Judgment :- 1. The Appellant, who is the sole Accused, has come forward with this Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil, by the judgment dated 5.4.2010 made in S.C.No.187 of 2004 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. (four counts) and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo one year’s Simple Imprisonment for each count and convicting him for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo seven years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently with a condition that the Accused shall undergo life imprisonment for not less than 20 years. The period of detention already undergone by the Accused during the trial or enquiry is also ordered to be set-off as per the provision under Section 428, Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are hereunder: (a) The Accused is the husband of the deceased Mary Sudha and father of the deceased – 5 year old male child Ani @ Anistus, 3 year old female child Anistal, Abish @ Sahaya Abish one year old male child. All the four deceased are hereinafter referred to as D1, D2, D3 and D4 respectively. (b) P.W.1 is the son of the first deceased, P.W.2, is the paternal uncle of D1. The mother of the Accused was selling kerosene in retail. The Accused family used to purchase kerosene from his mother. D1 has not paid the amount towards the purchase of kerosene from the mother of the Accused and as such, the Accused beat the first deceased. (c) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 23.8.2003 at 8.30 p.m., P.W.1 was in his grandmother’s house. The Accused came to the house of the grandmother of P.W.1 and called him. P.W.1 refused to come, but at the advise of his uncle one Jelestine, he accompanied with his father. At the house, he found his mother/D1 was weeping. On questioning, D1 informed him that as she has not paid the amount for the purchase of kerosene to the mother of the Accused, the Accused beat her. Thereafter, D1 was sleeping along with D2 to D4. P.W.1 went to the bed near D1 to D4. At the house, he found his mother/D1 was weeping. On questioning, D1 informed him that as she has not paid the amount for the purchase of kerosene to the mother of the Accused, the Accused beat her. Thereafter, D1 was sleeping along with D2 to D4. P.W.1 went to the bed near D1 to D4. At that time, the Accused brought a plastic can and poured kerosene on D1 to D4 and P.W.1 and thereafter, took a match box from his pocket and set fire on them. P.W.1, on sustaining burn injuries, climbed up on the window. D1 attempted to open the door, but she was prevented by the Accused and she was pushed down by the Accused. D1 pulled the Accused as a result, the Accused was also caught fire and sustained burn injuries on his stomach and leg. P.W.1 has also sustained burn injuries on his stomach and left leg, right leg, stomach and on his hands. (d) D1 sustained burn injuries throughout her body. All of them raised hue and cry. The neighbours rushed to the scene. Persons from the Church also reached the scene of occurrence. They knocked the doors of the house and ultimately broke open the same. P.W.2, paternal uncle of D1, also rushed to the scene and took the injured to Dr. Jeyasekaran Hospital. (e) The Doctor, P.W.6, attached to the Dr. Jeyasekaran Hospital, examined D1 at 12.15 mid night on 24.8.2003. D1 was brought by her brother one Vijayan. On the same day, at 12.05 mid night, the Doctor, P.W.6, examined Anistal/D3. P.W.1 was examined on the same day at 12.34 mid night by the Doctor, P.W.6 the Doctor, P.W.6 examined D4 at 12.35 mid night. At 12.36 mid night, D2 was examined by the Doctor P.W.6. The Accused was examined by the Doctor, P.W.6 at 4.50 a.m. on 24.8.2003 brought by his sister Selvi. (f) D3 died at 3.15 a.m. and D2 at 5.50 a.m. on 24.8.2003. D4 died on 27.8.2003 and D1 died on 31.8.2003. P.W.1 was discharged from the hospital on 4.9.2003. The Accused was discharged from the hospital on 18.9.2003. (g) The Doctor, P.W.6 sent intimation to the police and also sent the death intimation, Exs.P.6, 7, 9 and 10. (f) D3 died at 3.15 a.m. and D2 at 5.50 a.m. on 24.8.2003. D4 died on 27.8.2003 and D1 died on 31.8.2003. P.W.1 was discharged from the hospital on 4.9.2003. The Accused was discharged from the hospital on 18.9.2003. (g) The Doctor, P.W.6 sent intimation to the police and also sent the death intimation, Exs.P.6, 7, 9 and 10. Exs.P.8 and P.11 are the intimations sent by P.W.6 in respect of the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and the Accused respectively and Ex.P.13 is the Wound Certificated issued by him to the Accused. Ex P.13 is the Wound Certificate in respect of the Accused. (h) P.W.12, the Head Constable, on receipt of the intimation from the Jeyasekaran Hospital, went to the hospital and recorded the statement from D1 from 4.00 a.m. to 4.30 a.m. under Ex.P.20. He returned to the Police Station at 6.00 a.m. and