JUDGMENT [Per: Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.] A complaint (Ext. Ka-2) was filed by Kulwant Singh son of Richhpal Singh village Aamkhera Makroi, P.S. Baheri, district Bareilly in P.S. Lalkuan on 15.08.2000 at 7:30 pm. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3) was registered as crime no. 268 of 2000 for the offences punishable under sections 364, 307 and 34 IPC. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 10.08.2000 at 7:30 pm. 2. The distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station was six kilometers, whereas FIR was lodged after five days of the incidence. It appears that FIR is delayed. We will have to examine on the basis of evidence on record whether delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the complainant or not? 3. Prosecution story as per FIR was that Daljeet Kaur was married to Sarvjeet Singh son of Darshan Singh resident of Guru Farm. Sarvjeet Singh was murdered about two years before the present incident. Since then accused Harjinder Singh and Tarsem Singh, both brothers of Sarvjeet Singh along with accused Subeg Singh put pressure on Daljeet Kaur to relinquish her claim over land of Sarvjeet Singh. On 10.08.2000 when Daljeet Kaur was coming from Utlarosia Farm to her residence along with her servant Nauniram at about 7:30 pm, accused Tarsem Singh, Harjlnder Singh and Subeg Singh, who were armed with swords attacked Nauniram with intention to commit murder of Nauniram. Nauniram caught hold of swords, defended himself with his hands. As a consequence thereof, his fingers were injured. On hearing cries Satnam Singh alias Sonu (son of victim) came out of his house and saw that his mother Daljeet Kaur was being dragged by the accused persons and they (accused) took her along with them. Nauniram ran away to his home in order to save his life. He did not know where Daljeet Kaur was taken away by the accused persons. The incident was narrated to informant Kulwant Singh by Satnam Singh alias Sonu. Thereafter, Nauniram was brought from his village. Kulwant Singh lodged report against the accused persons regarding abduction of Daljeet Kaur and attempt to her murder. The informant Kulwant Singh apprehended that his sister was abducted with intention to kill her, in furtherance of common intention of accused persons. 4. During the investigation when arrest of prime accused Harjinder Singh was affected, a patal (material Ext. Kulwant Singh lodged report against the accused persons regarding abduction of Daljeet Kaur and attempt to her murder. The informant Kulwant Singh apprehended that his sister was abducted with intention to kill her, in furtherance of common intention of accused persons. 4. During the investigation when arrest of prime accused Harjinder Singh was affected, a patal (material Ext. -I) used in the commission of crime along with clothes salwar, kurta, chunni and diary (material Exts. II, III, IV and V) were recovered on pointing out of Harjinder Singh on 23.08.2000. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared which bore signatures of Harjinder Singh. Nauniram, Satnam Singh and Kulwant Singh were the other witnesses of recovery memo. After completing investigation charge sheet (Ext. ka-7) was submitted against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307 & 201 IPC read with section 34 IPC. When the proceeding commenced before the trial court, charges for the offences punishable under sections 302/34,307/34 and 201 IPC were framed against accused appellants Harjinder Singh, Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined PW 1 Nauniram, PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu, PW 3 Kulwant Singh, PW 4 Head Constable Mahesh Pal Singh and PW5 SO, P.S. Lalkuan Annat Ram. When prosecution evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., they said that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. In defense, documentary evidence was produced viz., certified copy of charge-sheet in crime no. 1126 of 1998 showing Daljeet Kaur as an accused (Ext. Kha-1); certified copy of report of Police outpost Pant Nagar on the summons issued to Daljeet Kaur and Preetam Kaur in Sessions Trial No. 394 of 2001 pending before Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Ext. Kha-2). One more document (agreement deed) was also filed in defence to show that Daljeet Kaur intended to dispose of part of her property in April, 1999. After conclusion of the trial, accused appellants Harjinder Singh, Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh were acquitted of the charge under section 307/34 IPC but all of three were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and under section 201 IPC. Each of the convicts was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. After conclusion of the trial, accused appellants Harjinder Singh, Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh were acquitted of the charge under section 307/34 IPC but all of three were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and under section 201 IPC. Each of the convicts was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which they were directed to undergo six months under section 302 read with 34 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which three months’ rigorous imprisonment under section 201 IPC. