Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. This appeal is preferred by a sole accused challenging his conviction under Section 304 (I) I.P.C. and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in S.C.No. 54 of 1997 by the Judgment dated 11.01.1999. 2. Theappellant faced the trial in the following backdrop: (a) The deceased was married to the appellant six years prior to the date of occurrence. Out of the wed-lock between the accused and the deceased, two children were born and died subsequently. The accused was leading happy married life with the deceased for two years. Thereafter, there were misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased and the accused was residing separately. When deceased scolded the accused for that the accused beat the deceased and kicked her. A panchayat was convened in the village and thereafter, the accused and the deceased were living together once again. The accused beat the deceased and she was driven away from the house. The deceased informed to the panchayat, when it was convened once again, that she is not willing to go to the house of the accused, her husband. Thereafter, the deceased was living with her mother, P.W.2 andgave a report against the accused to the Thiruppathur police station three months prior to the occurrence. (b) Onthe date of occurrence i.e. on 30.6.1996 at 3.00 p.m., the deceased along with P.W.2, her mother, P.W.3 and one Ramani, went to the rice mill and since there was no power supply at that time, P.W.2 sent the deceased along with P.W.3 and one Ramani to her house and she went to the house of P.W.4. Within few minutes she heard hue and cry of the deceased from the pathway to Kanavaikal. On hearing the same, P.W.2 ran to the scene with P.W.4 and the father of P.W.4. At that time, she found the deceased lying on the road and the accused was running with knife, M.O.1. Thereafter, P.W.2 went near the deceased and found her dead with injuries on her head, left hand and on several parts of the body. P.W.2 was simply sitting at the place of occurrence and P.W.3 and one Ramani went to inform the villagers about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.2 went near the deceased and found her dead with injuries on her head, left hand and on several parts of the body. P.W.2 was simply sitting at the place of occurrence and P.W.3 and one Ramani went to inform the villagers about the occurrence. (c) P.W.1, who is the Village Administrative Officer of Poongulam, has stated that on 30.6.1996 at 4.30 p.m. the accused came to his office with blood stained weapon, knife, and informed him that he has murdered his wife Mathammal at 4.00 p.m. Thereafter P.W.1 enquired the accused about the actual occurrence. It is further stated by P.W.1 that the accused stated to him that his wife was having illicit intimacy with one Thirupathi and the accused has also warned the deceased as a result of which, there was a quarrel between the said Thirupathi and the accused. P.W.1 also stated that the accused informed him on the date of occurrence that the deceased was coming along with P.W.3 and one Ramani and at that time one Janakan came near the deceased and while the accused also came near the deceased, the said Janakan ran away from the scene. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the accused further informed that on seeing the same, the accused provoked and cut the deceased indiscriminately. P.W.1 further stated that he has recorded the statement of the accused and obtained signature from the accused. P.W.1 also signed the statement given by the accused. Ex.P.1 is the statement of the accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 took the accused along with the statement, Ex.P.1 and knife, M.O.1, to the Alangayam police station and there he has given the statement, Ex.P.1, along with his report, Ex.P.2 to P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police at 6.00 p.m. (d) P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P.2, the report, registered the case in Crime No. 157 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.12 prepared the Express First Information Report and sent the same to the higher officials and Court. Ex.P.13 is the express First Information Report. He recovered M.O.1, knife, under Form 95. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence and taken photographs of the deceased through P.W.7, the photographer. He sent the message to the Inspector of Police. On 1.7.1996, he remanded the accused for judicial custody and sent the blood stained weapon, M.O.1 to the Court under Form 95. He recovered M.O.1, knife, under Form 95. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence and taken photographs of the deceased through P.W.7, the photographer. He sent the message to the Inspector of Police. On 1.7.1996, he remanded the accused for judicial custody and sent the blood stained weapon, M.O.1 to the Court under Form 95. (e) P.W.13, received the First Information Report on 1.7.1996 and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.14. He also prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.4. P.W.13 recovered M.O.2, blood stained earth, M.O.3, sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.5, Mahazar. Thereafter, he went to Vaniyampadi Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.15 is the Inquest Report. He also made arrangements for post-mortem. (f) P.W.11, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Vaniyampadi, as per the requisition, Ex.P.11, conducted post-mortem on 1.7.1996 at 12.30 noon. He found the following injuries: 1. Right forearm lacerated wound 7 × 5 × 5 cm. 2. Right upper arm in front 10 × 7 × 3 cm. 3. Scalp lacerated injury 5 × 3 × 3 cm. 4. Left upper arm 10 × 5 × 5 cm lacerated wound with bone exposed. 5. Left forearm lacerated wound 7 × 5 × 5 cm. 6. Left liparm lacerated wound 5 × 3 × 3 cm. 7. Left leg 15 × 5 × 5 cm. lacerated injury back of thigh 5 × 3 × 3 cm. 8. Below right knee 20 × 10 × 10 cm lacerated injury with bone exposed. 9. Left Buttocks 3 × 3 × 3 cm. lacerated wound. Ex.P.12 is the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased died due to multiple injuries with profused bleeding and shock. (g) P.W.13sent the Material Objects for chemical examination through the Court. Thereafter, he has examined P.W.11, the Doctor, by showing M.O.1, and recorded his statement. P.W.13 also examined the other witnesses including P.W.12 and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, P.W.13 filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. on 29.09.1996. 