registered the case in Crime No.278 of 2003 under Section 174, Cr.P.C. He sent Ex.P.21, the First Information Report, to the higher Police officials and to the Court. (i) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, received the First Information Report at 6.40 a.m. on 24.8.2003 and took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.22 in the presence of witnesses. He recovered a white colour kerosene can, M.O.I. and match box, M.O.2, from the scene in the presence of witnesses. He went to the Jeyasekaran Hospital and held inquest on the dead bodies of D2 and D3 on that day. Exs.P.23 and 24 are the Inquest Report in respect of D3 and D2 respectively. He held inquest on the dead body of D1 on 31.8.2003 and the Inquest Report is Ex.P.25. He sent the dead bodies for Post-mortem through Head Constables. (j) P.W.14, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He held inquest on the dead body of D4. Ex.P.27 is the Inquest Report in respect of D4. (k) The Doctor, P.W.7, attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, conducted Post-mortem on D3 on 24.8.2003 at 1.15 p.m. In the Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.P.15, the Doctor, stated that external burns seen all over the body except lower abdomen and 80% of skin peeled off. Ex.P.27 is the Inquest Report in respect of D4. (k) The Doctor, P.W.7, attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, conducted Post-mortem on D3 on 24.8.2003 at 1.15 p.m. In the Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.P.15, the Doctor, stated that external burns seen all over the body except lower abdomen and 80% of skin peeled off. She opined that the deceased (D3) would appear to have died of extensive burns 80% (l) On the same day the Doctor, P.W.7, conducted Post-mortem on D2 at 2.30 p.m. and issued Ex.P.14, Post-mortem Certificate, in which, it is stated that external burns seen all over the body and 90% of skin peeled off. It is opined by P.W.7, the Doctor, that the deceased (D2) would appear to have died of extensive burns 90%. (m) The Doctor, P.W.8, attached to the Kottar Government Hospital, conducted Postmortem on D4 on 27.8.2003 at 3.00 p.m and issued Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.P.17. In the Post-mortem Certificate, the Doctor, under the caption appearance stated that 95% burns of II degree present over face, neck, front of chest, abdomen, back both upper limb front and back of both thighs and legs, skin peeled off in the burnt areas with yellow discolouration. She is opined that the deceased would appear to have died of septicalmia due to burns. (n) P.W.9, Doctor, attached to the Kottar Government Hospital, conducted Post-mortem on D1 on 01.09.2003 at 11.40 a.m. and found the following injuries: External Injuries: burns present all over body except both legs and feet. Burnt areas covered with yellowish slough. 80% II burns. Internal Examination: Heart wt.300 gsm C/s. chambers empty. Lungs weight right 400 gms, left 350 gms c/s. pale Stomach empty; Liver, Spleen, Kidneys, C/s. pale. Uterus normal size, c/s. empty. Brain weight 1300 gms, c/s. pale. Ex.P.18 is the Post-mortem Certificate, in which, she opined that the deceased died of septicalmia due to extensive burns. (o) P.W.14, in continuation of his investigation, on verification, found that the statement of P.W.1 was contrary. On 16.10.2003, he examined P.W.s1 and 2. He sent the material objects for chemical examination. He sent the requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. from P.W.1. Again he examined P.W.1 on 2.1.2004 at the house of his grandmother. P.W.14 received the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, on 9.2.2004. He sent the material objects for chemical examination. He sent the requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. from P.W.1. Again he examined P.W.1 on 2.1.2004 at the house of his grandmother. P.W.14 received the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, on 9.2.2004. After obtaining Public Prosecutor’s opinion, on 19.1.2004, he altered the offence under Sections 302, and 307, I.P.C. Ex.P.26 is the altered Express First Information Report. On 20.1.2004, he examined P.W.1 and others. On 23.1.2004, he examined P.W.2 and others. On 27.1.2004, he examined the Doctor, P.W.6, and also the Doctors, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9. He arrested the Accused on 04.02.2004 at Marthandam. He recovered the kerosene can and match box with 13 sticks. Thereafter, he produced the Accused before the Court for remand. He received the Chemical Examination Report/Ex.P.28, Post-mortem Certificates, Exs.P.14, 15 17 and 18. On completion of investigation, he laid the charge-sheet against the Accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 14, filed Exs.P1 to P.28 and marked M.Os.1 and 2. 