J. C. GUPTA, J. Appellant Lallu has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC by the order dated 24-4-1994 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 811 of 1993. He has also been convicted and sentenced to 5 years R. I. under Section 307 IPC. 2. Deceased of this case were Maya Devi and her husband Ram Murti. They were running a road side Hotel (Dhaba) outside the Civil Court campus. 3. It is alleged in the First Information Report that in the night between 20th and 21st of July, 1993 Smt. Maya Devi and Ram Murti alongwith their children Km. Santosh Devi, P. W. 1 aged about 9 years and Raju younger brother of Santosh were sleeping in their Dhaba. At about 4. 45 in the morning Km. Santosh Devi woke up on hearing sound of the movement of hands and legs of her father and saw that a young boy wearing white shirt and black pant and having a cut on his left eye lid, was strangulating his father by tying a rope around the neck. He was then sitting on the chest of her father. Due to fear she did not raise alarm. Thereafter the same boy strangulated her mother. The boy also tied her hands and legs. In the meantime she saw one police Constable on the road. She raised alarm whereupon the Police Constable came to her Dhaba and caught hold of the boy. When the Head Constable was asking her as to what the matter was, the boy escaped from the custody of the Head Constable and ran away. Head Constable also ran chasing the boy. In her report Santosh Devi further claimed that the boy was known to her as he used to come to their Dhaba daily for taking food. 4. Km. Santosh Devi went to the police station, New Agra and dictated the report orally at 6. 20 a. m. which was recorded in the chick register by Head Constable-Shilendra Kumar P. W. 4. Case was registered in the presence of Station Officer, Naresh Kumar Yadav, P. W. 6. He took up the investigation and interrogated the first informant. He also interrogated Raju and thereafter proceeded to the scene of occurrence and at the instance of Km. Santosh Devi prepared inspection note and site plan Ex. Ka-6. Case was registered in the presence of Station Officer, Naresh Kumar Yadav, P. W. 6. He took up the investigation and interrogated the first informant. He also interrogated Raju and thereafter proceeded to the scene of occurrence and at the instance of Km. Santosh Devi prepared inspection note and site plan Ex. Ka-6. Dead body of Ram Murti was found lying on the Mahatma Gandhi road near the gate of Civil Court compound at a distance of 16 paces from the Dhaba where he was sleeping. While dead body of Maya Devi was found in the South towards Bhagwan Talkies an a distance of 20 paces from the Dhaba. The Investigating Officer found a rope which he took into his possession and prepared seizure memo Ex. Ka- 6, inquest were held. Therefore the dead bodies were sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. Further case of the prosecution is that Head Constable Charan Singh P. W. 3 who had earlier caught hold of the accused in the hotel of first informant, chased the accused when he escaped from his grip and apprehended him near Natraj Cinema at about 5. 30 in the morning. Accused was brought to the police station by the said Head Constable and was lodged there. After about 10 minutes Km. Santosh Devi also arrived at the police station and on seeing the accused there she told the police that he was the killer of her parents. 5. Dr. P. C. Jain, P. W. 2 held autopsy on the dead bodies of Maya Devi and Ram Murti on 21-7-1993 at 3. 45 p. m. and 4. 05 p. m. respectively. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Smt. Maya Devi: (1) Ligature mark encircling the neck, horizontally and completely on the middle part of neck width varying from 1 cm to 2. 5 cm. 7 cm below chin. One rope of jute (double) used as ligature was found firmly tight around the neck with knot on right side and front of neck. (2) Multiple abrasions in an area of 15 cm x 8 cm on the back of right side lower part. 6. In the internal examination doctor found that brain was congested, froth was present in larynx and trachea. Rings of the trachea were found fractured under the ligature mark. Both lungs and trachea were deeply congested and lungs were also congested. 6. In the internal examination doctor found that brain was congested, froth was present in larynx and trachea. Rings of the trachea were found fractured under the ligature mark. Both lungs and trachea were deeply congested and lungs were also congested. The stomach contained semi-digested food material. Small intestines contained digested food material while large intestines had gases and faecal matter. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Post- mortem report of Smt. Maya Devi is Ex. Ka-2. 7. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body of Ram Murti: (1) Lacerated wound 1. 0 cm x 0. 4 cm x skin deep on the occipital region of skull, traumatic swelling around it. (2) Ligature mark encircling the neck completely and horizontally on the middle part of neck. 7. 5 cm below chin. One rope of Jute (double) used as ligature was found firmly tight with a knot on the front and right side of neck. 8. In the internal examination brain was found congested, froth was found in larynges and trachea. Rings of trachea were found fractured. Both the lungs were congested. Stomach contained semi- digested food while small intestines contained digested food material. Large intestine was having gases and faecal matter. Cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Post- mortem report of Ram Murti is Ex. Ka-3. 9. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was duly tried before the Court below. 