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment/order, present appeal is preferred. 5. PW 1 Nauniram did not support prosecution story and hence he was declared hostile. He was permitted to be cross-examined by learned DGC (Criminal). While being cross-examined on behalf of the appellants, PW 1 Nauniram said that Sarvjeet Singh has died. Daljeet Kaur was widow of Sarvjeet Singh. Sarvjeet Singh and accused persons were brothers. All the brothers used to cultivate their fields jointly when Sarvjeet was alive. 6. PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu was the child witness aged 12 years when he deposed before the learned trial court. While deposing before the court, he said that accused Harjinder Singh and Tarsem Singh were his uncles. When this incident took place this child witness used to live with his mother Daljeet Kaur in Guru Farm within the jurisdiction of P.S. Lalkuan. On the fateful day at about 7:30 pm this child witness saw his mother Daljeet Kaur coming with Nauniram to her home. Appellants Harjinder Singh, Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh were armed with swords and darat (a sharp edged weapon). They attacked Nauniram and dragged Daljeet Kaur to a Jeep. Learned trial court observed that while making the statement child witness broke down and started weeping (while narrating the story). PW 2 Satnam Singh also said that he went to house of neighbour Bhuwan to hide himself. He was under fear. After 4-5 days when his maternal uncle Kulwant Singh came, he told entire story to him. It is to be noted here that Kulwant Singh appeared as PW 3 before the trial court. PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu and PW 3 Kulwant Singh made an attempt to search Daljeet Kaur and went to Nauniram. They went to Police thereafter. After 4-5 days when his maternal uncle Kulwant Singh came, he told entire story to him. It is to be noted here that Kulwant Singh appeared as PW 3 before the trial court. PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu and PW 3 Kulwant Singh made an attempt to search Daljeet Kaur and went to Nauniram. They went to Police thereafter. Police affected arrest of accused appellant Harjinder Singh who confessed before the Police that they had thrown dead body of Daljeet Kaur in Gola river. A darat (sharp edged weapon), clothes of Daljeet Kaur and her diary were recovered on pointing of appellant Harjinder Singh. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared to this effect. 7. PW3 Kulwant Singh was complainant at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion. He supported the prosecution story and proved complaint (Ext. Ka-2) on the basis of which chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3) was lodged at Police Station Lalkuan on 15.08.2000 at 7:30 pm. The incident took place on 10.08.2000 at 7:30 pm. According to PW 3 Kulwant Singh, Sarvjeet Singh (husband of Daljeet Kaur) was murdered earlier. Since Daljeet Kaur wanted to dispose of her land therefore, accused appellants Tarsem Singh and Harjinder Singh got annoyed with Daljeet Kaur and demanded Rs. 5 lacs from her. On 15.08.2000 when this witness came to his sister’s house, he did not find anyone there. PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu came to him with tears in his eyes. He told him about the entire incident of 10.08.2000 that Daljeet Kaur and Nauniram were attacked by accused-appellants. Daljeet Kaur was dragged by appellants and they took her away in a Jeep. When arrest of the appellant Harjinder Singh was affected, he confessed before the Police that Daljeet Kaur was killed by him and her dead body was thrown into Gola river after cutting the same into pieces. On disclosure by appellant Harjinder Singh, clothes of deceased, her diary and sharp edged weapon which was used in commission of crime were recovered by Police. PW 3 Kulwant Singh proved his signatures on recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 and also identified material Exts. II, III and IV (salwar, kurta, chunni and diary of the deceased). 8. PW 4 Head Constable Mahesh Pal Singh was a formal witness who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3) and entries of the same in GD (Ext. Ka-4). 9. PW 3 Kulwant Singh proved his signatures on recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 and also identified material Exts. II, III and IV (salwar, kurta, chunni and diary of the deceased). 8. PW 4 Head Constable Mahesh Pal Singh was a formal witness who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3) and entries of the same in GD (Ext. Ka-4). 9. PW 5 Anantram Singh was posted as S.O., Police Station Lalkuan on 15.08.2000. He initiated investigation of the case, took statements of the witnesses, visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan, entered the same in the case diary and proved the same as Ext. Ka-5. On 23.08.2000 he received an information through informer that accused appellant Harjinder Singh was standing on a cross road near Gumti diversion. Investigating Officer approached accused appellant Harjinder Singh and affected his arrest at 1 :40 pm. Harjinder Singh confessed before the Police that he along with his brothers (appellants) killed Daljeet Kaur on 10.O8.2000 at 7:30 pm. Subeg Singh tried to inflict blow of patal on Daljeet Kaur but patal hit Nauniram. Thereafter, Daljeet Kaur was killed with the help of her chunni (dupatta) which was encircled around her neck. According to Investigating Officer accused Harjinder Singh confessed his guilt and desired to get patal (a sharp edged weapon) recovered. When they approached the place on the pointing and disclosure of accused Harjinder Singh, incriminating article was recovered at the instance of Harjinder Singh. Clothes of deceased and a diary in the pocket of kurta of deceased was also recovered. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared. Investigating Officer also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-6), took statements of Kulwant Singh, Satnam Singh, Nauniram and Gurjeet Singh, SI Nanhe Lal and submitted charge- sheet (Ext. Ka-7) after completing investigation. A certified copy of statement of Nauniram (Ext. Ka-8) during investigation was also filed. The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of Nauniram and Satnam Singh alias Sonu were also got recorded by the Magistrate. (when Nauniram appeared in the court, he did not support prosecution story. Child witness Satnam Singh alias Sonu supported the same). 10. In cross-examination, PW5 Anantram Singh admitted that wearing apparels of victim and patal were recovered along with diary but undershirt (shamij), underwear; shoes, chappal, bra of victim were not found. Accused Harjinder Singh pointed out the place where clothes of deceased were kept by him. Child witness Satnam Singh alias Sonu supported the same). 10. In cross-examination, PW5 Anantram Singh admitted that wearing apparels of victim and patal were recovered along with diary but undershirt (shamij), underwear; shoes, chappal, bra of victim were not found. Accused Harjinder Singh pointed out the place where clothes of deceased were kept by him. Nauniram and Satnam Singh alias Sonu identified those clothes when they reached near that place. Accused Harjinder Singh did not take out clothes of deceased and patal from the bushes himself but only pointed out to the Police where those were hidden. No public witness was present there. No mention was done in the recovery memo or case diary regarding efforts to take public witness. He also admitted that there was no bloodstain on material exhibits salwar, shameej, chunni (Material Exts II, III, and IV). The clothes were not torn. Only patal was sent to FSL and no clothes. Investigating Officer also admitted that there was a barrier of forest department and there were fields of Maniram and Navin around place of occurrence. People had access to the place where clothes of deceased were recovered. Accused Harjinder Singh disclosed the Investigating Officer that he took dead body of Daljeet Kaur to Gola river on 11.08.2000 at 5 pm. Initially, dead body was kept intact at the place where she was killed. There was a house of Ramesh Chandra Joshi adjoining the house of Daljeet Kaur and the accused persons. When Satnam Singh alias Sonu got frightened, he hid himself in the house of Bhuwan Chandra Joshi which was situated at a distance of 10 to 12 paces. Investigating Officer did not take statements of Bhuwan Chandra, his mother and Ramesh Chandra Joshi during investigation. He admitted that there was a dharmshala (guest house) near houses of Daljeet Kaur and accused persons, but did not take statements of chowkidar. Crux of evidence tendered by 10 was that he submitted charge-sheet on the basis of testimony of Nauniram, Satnam Singh alias Sonu and recovery of incriminating article on pointing of prime accused Harjinder Singh. 11. IO further admitted that Sonu did not disclose him that Harjinder Singh and Tarsem Singh were having swords and they inflicted blows of swords and patal on Daljeet Kaur. Satnam Singh alias Sonu did not disclose that a blow of sword was inflicted on Nauniram. 11. IO further admitted that Sonu did not disclose him that Harjinder Singh and Tarsem Singh were having swords and they inflicted blows of swords and patal on Daljeet Kaur. Satnam Singh alias Sonu did not disclose that a blow of sword was inflicted on Nauniram. Instead, it was done with patal (a sharp edged weapon). 12. Learned AGA informed this Court on 15.12.2011 that appellant Harjinder Singh died on 07.10.2010 and therefore this Court has already passed an order to the effect that appeal by Harjinder Singh being Crl. Appeal No. 309 of 2002 stood abated. Discussing evidence as against Harjinder Singh would therefore, be a futile exercise. 13. So far as the participation of appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh was concerned, let us revisit the evidence which was offered on behalf of the prosecution against them. 14. In FIR Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh were assigned the role of committing attempt to murder of Nauniram. It was mentioned therein that Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh were having swords and they inflicted blows on Nauniram. Nauniram caught hold of sword and in the process sustained injuries in his hands but the irony is that PW 1 Nauniram did not support the prosecution story. He admitted while being cross- examined by DGC (criminal) that he was medically examined after 4-5 days of this incident but medical report of Nauniram was not adduced in evidence. Nauniram did not lodge FIR. Informant was Kulwant Singh, who was not present on the spot. It was PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu who informed Kulwant Singh about the incident and thereafter said Kulwant Singh set the criminal law into motion on 15.08.2000 i.e. after five days of the incident. 15. PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu was a child witness when his evidence was recorded before the trial court. There is deviation in FIR and oral evidence of PW2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu. In oral testimony this child witness said that Harjinder Singh and Tarsem Singh were having swords and Subeg Singh was having darat. Blow of sword was inflicted on Nauniram, accused appellants dragged her mother and took her away in jeep. In FIR there was no reference of darat, Investigating Officer evidenced that a patal was recovered at the instance of Harjinder Singh. He did not say anything about the recovery from appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh. Blow of sword was inflicted on Nauniram, accused appellants dragged her mother and took her away in jeep. In FIR there was no reference of darat, Investigating Officer evidenced that a patal was recovered at the instance of Harjinder Singh. He did not say anything about the recovery from appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh. IO said that Bhuwan’s residence where this child witness kept himself confined for five days, was at a distance of few paces from residence of Daljeet Kaur but the child witness did not disclose the incident to anybody for 4-5 days. Why did he not disclose about the abduction of his mother to Bhuwan, a man in whose home he confided himsetf is difficult to accept? When this child witness kept himself concealed out of fear in house of Bhuwan, it was obvious that he must have disclosed his fear to Bhuwan. Why did he keep mum for 4-5 days? It is very difficult to comprehend the arguments of learned AGA that PW 2 Satnam Singh was so frightened that he could not muster courage to speak to anybody. We are unable to accept this contention. This child witness kept himself confined within a few paces of his own house i.e. with one of his neighbour Bhuwan yet he maintained silence. It appeared that Bhuwan was a man of his confidence and that is why he took shelter in his home. Bhuwan himself did not come forward to adduce evidence. Did he ask Satnam Singh why was he not going to his residence? Where was his mother? Bhuwan must have offered this child witness two square meals. Wherefrom he managed his clothes for 4-5 days? We are unable to accept that Bhuwan did not ask Satnam alias Sonu anything and he did not divulge anything to Bhuwan or his family members. It was only after 4-5 days when his maternal uncle Kulwant Singh came that he divulged details of crime to him. 16. Wherefrom he managed his clothes for 4-5 days? We are unable to accept that Bhuwan did not ask Satnam alias Sonu anything and he did not divulge anything to Bhuwan or his family members. It was only after 4-5 days when his maternal uncle Kulwant Singh came that he divulged details of crime to him. 16. It has been observed in Dharam Das and another vs. State, 1989 Allahabad Criminal Reports 246 that in the case of Mohammad Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v. King, AIR 1946 PC 3 (which was followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54), it was held that even though legally there is no bar in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness yet prudence requires that courts should not act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child whether sworn or unsworn. In the case of Raja Ram v. State, 1959 AWR 602 also it was held that the evidence of a child witness should be accepted with great caution. It is absolutely clear that a child witness is always a notoriously dangerous witness capable of being tutored and therefore, unless the possibility of coaching is eliminated and independent corroboration is available, the courts shall be very slow in accepting the solitary testimony of a child witness. In the case of Ram Hazoor Pandey v. State, 1959 AWR 248 also it has been impressed upon that independent evidence should be available to corroborate a child witness and this corroboration should not be only about the factum of crime but should also reasonably connect the accused with the offence. 17. This child witness was also a witness of recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) whereby darat and clothes of his mother were got recovered on the disclosure of accused Harjinder Singh (since dead). That was hardly an evidence against other appellants. We are of the opinion that appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh could not be held guilty on oral testimony of this child witness. His testimony was directed against prime accused Harjinder Singh but there appears to be no clinching evidence against Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh so far as killing of Daljeet Kaur and destroying evidence thereof is concerned. We are of the opinion that appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh could not be held guilty on oral testimony of this child witness. His testimony