CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. by the appellant against his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Guna at Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No. 161/1986 vide its judgment dated on 20. 7. 1987. ( 2 ) IT is not disputed that Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10) was daughter of one Prembai, who was kept as concubine by the appellant. Appellant was a widower and Ku. Amar (PW 7) was his daughter from first wife. The said Prembai was in the house of the appellant on the night intervening between 7th and 8th of June, 1986. One Dallu (PW 4) at the instance of appellant informed the police about the death of the said Prembai on 8. 6. 1986. The information so given by the said Dallu (PW 4) was recorded in Police Station, Ashoknagar, District Guna and is Ex. P4. On receiving that information police went to the spot. After reaching the spot a memo of the dead-body was prepared by the police (Ext. P2) and thereafter it was sent for post-mortem to Ashoknagar Hospital where autopsy was conducted by Dr. D. K. Jam (PW 3), whose report was Ex. P3. The dead-body of the deceased Prembai had several ante-mortem injuries which ultimately resulted in her death. The appellant was arrested by the concerning police on 10th of June, 1986. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION story in brief is that on 7th June, 1986, the deceased Prembai had taken some money from the appellant for purchasing some goods and had gone to Ashoknagar for it. On her return back in the evening as she came back empty handed the appellant asked her as to where was the money which he had given. On her reply that it has been lost the appellant got annoyed and assaul-ted her with stick, axe and stone causing various injuries which ultimately resulted in her death. Next day, the appellant himself called Dallu (PW 4) and through him sent information to the police. After his arrest the appellant informed the police about axe, stick and stone used by him and they were also recovered by the police at his instance. Next day, the appellant himself called Dallu (PW 4) and through him sent information to the police. After his arrest the appellant informed the police about axe, stick and stone used by him and they were also recovered by the police at his instance. ( 4 ) AFTER investigation, the police was satisfied that it was the appellant, who had committed murder of Prembai in the night. Therefore, a challan was submitted against the appellant and thereafter the appellant was tried for committing murder of the said Prembai, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar. The appellant had pleaded not guilty. In the trial prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses including the said Dallu (PW 4), Dr. D. K. Jam (PW 3), appellants brother Mahendrasingh (PW 6), appellants daughter Ku. Amar (PW 7), the daughter of deceased namely, Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10), one neighbour of appellant namely Amarjeet (PW 5) and the Investigating Officer. A witness namely, Ajeetsingh (DW 1) was produced in defence. After taking all that evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, hereafter referred to as the trial Judge pronounced its impugned judgment on 20. 7. 1987, holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded impugned sentence of life imprisonment to him. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the finding about his guilt and consequential sentence, by the learned trial Judge, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. According to the submissions made on his behalf the deceased had returned back to his house on the ill-fated evening with all the injuries which were later on found at her body by the medical expert and she succumbed to those injuries in the right and it was the appellant himself who had sent the information to the police. According to the appellant before the deceased had come to him, she had a husband called Manaksingh, who lived in Ashoknagar where the deceased had gone before that day. Probably, the deceased was assaulted and injured by that Manaksingh in Ashoknagar after she had gone to meet him at Ashoknagar. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the guilt of the appellant was not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution and, therefore, the appellant was entitled for acquittal. Thus, he prayed for acquittal of the appellant. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the guilt of the appellant was not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution and, therefore, the appellant was entitled for acquittal. Thus, he prayed for acquittal of the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly supported the findings and judgment pronounced by the learned trial Judge. ( 6 ) THE arguments of both the sides are heard at length and the record is perused. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that the deceased had received several ante-mortem injuries and had died because of those injuries. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the record, it is found that Ku. Amar (PW 7) and Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10), both child witnesses were produced by the prosecution in its evidence as eye-witnesses while Ku. Amar (PW 7) has not supported the prosecution story. Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10) has stated in her examination-in-chief that the deceased was assaulted with sword, axe and stick by the appellant. She has also stated that the appellant had tied the hands and legs of the deceased and had put a rope in her neck and because of beating by appellant Prembai (deceased) had died. She states that it all happened in her presence and in the presence of his brother Mahendrapal. But that Mahendrapal has not been examined by the prosecution. As per the testimony of Medical Expert Dr. D. K. Jam (PW3), more than 31 injuries were found on the body of the deceased but while describing those injuries he has not described any injury which could be considered as having been caused by axe or sword. On the other hand, in his cross-examination he has specifically said that all the external injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by some hard and blunt object like stone and stick etc. Thus, the testimony of said child witness Ku. Harbhajan was not corroborated in that respect by the medical evidence. This child witness Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10) has also stated about the nands and legs of the deceased having been tied by the appellant and that she was hanged by neck with a palm rope. But all this also was not fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Harbhajan was not corroborated in that respect by the medical evidence. This child witness Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10) has also stated about the nands and legs of the deceased having been tied by the appellant and that she was hanged by neck with a palm rope. But all this also was not fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In her cross-examination, she also speaks that the appellant had given atleast 15-20 blows of a sword with its sharp side. But as already seen none of the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be attributed to the sharp side of the sword. She also fails to give any reason for which the deceased was beaten by the appellant and in that respect, there was even inconsistency between her statement recorded by the police during investigation (Ex. D2) and her testimony given in Court. There were other inconsistencies also between her testimony and her earlier statement recorded by the police during investigation like, in her earlier statement so recorded by the police she has stated nothing about any rope being tied or the deceased being hanged. In her testimony this child witness Ku. Harbhajan (PW 10) mentions that she was daughter of Manaksingh and was living at Guna. In her cross-examination she also admits that because the deceased had started living with the appellant her father and her relatives were annoyed with her and that on the day before her death the deceased had come to Ashoknagar and had stayed there in the night. She also admits that the other child witness Amar (PW 7) had also come with the deceased. ( 8 ) WITNESS Ku. Amar (PW 7) has on the other hand stated that none had come with the deceased to the house of her father which means that witness namely Harbhajan had never been to the house of appellant and had given false statement in the Court. She also states that she had accompanied the deceased to the house of Manak (husband of deceased) and there Manak had badly assaulted the deceased. In her cross examination she further clarifies that she had heard for almost an hour the cries of the deceased when the deceased was with Manak at the house of later. She has categorically stated that the appellant had not assaulted the deceased. In her cross examination she further clarifies that she had heard for almost an hour the cries of the deceased when the deceased was with Manak at the house of later. She has categorically stated that the appellant had not assaulted the deceased. She has not been declared hostile by the prosecution though, she was appellants own daugh-ter. Another witness of prosecution namely, Govind (PW 2) has also stated that on the day just earlier to the day he came to know about the death of deceased. He had met the deceased on way from Imla to Govindpur. He also states that he was coming from Imla to Govindpur on a tractor when on a way he had met Prembai with the child Amar and, had brought both of them to Govindpur and at that time the condition of deceased was not good and she had stated that she was unable to walk. This witness Govind (PW 2) has also not been declared as hostile and thus, his testimony corroborates the testimony of prosecution witness Ku. Amar and if both of them were speaking truth, the prosecution story about appellant having assaulted the deceased just prior to her death gets falsified and the testimony of prosecution child witness Ku. Harbhajan also becomes unreliable. ( 9 ) OTHERWISE also as already seen, this witness Harbhajan (PW 10) was a child aged only 10 years and daughter of Manaksingh, who himself according to the said child witness Harbhajan, had beaten the deceased and this Harbhajan was living with that Manaksingh and there were many material inconsis-tencies between her testimony in Court and her previous statement recorded by the police, during investigation. There-fore, also the testimony of Harbhajan (PW 10) fails to inspire confidence. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the prosecution has also examined appellants neighbour, namely Amarjeetsingh (PW 5) who has averred that on a day in June, 1986 he had heard some shouts from the house of appellant and thereafter he saw the deceased coming out of the house of the appellant and being followed by appellant. He also states that the deceased fell on the ground and thereafter was dragged by the appellant back to his house and after that again he heard cries of the deceased from the house of the appellant for about 1-1/2 hour and in the morning he came to know that Prembai had died. He also states that the deceased fell on the ground and thereafter was dragged by the appellant back to his house and after that again he heard cries of the deceased from the house of the appellant for about 1-1/2 hour and in the morning he came to know that Prembai had died. But this witness Amarjeetsingh (PW 5) was on inimical terms with appellant as per the testimony of prosecution own witness Govind (PW 2 ). This witness Govind (PW 2) as per his statement in cross-examination was none other than the driver of a tractor of that Amarjeet Singh and thus his own employee. Therefore, it cannot be believed that this prosecution witness Govind (PW 2) was speaking lie in this respect. Though Amarjeet (PW 5) has in his cross- examination denied about having any enmity with the appellant, but in view of the testimony of Govind (PW 2), he cannot be relied upon in this respect and considering his denial in this respect a suspicion about reliability of his evidence against appellant does arise. This witness Amarjeet (PW 5), as already seen, in his testimony before the Court has stated that he heard a shout from the house of the appellant and immediately thereafter saw the deceased coming out of the house followed by the appellant and being dragged back to his house by the appellant. But in his earlier statement (Ex. Dl) recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. he has not stated anything like that. On the other hand, in his said earlier statement, he has only stated that he heard the sound of cries from the house of the appellant and when he went to his roof he found that the appellant was beating the deceased with stick and two children were standing nearby crying. However, in his testimony before the Court he does not state so. He does not say that he has seen the appellant beating the deceased and the two child standing nearby. In his testimony in the Court he only states that after the deceased was dragged back to his house by the appellant he kept on hearing cries of the deceased for almost 1-1/2 hours. In his testimony he does not say that from the roof of his house he had seen the appellant beating the deceased. In his testimony in the Court he only states that after the deceased was dragged back to his house by the appellant he kept on hearing cries of the deceased for almost 1-1/2 hours. In his testimony he does not say that from the roof of his house he had seen the appellant beating the deceased. Therefore, in view of these discrepancies between his earlier statement and the testimony in Court also he could not be believed. ( 11 ) BESIDES the said two child witnesses namely Harbhajan (PW 10) and Amar (PW 7), as per the testimony of R. S. Tiwari (PW 11) the Investigating Officer, the appellant had himself led to the discovery of stick, axe, scissor, and rope. In view of the medical evidence Kulhari or scissor could not be related to the injuries found on the body of the deceased and, therefore, recovery of such articles at the instance of appellant as used in the incident could also not be relied upon. Moreover, the testimony of prosecutions own witness Amar (PW 7), though a child witness and daughter of appellant himself but as she has not been declared hostile and, therefore, reliable, falsifies the story of the prosecution itself. ( 12 ) OTHERWISE also as already seen, prosecution witness Harbhajan (PW 10), who was another child and Amarjeet Singh were the only two prosecution-witnesses who had involved the appellant in their testimony with the death of the deceased and their testimonies were unreliable. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the finding of the learned Trial Court in this respect cannot be upheld. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond doubt. It is accordingly held. The appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. .