10. Before the trial Court prosecution produced six witnesses namely, Km. Santosh P. W. 1 , Dr. R. C. Jain P. W. 2, Head Constable Charan Singh P. W. 3, Head Constable Shilendra Kumar Singh P. W. 4, S. I. Shiv Mohan Prasad P. W. 5 and Inspector Naresh Kumar Yadav P. W. 6. Out of these witnesses P. W. 1 Santosh and P. W. 3 Head Constable Charan Singh are witnesses of fact. 11. Dr. R. C. Jain is the Medical Officer who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Smt. Maya Devi and Ram Murti. Dr. Jain in his statement before the trial Court has stated that death of both these deceased persons was possible in the morning of 21-7-1973 at about 4. 15. 11. Dr. R. C. Jain is the Medical Officer who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Smt. Maya Devi and Ram Murti. Dr. Jain in his statement before the trial Court has stated that death of both these deceased persons was possible in the morning of 21-7-1973 at about 4. 15. Ante-mortem Injury No. 1 of deceased Maya Devi and Injury No. 2 of deceased Ram Murti were themselves sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. In the cross- examination Dr. Jain categorically stated that there were no signs of dragging on the body of Ram Murti and Smt. Maya Devi. After seeing the accused in the dock, Dr. Jain stated that the accused is of average built. 12. P. W. 4 Head Constable Shilendra Kumar Yadav is a formal witness. He was posted as Head Moharrir at the police station. He proved the check FIR which he had prepared on the oral dictation of Santosh P. W. 1. Case was registered at the police station at 6. 20 a. m. He further stated that in the same morning at 6. 30 a. m. accused Lallu Singh was brought under arrest at the police station by Head Constable Charan Singh P. W. 3. 13. P. W. 5, Sub-Inspector, Shiv Mohan Prasad had completed the inquest. 14. P. W. 6 Inspector Naresh Kumar Yadav is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that case was registered at the police station in his presence. He recorded the statements of first informant and his younger brother Raju at the police station. Thereafter he went to the scene of occurrence with the first informant and prepared site plan at her instance. He also collected and took into possession a piece of rope. Inquest proceedings were held by another Sub-Inspector and dead bodies were sent for post- mortem examination. He further stated that accused was brought under arrest at the police station by Head Constable Charan Singh. He has categorically admitted that on the day of occurrence Head Constable Charan Singh was called by him at about 4 in the morning and he had arrived at the police station at 4. 45 a. m. 15. Accused in his statement denied the prosecution allegations and stated of his false implication. He produced no witness in defence. 16. He has categorically admitted that on the day of occurrence Head Constable Charan Singh was called by him at about 4 in the morning and he had arrived at the police station at 4. 45 a. m. 15. Accused in his statement denied the prosecution allegations and stated of his false implication. He produced no witness in defence. 16. On appraisal of evidence the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Ram Murti and Smt. Maya Devi and accordingly he has convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Appellant has been found guilty further under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit murder of Km. Santosh. Under the first count he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life while under Section 307 IPC appellant has been sentenced to five years R. I. 17. We have heard appellants Counsel Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sri K. C. Saxena A. G. A. for the State. 18. As far as factum of death of Maya Devi and Ram Murti by strangulation in the night between 20-21 July, 1983 is concerned, the same has neither been challenged nor assailed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 19. However, the appellants Counsel urged before us that P. W. 4 Santosh Devi daughter of Ram Murti deceased claims herself to be an eye-witness and as per her own admission she was fully knowing the appellant from before the incident yet she did not name him in the First Information Report alleged to have been lodged at the police station in the same morning at 6. 20 a. m. It was submitted that had the appellant been the murderer there was no reason why his name would not have found a mention in the First Information Report. It was further submitted that the prosecution allegation that Head Constable Charan Singh had reached the place of occurrence during the course of incident and had apprehended the appellant at a distance of more than a furlong away from the place of incident is nothing but a cooked up story as according to Head Constable Charan Singh he had apprehended the appellant at about 5. 30 a. m. when he was proceeding from his house to the police station, whereas as per the statement of the Investigating Officer he had called this head constable at the police station and he had already arrived at the police station at about 4. 30 a. m. Therefore, the prosecution story that the appellant was apprehended at about 5. 30 a. m. by the same Head Constable when he was proceeding to police station from his residence to attend his duties cannot be accepted. 