2. During the course of Trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13, filed Exs.P.1 to P.15 and marked M.Os.1 to 5. 3. P.W.13 also examined the other witnesses including P.W.12 and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, P.W.13 filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. on 29.09.1996. 2. During the course of Trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13, filed Exs.P.1 to P.15 and marked M.Os.1 to 5. 3. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him, the accused denied his complicity to the crime and stated that he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. V.Karthik, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has not proved its case by adducing clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. The learned counsel further contended that the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the eyewitness, P.W.3, who is a child eye-witness, which on the face of it, is unbelievable and unacceptable as her answers in the cross-examination clearly shows that she is not a witness for truth and she is a tutored witness. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.2, mother of the deceased has stated that she heard hue and cry of the deceased and thereafter rushed to the scene and found the accused running away with a knife and thereafter found the deceased lying with blood stained injuries. It is also contended by the learned for the appellant that P.W.2 stated before hearing the hue and cry of the deceased she went to the house of P.W.4 and thereafter on hearing the shouting she rushed to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.4 and the father of P.W.4. But P.W.4 has not whispered a word about the presence of P.W.2 and therefore the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is unbelievable and unacceptable. The learned counsel further contended that P.W.4, who claimed to have rushed the scene of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry, has simply stated that he has found the deceased lying dead and he has not stated anything about the accused. Further, as stated by P.W.2, she also saw the accused ran at that time with knife. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the evidences of both P.Ws.2 and 4 proved to be false. Further, as stated by P.W.2, she also saw the accused ran at that time with knife. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the evidences of both P.Ws.2 and 4 proved to be false. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended the no reliance is to be placed on the evidence of P.W.1, the a Village Administrative Officer, who claimed to have recorded the extra judicial confession of the accused. Since he is total stranger to the accused, it is unbelievable that the accused has reposed confident on such a person for giving the extra judicial confession. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.2 has categorically stated in her cross-examination that the police came to the scene on the date of occurrence and she has narrated about the occurrence and the same was recorded by the police. It is also further claimed that P.W.2 in that report affixed her thumb impression. But the prosecution has suppressed the report said to have given by P.W.2 which throws considerable doubt about the genesis and origin of the occurrence. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is absolutely no evidence available on record to show that P.Ws.1 and 3 were examined by the police on the date of occurrence. 5. Per contra, V.Arul, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing acceptable evidence. It is further contended by him that there is absolutely no material contradictions between the evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the version of P.W.3, the child witness is natural and her evidence is not shacked by the defence through its cross-examination. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that merely because of the material contradictions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3, her categorical version of witnessing the occurence cannot be disbelieved. The learned Government Advocate also contended that the evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.11. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the evidence of P.W.1 also convincing and his claim of recording the extra judicial confession from the accused cannot be disbelieved. The learned Government Advocate also contended that the evidence of P.W.3 is corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.11. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the evidence of P.W.1 also convincing and his claim of recording the extra judicial confession from the accused cannot be disbelieved. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1 not only stated about recording the extra judicial and obtaining signature from the accused, but also produced the accused alongwith the said extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1, and report, Ex.P.2, before the police and only thereafter, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and therefore evidence of P.W.1 cannot be brushed aside easily. 6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by both sides. 7. The perusal of the entire records shows that P.W.3 is a child eye-witness, who is claimed to be the eye-witness, in this case. P.Ws.2 and 4 stated to have reached the scene of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry and among them P.W.2 only claimed that she has also seen the accused at that time who was running with the knife, M.O.1. Yet another piece of material available on record implicating the accused, is the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1, said to have given by the accused to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer. At the outset, I find that the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is having much force. The learned counsel for the appellant also took me through the entire evidence of P.W.3, the child eye-witness, and pointed out several infirmities and the material contradictions elicited in the cross-examination. It is stated by P.W.3 that soon after the occurrence, she ran to her house and informed her father about the occurrence and her father also came to the scene subsequently. But the prosecution has not chosen to examine the father of P.W.3. It is also relevant to be noted that P.W.3 is also closely related to the deceased, as she is the brothers daughter of P.W.2, mother of the deceased. P.W.2, on the other hand, simply stated that after seeing the