solitary evidence in its case is of PW. 8 Nanki, aged about 11 years, who was daughter of deceased and has contradicted in material particulars by her Police statement Ex. D. 1, can not be said to be totally reliable witness. Other witnesses have either been declared hostile or have not supported the prosecution case or else were formal witnesses of recovery etc. The Investigating Officer Shri Kailash Meena has also passed away and could not be examined in the trial court. His second Incharge, PW. 10 Sohan Singh has proved handwriting and signature of Kailash Meena on the papers prepared by him during investigation. The Investigating Officer Shri Kailash Meena has also passed away and could not be examined in the trial court. His second Incharge, PW. 10 Sohan Singh has proved handwriting and signature of Kailash Meena on the papers prepared by him during investigation. On the contrary, learned PP was supported the impugned judgment and order. 5. We have given our serious consideration to the rival contention of the parties. 6. Homicidal death of Nihal Kaur has not been disputed by the Seamed counsel for the appellant as the same has been proved by PW. 7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta who conducted the auto spy on the dead body on 29.10.1996 and not only has proved his post-mortem report Ex. R 12 but has also stated that ante mortem injuries found on the dead body caused by a sharp edged weapon, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Doctor found incised would 6"x2" cutting on the right side of the neck. Another incised wound was found on left hand thumb and third incised wound was found on index finger of the left hand. Injury No. 1 was found sufficient to cause death. Learned trial court has rightly held homicidal death of Nihal Kaur. 7. So far as implication of the accused in the crime is concerned, it is an admitted fact that Nihal Kaur has left her first husband Sulakkhan Singh and married the accused appellant and had two sons, named Satnarrs and Krishna from accused. Nanki (RW. 8) aged about 11 years was daughter of the deceased, born from previous husband Sulakkhan Singh, She has been put to some testing questions by the trial court who then reached to conclusion that she is in a position to understand sanctity of oath and was capable of replying relationally and therefore, oath was administered to her. 8. PW. 8 Nanki though has implicated accused Karnail Singh in the crime and has stated that she along with deceased and two sons, was residing at Hanumangarh, Junction. On the day of occurrence at about 8.00 PM when she along with her mother Nihal Kaur was sitting in the compound, Karnail Singh accused came under intoxication. 8. PW. 8 Nanki though has implicated accused Karnail Singh in the crime and has stated that she along with deceased and two sons, was residing at Hanumangarh, Junction. On the day of occurrence at about 8.00 PM when she along with her mother Nihal Kaur was sitting in the compound, Karnail Singh accused came under intoxication. At that time, Nihal Kaur stated that she wanted to go to her parents' house which was refused by Karnail Singh and when Nihal Kaur repeated the same thing, accused Karriail Singh retorted it and simultaneously said that if she does not pay heed, she will be cut to pieces and thereafter, Karnail Singh inflicted kassi blows on Nihal Kaur and killed her. According to Nanki, at that time Satnam and Krishan were asleep and they could not see anything. After the occurrence, accused dragged the bleeding dead body inside the room, locked it and took all the three children along with him to his sister's house. 9. This witness has been cross examined at length and she has been contradicted with her Police statement Ex. D. 1 to a great extent. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn out attention to many exaggerated statements made by her in the court which are lacking in Ex. D. 1. For the first time, Nanki has deposed in the court that she was daughter of Sulakkahan Singh whereas in Ex. D. 1 she has mentioned her father's name as Karnail Singh (accused), it has also not been mentioned in Ex. D. 1 that Nihal Kaur's first marriage was with Sulakkhan Singh and two years after leaving him, she married Karnail Singh. It is also not in Ex. D. 1 that she used to call Karnail Singh as 'pappa' because she was residing with him. Similarly, she deposed in the court that she was living in Mohallah Sureshiya and has not deposed Ward No. 40 as residence whereas in Ex. D. 1 Sureshiya, Ward No. 40, Hanumangarh was mentioned as residence of this witness. Similarly, she along with her mother was sitting in the court-yard of the house, is not also written in Ex. D. 1 and when confronted in the cross examination, she deposed that she has told so to the Police also but could not say how it has not been incorporated in Ex. D. 1. Similarly, she along with her mother was sitting in the court-yard of the house, is not also written in Ex. D. 1 and when confronted in the cross examination, she deposed that she has told so to the Police also but could not say how it has not been incorporated in Ex. D. 1. Further, time of occurrence has not been mentioned in Ex. D. 1 but this witness in the court has stated that she has disclosed the time of occurrence as 8.00 PM to Police and she does not know how it has not been incorporated therein. 10. According to the learned counsel, these improvements, exaggerations and contradictions are with regard to material particulars which affect testimonial value of the witness and unless and until her testimony is corroborated by any other evidence, no implicit reliance can be placed on her. Learned counsel has relied upon Mathura v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(2) RLW 511 as also on Rameshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 650 . 