4. When the Accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has come forward with the version of total denial. He had not examined any witness or marked any documents on his side. 5.1 Mr. 4. When the Accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has come forward with the version of total denial. He had not examined any witness or marked any documents on his side. 5.1 Mr. P. Andiraj, learned Counsel for the Appellant, would vehemently contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions: (i) The motive put forward by the prosecution is too flimsy and far-fetched; (ii) The earliest version o the first deceased /wife of the Accused to the Doctor, P.W.6, is that she sustained burn injuries due to accidental fire and it is also mentioned in the Accident Register, Ex.P.6; (iii) The first deceased also categorically stated that while she was examined by P.W.12, Head Constable, under Ex.P.20 that the she sustained burn injuries due to accidental fire; (iv) The evidence of solitary eyewitness, P.W.1, suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies.P.W.1 is a child witness and he has come forward with four different versions, namely, (1) P.W.1 stated to P.W.13, Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation that he has not aware as to how the occurrence took place; (2) P.W.1 stated to the Investigating Officer, P.W.13, during the course of investigation on 9.9.2003 that the Accused poured petrol and set fire; (3) P.W.1, again, on his examination on 16.10.2003 by P.W.14, Investigating Officer, stated that the Accused poured petrol on them and left the house and came back with a match box and set fire; and (4) on 2.1.2004, the Judicial Magistrate, Kulithurai, recorded the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., under Ex.P.1 in which, he has simply stated that the Accused poured something from a can without specifying whether it was kerosene or petrol and set fire; (v) P.W.1 has not implicated the Accused while he was admitted in the hospital and he has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not even informed his uncle, Celestine, and another relative, Vijayan, while they came to the hospital to see him and P.W.1 implicated the Accused only long after the occurrence and as such, the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out; (vi) P.W.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he was taken to one reverent father accompanied by P.W.2, his grandfather, and at that time Police as well as an Advocate was also present and as such, even before recording the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. P.W.1 could have been tutored as per the materials available on record; (vii) P.W.1 was admittedly residing along with his grandparents and he has further admitted in his cross-examination that he was not in talking terms with his father and as such, it is very easy for P.W.2, grandfather and others to tutor him and therefore, it is most unsafe to place reliance on his evidence; (viii) The first deceased/wife of the Accused was alive for 8 days as she died only on 31.8.2003 and till such time, she has not implicated the Accused and her categorical version to the Doctor as per Ex.P.6 and to P.W.12, Head Constable, as per Ex.P.20, that the occurrence took place due to accidental fire while sleeping in the house. 5.2 The learned Counsel would also place reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (1) State of Bihar v. Kapil Singh, 1969 Cri. L.J.279; (2) State of U.P v. Ashok Dixit, 2000 SCC (Cri.) 579; and (3) Radhakrishnan v. State, 2001 (2) LW (cri.) 560. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is contended that the evidence of the child witness, P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased, is quite clear and natural and the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity. It is further contended that apart from the evidence of P.W.1, yet another strong incriminating circumstance available on record to implicate the Accused is that he was very much available inside, the house and after the occurrence, he has not opened the door and allowed the victims to go out of the house and as per the prosecution case the neighbours assembled and knocked the door and as it was not opened, they have break open the door and as such, it is very clear that the Accused is responsible for pouring Kerosene and setting fire on the deceased persons. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that though there are certain discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of P.W.1, the same would not affect the main case of the prosecution. 7. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. This is a very unfortunate case, wherein, lives of mother and three children have been snatched due to burn injuries. The Accused is none else than the husband of the first deceased and father of the other three deceased. 