20. Before we start discussion on the evidence of prosecution witnesses, we may first place topography of the place of occurrence, as shown in the site plan Ex. Ka-7. Mahatma Gandhi Road runs North-South. To the west of this road is brick Kharanja and to the further west of this Kharanja is the Civil Court compound. On the eastern side of the road there was Cattle Pound Office and a shop "janta Motor Cycle House". Road side hotel of the deceased was placed on the Kharanja. This dhaba was to the east of the walled Civil Court compound and opened on the main Mahatma Gandhi Road in the east. As per the prosecution case appellant strangulated both the deceased persons inside the dhaba and those places have been marked in the site plan by letters `b and `c. The place where dead body of Ram Murti was found is shown by letter `a. This place is removed by 16 paces in the south from the place where deceased was sleeping. Dead body of deceased Maya Devi was however found in the north of dhaba at a distance of 20 paces. This place is shown by letter `d in the site plan. It would thus appear that dead body of Ram Murti was found in the south of dhaba towards Civil Court crossing while that of Maya Devi was found in opposite direction in the north at a distance of 20 paces towards Bhagwan Talkies. 21. P. W. 1 Km. Santosh is the daughter of both the deceased persons. When her statement was recorded before the trial Court on 22-3-1994 she was about 10 years old meaning thereby that at the time of occurrence she was about nine years of age. In her statement before the trial Court she stated that on the fateful night she was sleeping by the side of her mother Maya Devi. When her statement was recorded before the trial Court on 22-3-1994 she was about 10 years old meaning thereby that at the time of occurrence she was about nine years of age. In her statement before the trial Court she stated that on the fateful night she was sleeping by the side of her mother Maya Devi. He father Ram Murti and younger brother Raju were also sleeping in the Dhaba. At about 4 in the morning she woke up and saw that while sitting on the chest of her father, the appellant strangulated him by a piece of rope. Thereafter he dragged the dead body of his father towards Civil Court crossing. He then came back and committed murder of her mother by strangulating her neck with a piece of rope. He then carried dead body of her mother towards Bhagwan Talkies which was situated in the north of dhaba. Appellant then came back again and tied her hands and legs with rope. On her cries one police constable reached there and he caught hold of the accused. She told him that the accused has killed her father and mother. The boy however escaped from the custody of police constable and ran out of dhaba. The constable also ran chasing him. She further stated that she was knowing the appellant from before as he used to take food at her hotel. It has also been stated by her that thereafter she went to the police station with a constable of police out post of Civil Court and 3-4 other persons. She dictated report orally which was taken down at the police station. She proved the report as Ex. Ka-1. She further stated that after lodging the report she came back to her hotel with police force. After about an hour she again went to the police station and saw the present appellant there. According to her an electric bulb was throwing light at the time of occurrence. In the cross-examination she stated that she and her mother were sleeping on the same cot. When she woke up, she saw that accused was sitting on the chest of her father who was sleeping on the floor. According to her an electric bulb was throwing light at the time of occurrence. In the cross-examination she stated that she and her mother were sleeping on the same cot. When she woke up, she saw that accused was sitting on the chest of her father who was sleeping on the floor. She could not explain as to why this fact that appellant had carried dead body of his father towards Civil Court crossing was not mentioned in her report or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. It has also been stated by her that when Lallu appellant had carried dead body of her father, her mother got up to urinate. After urination she came back and laid on the same cot. At that time she did not tell her mother that accused has strangulated her father. According to her, Lallu appellant came back after about half an hour and then committed the murder of her mother. She further admitted that her father was more stout than the appellant. According to her she had told the Investigating Officer that Lallu accused had carried her mothers body towards Bhagwan Talkies but no such fact finds mention in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. She also admitted that even when the appellant had carried her mother she did not move out of the hotel. She could not explain as to why the Investigating Officer has shown in the site plan that she and her mother were sleeping on different cots. It has also been admitted by her that she had sustained marks of rope on her hands and legs and she had told this fact to the Investigating Officer but could not give any reason why that fact was not mentioned by the Investigating Officer in her statement. According to her she had reached the police station at about 7 a. m. for lodging the report. 22. Undisputedly P. W. 1 Km. Santosh is a 9-10 years old child. That apart, she is an interested witness being the own daughter of the deceased persons. According to her she had reached the police station at about 7 a. m. for lodging the report. 22. Undisputedly P. W. 1 Km. Santosh is a 9-10 years old child. That apart, she is an interested witness being the own daughter of the deceased persons. We are fully aware of the legal principle of appreciation of evidence that rule of corroboration of the statement of a child witness is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence because it has been experienced that very often such witnesses give evidence under influence and their testimony is tainted by extraneous circumstances. As a matter of prudence conviction should not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness. Law is well settled that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as a child may be swayed by what others tell him and he falls as an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, wisdom requires that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. Similarly evidence of an interested witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground of the witness being a close relative of the deceased, but the evidence of such a witness before being ascribed to be trust-worthy or being capable of creating confidence the Court has to consider the same upon proper scrutiny. 