deceased lying dead she was sitting at the scene of occurrence and P.W.3., and one Ramani only went to the village to inform the villagers. P.W.2, on the other hand, simply stated that after seeing the deceased lying dead she was sitting at the scene of occurrence and P.W.3., and one Ramani only went to the village to inform the villagers. She has not whispered a word about P.W.3 going to her house to inform her father and thereafter P.W.3 returned to the scene alongwith her father. It is also highly improbable that the eye-witness P.W.3 has left the scene after the occurrence after seeing her close relative lying dead. The prosecution also failed to examine the said Ramani who is alleged to have accompanied along with the deceased and P.W.3 before the occurrence. If the version of prosecution is true that the said Ramani is not only eye-witness to the occurence but also the witness to speak about the entire events right from the deceased going to the rice mill along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and thereafter returning back from the rice mill to her house and on the way, the fateful occurrence said to have taken place. The non-examination of Ramani is fatal to the prosecution case. The answers given by P.W.3, the child eye-witness in the cross-examination clearly shows that she has not a truthful witness and she has been tutored witness. P.W.3 has categorically stated in her cross-examination that she was examined by the police on the date of occurrence at 6.00 p.m. But P.Ws.12 and 13, who went to the scene of occurrence have not whispered a word about examining P.W.3, on the day of occurrence. P.W.12 has merely stated that he went to the scene of occurrence and made arrangements to take photographs on the body of the deceased through P.W.7, the photographer, and thereafter he has sent message to the Inspector of Police. There is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution as to who reached the scene of occurrence at the earliest point of time and the prosecution has not chosen to examine any witness at the scene of occurrence. P.W.12 categorically stated in his cross-examination that on 30.6.1996, he has not examined P.Ws.2 and 3. It is also stated by P.W.13 about not examining neither P.W.12 nor P.Ws.2 and 4. Therefore, the statement of P.W.3 that she was examined by the police on the same day at 6.00 p.m. is unbelievable and unacceptable. P.W.12 categorically stated in his cross-examination that on 30.6.1996, he has not examined P.Ws.2 and 3. It is also stated by P.W.13 about not examining neither P.W.12 nor P.Ws.2 and 4. Therefore, the statement of P.W.3 that she was examined by the police on the same day at 6.00 p.m. is unbelievable and unacceptable. It is also relevant to be noted as per the admission of P.W.6, the Court Head Clerk, that the 161 statement of P.W.3, reached only on 1.7.1996 at 4.40 p.m. Further, the answers given by P.W.3 in her cross-examination clearly shows that she is a tutored witness. It is also relevant to be noted that at one stage she has stated in her cross-examination that the deceased used to stay at her house only and she will not go anywhere. But at the later portion of the cross-examination, she has admitted that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with one Janakan and used to visit the said Janakan frequently and sometimes she used to stay back during night time at the house of the Janakan. Further, she has stated in her cross-examination that she has not stated to the police that the deceased used to stay back at the house of Janakan itself during night time. But the evidence of P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, clearly shows that she has stated to the police during investigation that the deceased used to stay at the house of Janakan during night time. It is also further relevant to be noted that P.W.3 has stated in her cross-examination that she has not stated to the police that after grinding the rice at the rice mill, she has returned to the village along with one Ramani. But the evidence of P.W.13 clearly shows that she has stated so at the time of her examination. All these material contradictions elicited in the evidence of P.W.3 show that she is not a truthful witness. The fact remains that there is absolutely no corroboration for the version of the child witness, P.W.3. 8. But the evidence of P.W.13 clearly shows that she has stated so at the time of her examination. All these material contradictions elicited in the evidence of P.W.3 show that she is not a truthful witness. The fact remains that there is absolutely no corroboration for the version of the child witness, P.W.3. 8. The Honourable Supreme Court of India has held in respect of considering the evidence of a child witness of B.Bhika v. State of Gujarat AIR1971 SC 1064 that, “Even if there is no infirmity in the evidence of a young boy, it is desirable to seek corroboration of his evidence in view of his tender age.” In yet another decision the Apex Court has held in State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and another 2000 MLJ (Crl.) 572: AIR 2000 SC 1066 : 2000 SCC (Crl.) 579 that, “the evidence of the child witness must be evaluated carefully as a child may be swayed by what others tell him and is an easy prey to tutoring. Wisdom requires that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on” The above said proposition of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India is squarely applicable to the instant case in respect of the child eye-witness, P.W.3. The evidence of the child eye-witness P.W.3 not only suffers from serious infirmities but also there is absolutely no corroboration for her version. Added to such infirmities, it is also relevant to be noted that P.W.3 was not examined on the date of occurrence as admitted by P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police. But P.W.3 has categorically stated that she was examined by the police on the same day of occurrence at 6.00 p.m. and she was not examined on any other day. The evidence of P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of police, shows that he has never examined P.Ws.2 and 3. On the other hand, P.W.13 has also not stated in his evidence that he has examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Therefore, there is absolutely no definite version in respect of the date on which the material witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 have been examined by the police and this infirmity throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. On the other hand, P.W.13 has also not stated in his evidence that he has examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Therefore, there is absolutely no definite version in respect of the date on which the material witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 have been examined by the police and this infirmity throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is most unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of the child eye-witness, P.W.3, as her evidence not only suffers from serious infirmity but also not inspires the confidence of this Court. 