9. The core question involved in this matter is whether the Accused could be held liable for such an inhumane act and whether the occurrence took place accidentally or in the manner as alleged by the prosecution? 10. At the outset, it is to be stated that the first and foremost version came from the first deceased, viz., Mary Sudha, wife of the Accused, is that the occurrence took place due to the accidental fire while she was sleeping inside the house along with the children. 10. At the outset, it is to be stated that the first and foremost version came from the first deceased, viz., Mary Sudha, wife of the Accused, is that the occurrence took place due to the accidental fire while she was sleeping inside the house along with the children. It is pertinent to note that the first deceased has stated to the Doctor, P.W.6, during the course of her examination that the occurrence took place due to accidental fire. The Doctor, P.W.6, has also categorically stated so in his evidence as well as mentioned in the Accident Register, Ex.P.6, issued in respect of the first deceased. The Doctor, P.W.6, categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the first deceased, Mary Sudha, was conscious and she was in a talking condition at the time of her admission into the hospital. It is also admitted by the Doctor, P.W.6 in his cross-examination that one Vijayan who is the brother of the first deceased, accompanied with her, also stated that the occurrence took place due to accidental fire while sleeping inside the house. A perusal of Ex.P.6, Accident Register, would also reveal that it is specifically stated that the cause of sustaining bun injuries is due to accidental fire. It is pertinent to note that in the statement of the first deceased, Ex.P.20, she has not implicated the Accused and categorically stated that the occurrence took place due to accidental fire. Ex.P.20 was also attested by the father of the first deceased. It is seen that the first deceased died only on 31.8.2010 and till such time, she has not implicated the Accused and as we have already pointed out, even according to her own brother Vijayan, the occurrence took place due to accidental fire. P.W.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that his mother/the first deceased has not told him anything about as to how the occurrence took place. 11. Yet another important factor to be borne in mind by this Court is that the medical evidence through the Doctors, P.Ws.6,7,8 and 9, who have first examined the deceased persons as well as conducted Post-mortem, does not disclose the smell of kerosene on the bodies of anyone of the deceased persons. Added to such important factor, it is also pertinent to note that as per the evidence of the Mahazar Witness, P.W.3, a chimney light was also recovered by P.W.13, the Investigating Officer. Added to such important factor, it is also pertinent to note that as per the evidence of the Mahazar Witness, P.W.3, a chimney light was also recovered by P.W.13, the Investigating Officer. P.W.13 has also stated that a Kerosene Light was recovered from the scene house. It is also mentioned in the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2 that at the scene of occurrence, a Kerosene Light was found. Therefore, the possibility of accidental fire due to the fall of Chimney Kerosene Light cannot be ruled out in this case. 12. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the solitary child eye-witness, P.W.1. Before going to analyse, evaluate and assess the credibility and veracity of the version of the child witness, P.W.1, it is relevant to refer to the leading decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in respect of the reliability of the child eyewitness. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., 2003 (3) SCC 21 , has held as follows: “The law recognizes a child as a competent witness but a child particularly at such a tender age of six years, who is unable to form a proper opinion about the nature of the incident because of immaturity of understanding, is not considered by the Court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied upon without other corroborative evidence. The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the Court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony. … It is hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of the child witness which was not available immediately after the occurrence of the incident and before there was any possibility of coaching and tutoring him.” 14. In yet another decision in State of U.P v. Ashok Dixit, 2000 SCC (Cri.) 579, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder: “9. The 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 is an easy prey to tutoring. Wisdom requires that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on.” 15. The 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 is an easy prey to tutoring. Wisdom requires that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on.” 15. In