23. Keeping in mind the above principles, we have carefully examined the statement of P. W. 1 Km. Santosh and find that it will be wholly unsafe to act upon her testimony. According to her statement when she woke up at about 4 in the morning she saw the appellant sitting on the chest of her father. She also saw the appellant strangulating her father with a piece of rope. Before her eyes the appellant carried the dead body of her father towards Civil Court crossing. He then came back after about half an hour. In the meantime her mother also got up and went to urinate. She did not raise any cries during this interval nor did she tell her mother that the appellant had strangulated her father and carried his body towards Civil Court crossing. This part of her statement cannot be swallowed being wholly inconsistent with normal human conduct. In the meantime her mother also got up and went to urinate. She did not raise any cries during this interval nor did she tell her mother that the appellant had strangulated her father and carried his body towards Civil Court crossing. This part of her statement cannot be swallowed being wholly inconsistent with normal human conduct. If she had seen all that what she has stated in her statement, it was most unnatural that she would not disclose the same even to her mother when she got up to urinate. It is also not easy to digest that when her mother came back after urinating, she would simply lie down on the cot with P. W. 1 Km. Santosh without making any effort to find out the where-abouts of her husband. It is further in the evidence of P. W. 1 Santosh that after about half an hour accused again came back to dhaba and then strangulated her mother and then carried her body in the opposite direction i. e. in the North towards Bhagwan Talkies. Accused came back and then tied her hands and legs with a rope. Even during this period Km. Santosh did not raise any cry for help. This was also most unnatural. Her statement that dead bodies of her father and mother were carried away by the appellant does not find support from the medical evidence and other circumstances appearing in the case. As already pointed out above the place where dead body of deceased Ram Murti was found is shown in the site plan by letter a. This place is removed by 16 paces from the place where Ram Murti was strangulated. It has also come in evidence that deceased Ram Murti was more stout than the appellant who as per P. W. 2 Dr. Jain is of average built. No signs of dragging were found on the dead body of deceased Ram Murti during autopsy. No such signs were also found at the scene of occurrence. It is unbelievable that the appellant would have carried the body of Ram Murti on his shoulders or head. Similarly dead body of Maya Devi was carried to a distance of 20 paces in the North of dhaba towards Bhagwan Talkies. No signs of dragging were found on the dead body of Maya Devi. It is unbelievable that the appellant would have carried the body of Ram Murti on his shoulders or head. Similarly dead body of Maya Devi was carried to a distance of 20 paces in the North of dhaba towards Bhagwan Talkies. No signs of dragging were found on the dead body of Maya Devi. No such signs were also found by the Investigating Officer when he made inspection of the scene of occurrence. Further the statement of the witness that after removing bodies of Ram Murti and Maya Devi the appellant again came back to the hotel and tied her hands and legs with rope also does not get corroboration by any other piece of evidence. There is no Medical Report of Km. Santosh to indicate that she had suffered any injury on her hands or legs on account of tying of rope. No such fact was mentioned by her in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. Had she sustained any such marks or injury, the Investigating Officer must have got her medically examined. Even H. C. Charan Singh P. W. 3 who is alleged to have reached Dhaba on the cries of Km. Santosh has simply stated that when he reached he saw that a boy was sitting on Km. Santosh and was pressing her neck. He did not say that the hands and legs of the girl had been tied with rope. There is one more glaring factor which creates a heavy shadow of doubt of the murders being committed by the appellant. According to P. W. 1 she was fully knowing the appellant from before the occurrence as he used to come to her hotel to take food, yet surprisingly her name was not disclosed by Km. Santosh in her report Ex. Ka-1 which she orally dictated at the police station in the same morning. The fact that appellants name did not figure in the First Information Report goes a long way in support of defence suggestion that the appellant was apprehended at about 9 in the morning under a mistaken belief to be the person responsible of committing the twin murders. 24. The other piece of evidence on which much reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge consist in the testimony of Head Constable Charan Singh P. W. 3. 24. The other piece of evidence on which much reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge consist in the testimony of Head Constable Charan Singh P. W. 3. This witness has stated that on the day of occurrence i. e. 21-7-1983 he was posted at police station New Agra. During those days he was living in a rented house in Prakash Nagar, Shahganj, Agra. On that day he had left his house at 4. 