9. The evidence of P.W.2, the mother of the deceased also, on the face of it, is unbelievable and unacceptable. P.W.2 has stated that she asked the deceased, P.W.3 and one Ramani to go to the village after they were visited the rice mill and due to current failure, she went to the house of P.W.4 and at that time she heard hue and cry and rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead and the accused was running with the knife. But P.W.4 has not whispered a word about P.W.2 visiting his house and also has not stated after hearing the hue and cry that P.W.2 also accompanied him to the scene of occurrence. It is also relevant to note that P.W.4 has not whispered a word about seeing the accused while running at that time with knife. If really P.W.2 went to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.4, P.W.4 could not have failed to mention P.W.2s presence. The version of P.W.2 also further falsified by the evidence of P.W.4, that if P.W.2 has seen the accused running with knife, P.W.4 also could have seen the accused very well. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 also proved false in this case. As far as P.W.4 is concerned, he has merely stated that after hearing the hue and cry, he went to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead and he has not implicated the accused in this case. Further P.W.12 categorically stated that he has not examined P.W.2 on the date of occurence on 30.6.1996 and he has also stated that he has not examined P.W.2 at any point of time. P.W.13 has also not stated that on what date he has examined P.W.2. Further P.W.12 categorically stated that he has not examined P.W.2 on the date of occurence on 30.6.1996 and he has also stated that he has not examined P.W.2 at any point of time. P.W.13 has also not stated that on what date he has examined P.W.2. Therefore, there is no definite version in respect of the date of examination of P.W.2 by the police and such infirmity also raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence P.W.2 is not a truthful witness. 10. Yet another piece of evidence adduced in this case is that the alleged extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer. The fact remains that P.W.1 has not closely known to the accused. It is well settled that the extra judicial confession itself is very weak piece of evidence and the same is to be scrutinized with great care and caution. It is highly improbable that the accused has reposed confidence on P.W.1 who is the Village Administrative Officer of that village to give such an extra judicial confession. P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he has not visited the scene of occurrence on 30.6.1996 itself. P.W.1 further claimed in his chief-examination that the accused appeared before him on 4.30 p.m. itself. But there is absolutely no explanation as to why he went to the police station admittedly only at 6.00 p.m. The fact remains that P.W.1 was not examined by the police on the date of occurrence viz., on 30.6.1996 and he was examined only on the next day on 1.7.1996 at 9.00 a.m. at the police station. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that the accused has stated about the occurrence within two minutes and it will take only half an hour to reach the police station through bus. It is also relevant to be noted that P.W.1 has not sent the message through his Assistant nor he has given any message over phone. Therefore, this delay assumes importance and raises a serious doubt about the genuineness of the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1. P.W.1 further stated in his chief examination that the accused also singed, Ex.P.1, extra judicial statement. But the perusal of the Ex.P.1 shows that only thumb impression of the accused was obtained. Therefore all these infirmities raise serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.P.1. P.W.1 further stated in his chief examination that the accused also singed, Ex.P.1, extra judicial statement. But the perusal of the Ex.P.1 shows that only thumb impression of the accused was obtained. Therefore all these infirmities raise serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.P.1. It is also relevant to be noted that the said extra judicial confession, Ex.P.1, not attested by anyone. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is unbelievable and unacceptable. 11. Apart from the infirmities, as stated above, the prosecution case also suffers from one more serious infirmity in this case. P.W.2 has categorically stated in her cross-examination that the police rushed the scene of occurrence on the same day evening at 7.00 p.m. and she has narrated about the occurrence to the police and the same was recorded by the police and the police obtained her signature in that report. P.W.2 also asserted that she gave the report to the police and thereafter the police came to her house next day. But this report said to have been given by P.W.2 to the police is now berked by the prosecution and there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution about the definite statement of P.W.2. There is no re-examination in respect of this aspect and this statement is not disputed by the prosecution. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Express F.I.R., Ex.P.13, was given to P.W.8, the police constable only at 7.00 p.m. in spite of the admission of P.W.12 that he has received the report, Ex.P.1, at 6.00 p.m. It is also further relevant to note that the F.I.R. reached the Magistrate Court, Thirupattur, only at 8.45 p.m. Therefore the delay in F.I.R. reaching Thiruppattur Court also shows that the report given by P.W.2 must have been suppressed by the prosecution. This important aspect throws considerable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and the entire prosecution case is to be rejected as false. 12. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this court left with no other alternative except the allow this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.