State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji & Others, AIR 2009 SC 2144 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses a they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaken and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness.” 16.0. Now let us analyse, evaluate and assess the credibility and veracity of the version of the child witness, P.W.1, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra. 16.1. P.W.1 is none else than the son of the Accused and the first deceased. The fact remains even as per the admitted case of the prosecution P.W.1 was all along residing along with his grandfather, viz., P.W.2 and only on the fateful day of occurrence, it is alleged that the Accused brought P.W.1 to his house. As far as the evidence of P.W.1, it is to be stated, at the outset, that P.W.1 was examined by the police for the first time only after the death of the first deceased on 31.8.2003. P.W.1 was taking treatment in the hospital till 1.9.2003 and while he was in the hospital, he has not whispered a word implicating the Accused at any point of time to anyone of his relatives. P.W.1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he has not stated to his uncle on e Celestine and another relative one Vijayan when they came to see him at the hospital that the Accused poured kerosene and set fire on them. It is relevant to note that at the earliest point of time P.W.1 has not at all implicated the Accused and on the other hand, he has categorically stated that he is not aware as to how the occurrence took place. It is relevant to note that at the earliest point of time P.W.1 has not at all implicated the Accused and on the other hand, he has categorically stated that he is not aware as to how the occurrence took place. It is seen that the prosecution developed its version from stage to state through the child eyewitness, P.W.1. 16.2 The learned Counsel for the Appellant taken us meticulously through the entire evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of other witnesses and pointed out that P.W.1 has come forward with four different versions: (1) The first statement was recorded from P.W.1 on 31.8.2003 by P.W.13 and in the said statement, he has not whispered a word implicating the Accused and on the other hand, he has categorically stated that he is not aware as to how the occurrence took place as it is mentioned in Ex.P.2 6 altered First Information Report prepared by P.W.14, the Investigating Officer. (2) The second statement of P.W.1 was recorded by P.W.13 during the course of investigation on 9.9.2003 and at that time P.W.1 stated that the Accused poured petrol and set fire; (3) P.W.1 again on his examination on 16.1.2003 by P.W.14, Investigating Officer, stated that the Accused poured petrol on them and left the house and came back with a match box and set fire; and (4) On 2.1.2004, the Judicial Magistreate, Kulithurai, recorded the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. under Ex.P.1, in which, he has simply stated that the Accused poured something from a can without specifying whether it was kerosene or petrol and set fire. 16.3 P.W.2, grandfather of P.W.1, admitted in his cross-examination that after the discharge of P.W.1 on 1.9.2003, he asked about the occurrence from P.W.1 and at that time P.W.1 implicated the Accused. We are of the considered view that such version is on the face of it not only artificial but also unbelievable. It is also pertinent to note that even assuming that P.W.1 has implicated the Accused after 1.9.2003 to P.W.1, till P.W.1’s examination by P.W.14 on 9.9.2003 neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 disclosed about the involvement of the Accused to anyone. 16.4 Apart from the above said infirmities and inconsistencies found in the evidence of the solitary child eyewitness.P.W.1, the other materials available on record would make it crystal clear that the possibility of tutoring P.W.1 cannot be ruled out in this case. 16.4 Apart from the above said infirmities and inconsistencies found in the evidence of the solitary child eyewitness.P.W.1, the other materials available on record would make it crystal clear that the possibility of tutoring P.W.1 cannot be ruled out in this case. It is seen that P.W.2, the grandfather of P.W1, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that P.W.1 was taken by him to a reverent father and on information given by the reverent father- Police also came there. There is absolutely no explanation from P.W.2 has to why he has taken P.W.1 to a reverent father and also there is absolutely no explanation as to why police officials have been called to the place of reverent father. 