JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The Appellant assails the order of his conviction u/s 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, in Short, 'IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1993 for committing murder of Padmabati Saha giving false information to police intending to screen himself from legal punishment. 2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. and in the trial Court's judgment is as follows: The deceased Padmabati was the sister of Appellant's father. The Appellant was residing in village Kandol under Kesinga Police Station in the district of Kalahandi. On the fateful night Padmabati with her niece Amulya Saha (P.W.7) and the Appellant were' sleeping in one room in her house. At about mid-night P.W.7 had allegedly noticed the Appellant assaulting Padmabati who was shouting for help. P.W.7 seeing the incident got awestruck and fled away from the house. The Appellant came out and raised an out-cry that one Apu assaulted the deceased Padmabati Padmabati came to the house of P.W.5 in an injured condition and is said to have narrated before him that the Appellant had assaulted her. Immediately thereafter, she became senseless and succumbed to the injuries. The Appellant however came to Kesinga Police Station and submitted a written report that the deceased Padmabati, Harisankar Saha (P.W.5) Amulya Saha (P.W.7) and himself while sleeping together, one Jagajiban Sethi (Apu) came and assaulted Padmabati. He (the Appellant) chased Jagajiban to some extent, but could not apprehend him and came back to the house. When Padmabati was asked by the Appellant as to who was her assailant, she replied that it was Jagajiban, who had stabbed her. On hearing the out-cry raised by the Appellant, few villagers reached at the spot. After some time, Padmabati collapsed. Such report lodged by the Appellant was treated as F.I.R. on the basis of which investigation was carried on, in course of which the Investigating officer held inquest over the dead-body of Padmabati, seized the blood stained earth and sample earth and examined the witnesses. During investigation, it was ascertained that Apu was not the assailant of Padmabati but it was the Appellant himself. Therefore, the case was registered against him u/s 302/201, I.P.C. 3. During investigation, it was ascertained that Apu was not the assailant of Padmabati but it was the Appellant himself. Therefore, the case was registered against him u/s 302/201, I.P.C. 3. In course of investigation, it is said that the Appellant gave discovery of the knife which he had allegedly used for committing the offence. The I.O. seized the knife as per the seizure list, Ext. 4. The lungi of the Appellant was also seized (vide Ext. 6) which contained blood stains. The Dibiri was seized vide Ext. 7. On 12.7.1993, after post mortem was conducted over the dead-body, the I.O. seized the wearing apparels of the deceased vide Ext. 9. The seized articles were sent to RFSL, Berhampur vide Ext. 13. The report of the chemical Analyst was marked in the trial Court as Ext. 14. After completion of investigation, the I.O. the placed charge-sheet against the Appellant. 4. The prosecution placed 8 witnesses in the trial Court, out of whom P.W.7 has only claimed to be the eye-witness to the incident. Apart from the evidence of P.W.7, the prosecution has relied upon the dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased to P.W.5 and also the blood stained clothes and the knife alleged to have been seized at the instance of the Appellant The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence recorded the order of conviction holding the Appellant guilty for committing the offence of murder of Padmabati and giving false information to police in order to screen himself from legal punishment. 5. From 'the post mortem report, there can be no manner of doubt that Padmabati met a homicidal death. She had 24 stab injures The injuries noted in the post mortem report have been dealt with at great length by the trial Court and we do not want reiterate the injuries in this judgment again. Brutal stab injuries were inflicted on the person of Padmabati as a result of which she met homicidal death. The question arises as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of. murder against the Appellant. The trial Court has based its finding only on the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 apart from the recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at the instance of the Appellant. Before examining the evidentiary value of P.Ws. The question arises as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of. murder against the Appellant. The trial Court has based its finding only on the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 apart from the recovery of blood stained clothes and knife at the instance of the Appellant. Before examining the evidentiary value of P.Ws. 5 and 7, it is worthwhile to mention that the prosecution relied its case mostly on the dying declaration. It is no doubt true that conviction can lie only on the basis of dying declaration if such statement inspired utmost belief and faith. From the evidence of P.W.5, it has transpired that his house is situated at a distance of one furlong from the house of the Appellant. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate has invited our attention to the sketch map proved by the I.O. It is no doubt true that in the sketch map it is indicated that the house of P.W.5 is situated adjacent to the house of the Appellant. But when P.W.5 had stated that his house is at a distance of one furlong from the Appellant's house, such fact cannot be overlooked. It is to be further noted that immediately after the incident, the statement of P.W.5 was recorded u/s 164. Code of Criminal Procedure Significantly, he has never stated before the police regarding the dying declaration made by Padmabati before him to the effect that the Appellant was the author of the crime. During cross-examination, it has been brought out from him that immediately after the incident he did not disclose the fact that the deceased Padmabati had told him that the Appellant gave such murderous blow by knife on her person. In this background, the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased before P.W.5 does not appear to be free from suspicion. Further the deceased had received 24 stab injuries. It is inconceivable that a person having 24 stab injuries would cover such a distance to the house of P.W.5 and make a disclosure about her assailant. Accordingly, we hold that the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased is not free from suspicion. 6. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.7. It appears that she was 13 years of age at the time of occurrence. Accordingly, we hold that the dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased is not free from suspicion. 6. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.7. It appears that she was 13 years of age at the time of occurrence. Though, she was a child witness, no sufficient safeguard was taken by the learned Sessions Judge while recording her statement. A duty is cast upon the Court to satisfy itself that a witness who is legally incompetent to depose in Court has given a rational answer to the questions, in this case, we find that no such certificate has been given by the learned trial Judge nor has any questions been put to her to satisfy itself as regards the capacity of understanding the questions put to the witness. The case almost rests on the evidence of the child witness. P.W.7. The incident admittedly occurred in the night. P.W.7 has claimed to have been awakened by the out-cry raised by the deceased. At the time of incident, she was hardly 13 years of age. In absence of any certificate given by the learned Trial Judge that she was capable of understanding and answering the questions, it is unsafe to rely on the sole evidence of a child witness without seeking any further corroboration. There are chances of tutoring the child witness. Therefore, we are unable to place utmost reliance on the statement of P.W.7, who implicated the Appellant in the commission of the crime. 7. Only one further circumstance survives for our consideration, that is, the blood stained clothes seized from the possession of the Appellant and also the recovery of weapon of offence. Undisputedly, the incident had taken place in the house of Padmabati where the Appellant and P.W.7 were sleeping. It is quite likely that after the incident, blood stains must have struck to the Appellant's clothing?s. That by itself cannot be regarded as an incriminating material to connect the Appellant with the crime. So far as recovery of knife is concerned. P.W.6 who was one of the witnesses to the seizure of the knife turned hostile. Even though the other witness Kurupati Goud (P.W.2) supported the prosecution story so far as recovery of knife from the possession of the Appellant is concerned, but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the Appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. P.W.6 who was one of the witnesses to the seizure of the knife turned hostile. Even though the other witness Kurupati Goud (P.W.2) supported the prosecution story so far as recovery of knife from the possession of the Appellant is concerned, but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the Appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. Accordingly, we are not agreeable to the findings and observations of the learned Sessions Judge. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant is hereby set aside. The Appellant be released from jail custody and set at liberty forthwith. P.K. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed