JUDGMENT Appellant-accused has filed the appeal against the judgment dated 8.3.2001 in S.T. No. 104/93 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Biaora District Rajgarh of his conviction and sentence under section 376 of the IPC for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous i mplisonment for 6 months. The prosecution case is that on 16.3.1993 at about 10 p.m. when Reshambai aged about 7 years was alone in her house, the accused committed the sexual intercourse with her. That the father of the prosecutrix saw the accused committing the rape. The FIR Ex. P-10 was lodged by Madanlal on next day on 17.3.1993 at about 3 p.m. That the prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination to Civil Hospital Biaora where Dr. Smt. Shashi Gupta (PW 3) has found the injury near her Majora and no definite opinion was given by her in her report Ex. P-3 about the commission of the rape. The Station House Officer K.K. Rajak (PW 11) recorded the FIR and after the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused under section 376. The accused has abjured the guilt and denied the prosecution story and pleaded false implication due to enmity. The accused has examined four witnesses in the defence. The appellant has assailed the conviction on the ground that the prosecutrix Reshambai (PW 10) was declared hostile-and the learned trial Court has erred in holding the accused guilty on the basis of her statement. Reshambai (PW 10) has stated that at about 9 p.m. when she was sleeping in her house, the accused came to her house and on her crying for help, her younger brother reached there and went to call her father. Reshambai (PW 10) has not stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused has committed the sexual intercourse with her. Reshambai (PW 10) was declared hostile by the prosecution. In her cross-examination she has admitted that the finger was inserted by the accused in her private part and thereafter the accused has committed the sexual intercourse with her. Reshambai (PW 10) is a child witness. Child witness is susceptible to tutoring. Reshambai (PW 10) has also admitted in para 13 of her cross-examination that she was tutored by the Government Pleader before giving the evidence in the Court. Reshambai (PW 10) is a child witness. Child witness is susceptible to tutoring. Reshambai (PW 10) has also admitted in para 13 of her cross-examination that she was tutored by the Government Pleader before giving the evidence in the Court. She has further admitted that she is unable to remember the incident. This witness has again categorically stated in her cross-examination by the accused that she is unable to say with certainty whether she was raped or not. Dr. Shashi Gupta (PW 3) who has examined her has also stated that it was not possible to opine about the commission of the rape with the prosecutrix. The accused has examined Dr. P.W. Sathe (DW 4) who has testified that he has gone through the medical report of the prosecutrix and probably the sexual intercourse was not committed with her. The prosecution has not produced the report of the chemical examination of under-garments of the accused or the prosecutrix regarding the presence of the blood or semen therein. The prosecution has not examined the material witness of the case i.e. the father of-Reshambai (PW 10) Madanlal who has alleged to have seen the incident. The explanation of the non-examination of the material witness is not provided by the prosecution. To base the conviction on the evidence of a child witness who was declared hostile and who has given the contradictory statement regarding the commission of the rape by the accused and who is not supported by the medical evidence will not be safe. The accused deserves the benefit of doubt. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Conviction and. sentence is set-aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence of rape and he be set at liberty forthwith.