16.5 It is also relevant to note that even at the time of recording the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, P.W.2 categorically admitted that the police was present outside the Court as well as one Advocate was present at that time. 16.6 All these factors would reveal that the possibility of tutoring the child eyewitness, P.W.1, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, the child eyewitness, not only suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies as he has come forward with four different versions at four different stages, but also there are overwhelming materials available on record, as pointed out by us earlier, to the effect that the possibility of tutoring of the child eyewitness, P.W.1 cannot be ruled out. 17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor mainly contended that though certain discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of P.W.1, the incriminating circumstance against the Accused is that at the time of occurrence the doors were bolted inside and the Accused inspite of knocking the doors has not opened the same and P.W.2 and others break open the doors and there is absolutely no explanation from the Accused for such an incriminating circumstance available against him. We are unable to countenance with the said contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the simple reason that in the instant case, the Accused also sustained injuries. It is seen from the medical evidence that the Doctor, P.W.6, has stated that the Accused was admitted on 24.8.2003 at 4.50 a.m., and he had sustained 25% of burn injuries. We are unable to countenance with the said contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the simple reason that in the instant case, the Accused also sustained injuries. It is seen from the medical evidence that the Doctor, P.W.6, has stated that the Accused was admitted on 24.8.2003 at 4.50 a.m., and he had sustained 25% of burn injuries. A perusal of Ex.P.13, Wound Certificate, issued by the Doctor, P.W.6, in respect of the Accused reveals that the Accused was discharged only 18.9.2003. It is seen from the said Wound Certificate, Ex.P.13 that the injury sustained by the Accused is grievous. It is also admitted version of the prosecution that even P.W.1 escaped from the occurrence with burn injuries as he has stated that he climbed up on the window and he was standing there. The fact remains as per the prosecution case, on hearing the hue and cry, P.W.2 and others rushed to the scene immediately and they break open the doors within a short span of time and as such, it is crystal clear that the Accused could not have been in a position to come out from the flames immediately for opening the doors. It is also seen that P.W.1, who was aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence, has also not made any attempt to come and open the door at the time of P.W.2 and others knocking the door. If really the Accused deliberately prevented P.W.1 or declined to open the doors at the time of occurrence, nothing prevented P.W.1 or the first deceased to disclose the same immediately to their kith and kin or atleast P.W.2, who is the grandfather of P.W.1. In view of all these factors, we are of the considered view that merely because the Accused present inside the house at the time of occurrence and the doors were bolted inside, the Accused cannot be mulcted with the liability of causing the burn injuries to the deceased persons. 18. In view of all these factors, we are of the considered view that merely because the Accused present inside the house at the time of occurrence and the doors were bolted inside, the Accused cannot be mulcted with the liability of causing the burn injuries to the deceased persons. 18. As we have already pointed out, in this case, the prosecution has come forward with two versions, viz., the first version through the first deceased as per Ex.P.6 and as per Ex.P.20, that the occurrence took place due to accidental fire and the second version, by placing reliance on the belated version of the child eyewitness, P.W.1, to the effect that the occurrence took place only at the instance of the Accused by pouring kerosene on the deceased persons and setting fire. In view of the reasons assigned by us earlier, we cannot brush aside the first and foremost version of the first deceased to the effect that the occurrence took place de to accidental fire which is more probable and the same is strengthened by the overwhelming materials available on record as pointed out by us earlier. As far as the second version is concerned, the prosecution mainly placed reliance on the solitary testimony of child eyewitness, P.W.1 and we have pointed out serious infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.1. In view of the same, we are of the considered view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the sole testimony of child eyewitness, P.W.1. 19. In view of the above said infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.187 of 2004 dated 5.4.2010 are hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the Appellant.