11. We have minutely perused these pronouncements as also deficiencies pointed out in the testimony of PW. 8 Nanki. The Apex Court in Surya Narain v. State of Karnataka, JT 2001 (1) SC 230 as also in catena or judgments ranging from Prakash v. State of MR JT 1992(4) SC 594 to State of UP v. Ashok Dixit, JT 2000(2) SC 107 , has held that evidence of child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus, an easy prey to tutoring. The evidence of a child must find adequate corroboration before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law. 12. In the matter at hand, PW. 8 Nanki can not be said to be wholly reliable witness, firstly; because her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 1.11.1996 i.e. 6 days after the occurrence. No explanation worth the name is shown by the prosecution how she could not be procured on 27th October, 1996 or immediately thereafter. PW. 8 Nanki has deposed after the occurrence that she is with her maternal grand-father. No explanation worth the name is shown by the prosecution how she could not be procured on 27th October, 1996 or immediately thereafter. PW. 8 Nanki has deposed after the occurrence that she is with her maternal grand-father. As a natural consequence, upon death of a lady in her in 'laws' house, the Investigating Officer could have immediately informed parents of the deceased lady and thereafter, offence could have been worked out in a more reasonable and plausible manner. When there are too many improvements in the court statement of PW. 8 Nanki and also material contradictions and when she was examined by the Investigating Officer six days after, implicit reliance can not be placed upon her testimony unless and until the same is corroborated by any other evidence. 13. Kassi-Article 1 is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused. Ex. P. 19 is the arrest memo, vide which accused was arrested at 6.15 PM on 7.11.1996. Ex. R 20 is a discloser statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act given on 8.11.1996 and Ex. R 21 is the seizure memo of kassi so recovered from court-yard of the place of occurrence. Kailash Meena, SHO, could not be examined to prove these documents because he passed away whereas out of attesting witnesses Baldev Singh and Sunder Singh, only Baldev Singh (P.W. 9) was examined, who is an illiterate witness and has affixed thumb impression in Ex. P. 21. In the cross examination, this witness has disclosed that he does not know what was written in the seizure memo because same was neither read over to him nor he was capable of reading it. Even otherwise, seizure memo Ex. R 21 and its site plan map Ex. R 22, makes it clear that kassi was recovered from an intervening space of pacca bricks lying in the court yard. Ordinarily, no culprit will leave the weapon of offence near about the place of occurrence Nowhere it has been said that kassi was not visible by naked eyes. When PW. 8 Nanki stated that immediately after the occurrence Karnail Singh took the three children to his sister's house where was time with the accused to conceal the kassi in the bricks lying in the courtyard. Had it been so, at least PW. 8 Nanki also would have observed the same and may have deposed so in her statement. When PW. 8 Nanki stated that immediately after the occurrence Karnail Singh took the three children to his sister's house where was time with the accused to conceal the kassi in the bricks lying in the courtyard. Had it been so, at least PW. 8 Nanki also would have observed the same and may have deposed so in her statement. Hence, recovery of kassi does not stated proved. 14. PW. 1 Sukhdeo Singh is the person who went to the site along with PW. 2 Banso where dead-body of Nihal Kaur was seen lying in pool of blood in the residential kotha. In the cross examination, this witness has also admitted that 'kassi' was also lying near the dead body. This witness has not been declared hostile by the public prosecutor nor cross examined on this aspect. Similarly, PW. 2 Banso though declared hostile, has also deposed that blood stained kassi was lying near the dead body. These witnesses also throw doubt on the recovery of kassi. This piece of evidence, thus, can not be used against the accused appellant. 15. PW. 8 Nanki admitted in her cross examination that on the right hand side of their house there is house of jog is inhibited by them. She has further stated on cross examination that her mother and father quarrelled with each other for about two hours. Had it been so, at least some person from neighbouring house may have been attracted to the place of occurrence. Even PW. 8 Nanki may have sought help of neighbours had she been present at the place of occurrence. Accused Karnail Singh took a special plea that relation between husband and wife were not cordial and deceased was living separately and that Nihal Kaur also instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.RC. against him, notices of which were also issued, in support of his above plea, accused Karnail Singh has examined himself as D.W. 1 and also in support of his plea, copy of notice Ex. D. 2 as also copy of order sheet Ex. D. 3 have been produced, which also reveal that in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division), Hanumangarh, Nihal Kaur had lodged a complaint under section 125 Cr.RC., for which notice was issued to Karnail Singh to appear on 27.2.1996. Thereafter, for interim relief, an application was also filed on behalf of Nihal Kaur on 22.7.1996. D. 3 have been produced, which also reveal that in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division), Hanumangarh, Nihal Kaur had lodged a complaint under section 125 Cr.RC., for which notice was issued to Karnail Singh to appear on 27.2.1996. Thereafter, for interim relief, an application was also filed on behalf of Nihal Kaur on 22.7.1996. Pending decision of that matter, this occurrence took place. Exs. D. 2 and D. 3 indicate that perhaps accused appellant was not residing with the deceased at the time of occurrence else there should not have been any application for maintenance filed against the accused. 16. Learned trial court has not adequately dealt with serious infirmities & discrepancies available in the prosecution evidence and had, in a pedantic manner, held the accused appellant guilty and convicted him. Courts are expected to adopt a rational approach and must come to conclusion after considering totality of the circumstances. In the matter at hand, trial court has proceeded in a cavalier manner as the offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Consequently, we accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused appellant. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******