was directed against prime accused Harjinder Singh but there appears to be no clinching evidence against Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh so far as killing of Daljeet Kaur and destroying evidence thereof is concerned. There appears to be some sense in the motive of killing of Daljeet Kaur for the reasons that the appellants wanted her to relinquish claim over her land. That apart, there must be some direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence against Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh. Chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete so as to infer that Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh and not others had committed said crime. Unfortunately, that link is missing in this case. A suggestion was put forward on behalf of appellants that Daljeet Kaur was alive and she was staying with one Balbir Singh in Punjab, to which PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu denied. Accused appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh could not be held guilty on the basis of fragile evidence of lone child witness PW 2 Satnam Singh alias Sonu. 18. The FIR was admittedly delayed in this case and no satisfactory explanation could come forward. It has come in the cross-examination of the child witness that Bhuwan’s mother took care of him where he stayed for 4-5 days. He pleaded ignorance on many a vital aspects of the case, such as he did not know whether he disclosed the incidence to Bhuwan’s mother; whether Bhuwan’s mother asked him why was he so much frightened and why was he concealing himself in her house; witness maintained silence why he did not inform his maternal uncle or grandfather (through mother)? He did not know where did Nauniram stayed during aforesaid 4-5 days. There were also some other misgivings in the testimony of this child witness. The testimony of this child witness did not receive support from any other witness like PW 1 Nauniram or anybody else like Bhuwan or his mother (who have not been produced). Informant PW 3 Kulwant Singh, maternal uncle of child witness was not a witness to the gruesome murder but was a witness to recovery of patal at the instance and pointing out of prime accused Harjinder Singh. Informant PW 3 Kulwant Singh, maternal uncle of child witness was not a witness to the gruesome murder but was a witness to recovery of patal at the instance and pointing out of prime accused Harjinder Singh. It is difficult to believe whether the clothes thus recovered did really belong to deceased or were of somebody else? PW 4 Head Constable Maheshpal Singh and Anantram were formal witnesses whose evidence have been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment. 19. Dead body of Daljeet Kaur was not found. At the most, her abduction could be proved. Wearing apparel of the lady were found on the pointing out of Harjinder Singh alone. There was no reference of Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh who were said to be together with the victim when last seen. Confessional statement of Harjinder Singh under section 27 of Evidence Act could not be read as against appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh, although it was not the case of prosecution that Harjinder Singh told Police about Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh’s participation in the crime. Chain of circumstance was not complete as against the appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh. Sharing of common intention and thus participation in crime of appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh is very difficult to comprehend. 20. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances enumerated above, this court is of the view that it will not be safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness in this case. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 21. As per prosecution story, the surviving appellants were last seen with deceased Daljeet Kaur. At that juncture Harjinder Singh was leading Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh. The fact remains that charge of abduction was not framed against accused persons. Charges were framed only in respect of sections 302/34,307/34 and 201 IPC. On the basis of said charges, appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence of abduction. 22. Appeals preferred on behalf of appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh are therefore, allowed. The judgment/order dated 23.11.2002 passed by learned trial court to the extent the same relates to appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh is accordingly set aside. The conviction recorded in respect thereof and sentence thus awarded to them are also set aside. Appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh are on bail. They need not surrender. The judgment/order dated 23.11.2002 passed by learned trial court to the extent the same relates to appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh is accordingly set aside. The conviction recorded in respect thereof and sentence thus awarded to them are also set aside. Appellants Tarsem Singh and Subeg Singh are on bail. They need not surrender. The case against prime accused Harjinder Singh stood abated. Let the lower court record be sent back.