30 in the morning to attend his duties. When at about 4. 45 a. m. he reached near the gate of Civil Court on Mahatma Gandhi Road he heard cries of a child. He parked his cycle on the side of the road and reached at the hotel situated on the Patri of the road and saw that one female child was lying on a cot and one young boy was pressing her neck. He pulled that boy and caught hold of one his hand and asked the female child as to what the matter was, whereupon the girl told him that the boy has killed her parents. In the meantime the boy escaped from his grip and ran away. He followed that boy and after giving a chase of about one and half furlongs, he succeeded in apprehending the boy in front of Natraj Cinema. Time was about 5. 30 a. m. He brought that boy at the police station and lodged him there. The boy told his name as Lallu son of Tej Singh Kachhi resident of Kala Khera, Chhoti Phari P. S. Sahmau, District Dhaulpur, the present appellant. In cross-examination the witness said that the girl was crying "bhaiya mai mar gayi, bachao- bachao". At that time he was about 10-15 paces away from the scene occurrence. He further admitted that there was a police out post in the Civil Court premises which was only 200 meters away from the place of occurrence. He did not call any police force for help. He admitted that he did not have any baton or arm with him. According to him when he reached inside the dhaba, he found only the appellant and the girl there and none else. He did not find any brother of the girl there. He admitted that he had not told the Investigating Officer that the girl had told him that accused has killed her parents. According to him when he reached inside the dhaba, he found only the appellant and the girl there and none else. He did not find any brother of the girl there. He admitted that he had not told the Investigating Officer that the girl had told him that accused has killed her parents. He has further admitted that while chasing the appellant he was crying "catch him, catch him" but no person came there for his help. Many people were sleeping in front of shops. It was the month of July and time was about 5. 30 in the morning. It is of common knowledge that in this season many people go for morning walk. It is unbelievable that this witness would not meet any person in the way. It was suggested to him that accused was apprehended under a mistaken belief in the morning at about 9 when he was present amongst spectators who had collected near the scene of occurrence. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the statement of P. W. 6 S. I. Naresh Kumar Yadav, Investigating Officer wherein he has stated that on the day of occurrence he had called Head Constable Charan Singh at the police station at 4 in the morning. Head Constable had reached the police station at 4. 45 a. m. If Head Constable Charan Singh had reached the police station at 4. 45 a. m. then his claim that he had apprehended the appellant at 5. 30 a. m. in front of Natraj Cinema while giving chase to him becomes highly doubtful, particularly when police station was removed by half a kilometer from the place of occurrence. If this Head Constable had reached the police station at 4. 45 in the morning on a call of the Station Officer how could he reach the place of occurrence at 4. 45 a. m. is not explained and his statement that he had reached the place of occurrence while he was going to attend duty from his house is totally contradicted by the statement of the Investigation Officer. As per prosecution case FIR was lodged at 6. 20 a. m. while according to this witness he had apprehended the appellant at 5. 30 a. m. and he straight away carried the appellant to the police station. As per prosecution case FIR was lodged at 6. 20 a. m. while according to this witness he had apprehended the appellant at 5. 30 a. m. and he straight away carried the appellant to the police station. In the First Information Report there was no mention of the arrest of appellant at the hands of the Head Constable rather it was mentioned that the police constable has left the scene of occurrence while chasing the accused. P. W. 1 Km. Santosh has clearly stated that she had reached the police station at about 7 in the morning for lodging the report and upto that time accused had not been brought at the police station. She came back to the scene of occurrence after lodging the report and when she again reached the police station after an hour she found the appellant present at the police station. This part of the statement of Km. Santosh completely demolishes the prosecution story that the appellant was apprehended at about 5. 30 in the morning rather it goes to support the defence suggestion that the appellant was apprehended at about 9 in the morning under a mistaken belief. 25. On a careful analysis of evidence, we find that it would be most unsafe and hazardous to base conviction of the appellant on the basis of testimony of P. W. 1 Km. Santosh, a child witness, and P. W. 3 Head Constable Charan Singh as their evidence suffers from inherent weaknesses such as inconsistencies, unnaturalities and improbabilities. 26. For the reasons assigned above, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Accordingly appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court in the judgment dated 25-11-1994 in Session Trial No. 811/1993 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences charged for. Appellant is in Jail. He shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained there in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. .