Judgment N.V. Ramana, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2008, passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in S.C. No. 78 of 2008, convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused and the deceased are husband and wife. They were married about 13 years back. They were blessed with two daughters and one son. They were living in Jamiguda village and eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. Mattam Babu Rao (L.W.1), the brother, Mattam Landa (L.W.3), the father and P.W.2, the mother of the deceased are also residentis of Jamiguda. The accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased. Since two months prior to the incident, disputes took place between the accused and the deceased frequently. One month prior to the incident, Mattam Landa and P.W.2 settled the dispute between the accused and the deceased. They reprimanded the accused with regard to his behaviour towards the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 and Vanthala Gora, Mattam Anandarao and Killo Mannu (L.Ws. 7 to 9) are neighbours of and related to the accused and the deceased. They know about the disputes between them. While that being so, on the night of 13.11.2007, the accused and the deceased along with their eldest daughter P.W.1 slept in one room of their house. On the next day i.e. 14.11.2007, in the early hours at 4.00 a.m., the deceased and Mattam Landa woke up and went out to attend calls of nature and after their return when they were about to sleep, the accused, who suspected the fidelity of the deceased and decided to kill her, picked up a wooden pestle, beat the deceased on the back side of her head with force and as a result of the injury, she died on the spot. P.W.1, who witnessed the incident, came out of the house with fear and informed the incident to Mattam Babu Rao, Mattam Landa and P.W.2. Immediately, Mattam Babu Rao informed the same to P.Ws. P.W.1, who witnessed the incident, came out of the house with fear and informed the incident to Mattam Babu Rao, Mattam Landa and P.W.2. Immediately, Mattam Babu Rao informed the same to P.Ws. 3 and 4 and Vanthala Gora, and all of them rushed to the house of the accused and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood with blood oozing from the back side of her head. Thereafter, Mattam Anandarao and Killo Mannu also went and saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, Mattam Babu Rao presented report to J. Sankara Rao (L.W.15), the Sub Inspector of Police at Pedabayalu Police Station on 15.11.2007 at 18.00 hrs. Based on the said report, J. Sankara Rao, registered a case in Crime No. 36/2007 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., issued FIR and sent the same along with original report to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu. Thereafter, P.W.7, took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, and in the presence of P.W.5 and Korra Bhaskara Rao (L.W.11) conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, prepared scene of observation panchanama, seized blood stained and controlled earth. Got the scene of offence photographed with the help of a photographer. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased along with T. Krishna Murthy (L.W.13), Police Constable, for post mortem examination to P.W.6-Civil Assistant Surgeon. P.W.6 having held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued post mortem certification opining the cause of death of the deceased as due to cardio respiratory arrest, secondary to brain haemmorhage due to injury. P.W.7 arrested the accused on 18.11.2007 in the presence of P.W.5 and Korra Bhaskara Rao, recorded his confessional statement and seized blood stained wooden pestle from the accused and sent the same along with other M.Os. to RFSL, Visakhapatnam, for analysis. The RFSL after examining the M.Os. issued analysis report stating that human blood was detected on the clothes of the deceased, and that the blood stained earth and the blood found on the wooden pestle is one and the same. Thereafter, P.W.8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, P.W.8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os. 1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. The learned Sessions Judge, having appreciated the evidence on record, found the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused, filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment and other material available on record. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that there is inordinate delay in giving the first information to the police, which is unexplained and fatal to the case of the prosecution. With regard to seizure of M.O.1-wooden pestle, there are different versions put forth by the prosecution witnesses and these discrepancies throw any amount of doubt on the case of the prosecution. She further submitted that the case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is a child witness and there are discrepancies between the evidence of prosecution witnesses, further, P.W.1 is a tutored witness, as such, her evidence should not be the basis for convicting the accused. She further submitted that the prosecution could not plead and prove the motive for the crime. As the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction and sentence has to be set aside and the appellant-accused has to be acquitted. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, are supported by material on record. Therefore, there can be no reason for this Court to interfere with the well considered judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, are supported by material on record. Therefore, there can be no reason for this Court to interfere with the well considered judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Now the point that arises for consideration in this criminal appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt? P.W.1 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused, P.W.4 is the neighbour of the accused and the deceased, P.W.5 is the Panchayat Secretary and mediator to the inquest panchanama, P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police, who filed the charge sheet. P.W.1 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased. She is a minor. As P.W.1 is a minor, before examining her, put some preliminary questions and after satisfying itself with the answers given, recorded her statement. She stated that the deceased who is her mother, died about nine months back. About nine months back, on a Wednesday, the accused beat the deceased and at that time, she was in the house. The accused beat the deceased with rokalibanda (pestle) on her head. She added that M.O.1 is the rokalibanda. That blood oozed from the head injury. She got frightened and called her maternal uncle, Mattam Babu Rao and her grandfather, Mattam Landa and grand mother P.W.2. Then all of them came to her house and saw the deceased and at that time, her mother was dead. That the police examined and recorded her statement and she was present at the time of inquest at the hospital. In her cross-examination, she stated that at the time of sleeping they switch off the lights. At about 4.30 a.m., the incident occurred, and by that time, it was dark. She used to wake up at 6.00 a.m. M.O.1 was in her house. She witnessed her father picking up M.O.1 by hearing the sound. She slept along with the deceased and others. She denied the suggestion that she did not witness the incident and that the accused never beat the deceased with M.O.1. She used to wake up at 6.00 a.m. M.O.1 was in her house. She witnessed her father picking up M.O.1 by hearing the sound. She slept along with the deceased and others. She denied the suggestion that she did not witness the incident and that the accused never beat the deceased with M.O.1. She also denied the suggestion that as it was dark, she could not witness the incident and that no such incident occurred. She denied the suggestion that the deceased fell in the dark by slipping to the ground and that the accused never beat her. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. As she does not know Telugu, her evidence was recorded with the assistance of an Advocate, who translated her deposition. She stated that three months prior to the incident, there were quarrels between the deceased and the accused, and that she interfered and requested the accused not to quarrel with the deceased. The accused informed her that the deceased was unfit for conjugal life. That on her request, they lived for four days. On the day of incident P.W.1 came to her house and told her and her husband about the killing of the deceased. Then, they rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased on the road in a pool of blood and they also found a major injury on the back side of the head. In her cross-examination, she stated that there are other residential houses near to the house of the deceased. The mental condition of the accused was good at that time and that they led marital life very amicably prior to the disputes. The accused and the deceased were blessed with three children. At the time of incident, all the three children were in the same house and that there was light in the house of the accused. She admitted that at the time of incident, the sunrise was not full, but denied the suggestion that all the three children were in her house and that P.W.1 was not in the house. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused. As he does not know Telugu, her evidence was recorded with the assistance of an Advocate, who translated her deposition. He stated that the deceased is his sister. That his father Mattam Landa informed him about the incident that has occurred. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused. As he does not know Telugu, her evidence was recorded with the assistance of an Advocate, who translated her deposition. He stated that the deceased is his sister. That his father Mattam Landa informed him about the incident that has occurred. He informed him that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and due to that she died. He also informed him that after the quarrel, the accused killed the deceased. Then, he went to the place of incident and found the deceased in a pool of blood at the house of the accused with a major head injury. He was present at the time of inquest and that the police examined him. In his cross-examination, he stated that on the day of the incident, the three children of the accused slept in the house of the accused. He stated that he does not know whether the accused was in the habit of consuming liquor or not. P.W.4 is the neighbour of the accused and the deceased. He stated that Mattam Babu Rao informed him about the incident on that day, and then he visited the dead body of the deceased in the morning hours at 5.00 a.m. The dead body of the deceased was in a pool of blood and there was a major injury on the back side of her head. P.W.5 is the Panchayat Secretary. He stated that on the request of the police he acted as mediator to the inquest panchanama. That the inquest was held by the police in the presence of himself and Korra Bhaskara Rao. That Ex.P1 is the scene of observation report and Ex.P2 is the inquest report and that he signed on them. Ex.P3 is the mediator’s report. M.Os. 2 and 3 are blood stained earth and control earth. That the blood relatives of the deceased and others were also present at the time of inquest panchanama. They opined the cause of death is due to head injury caused by accused. The accused confessed before him with regard to commission of offence. He added that the villagers and P.W.2 brought M.O.1 and showed before them and that the police seized M.O.1. They opined the cause of death is due to head injury caused by accused. The accused confessed before him with regard to commission of offence. He added that the villagers and P.W.2 brought M.O.1 and showed before them and that the police seized M.O.1. The accused upon his confession as to the commission of the offence, on their asking stated that he kept M.O.1 on the ataka of the cattle shed and that P.W.2 brought M.O.1 from the cattle shed. Ex.P4 is the red marked relevant portion in Ex.P3. In his cross-examination, he stated that he knows the accused and that the accused is a good person, but at the time of incident, his mental condition was not good. He stated that blood stained earth and control earth were seized, but he cannot say whether M.Os. 2 and 3 were seized at the time of seizure or not because of time delay. He admitted that the accused never brought M.O.1 and handed over the same to them. He stated that he does not know about the incident. P.W.6 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P5-post mortem report. He found one external head injury and on internal examination, found that the brain is congested, haematoma seen on the right hemisphere on parietal wound. He opined that the deceased might have died due to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to brain haemorrhage due to injury. The injury could be caused by M.O.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that the head injury would not be possible if a person falls on a stone. That three to four days after the death of the deceased he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He stated that on 15.11.2007, at 7.30 p.m., he received phone message from Sub Inspector of Police about registration of the crime. On 16.11.2007, at 5.00 a.m., he along with his staff went to Paderu and visited Munching put Police Station and took up investigation. That Mattam Babu Rao gave the report. The Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case is no more and that he can identify his signature on the FIR. On 16.11.2007, at 5.00 a.m., he along with his staff went to Paderu and visited Munching put Police Station and took up investigation. That Mattam Babu Rao gave the report. The Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case is no more and that he can identify his signature on the FIR. He spoke about the conducting of inquest panchanama, preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence, seizure of M.Os., getting the scene of offence photographed, examining and recording the statements of the witnesses. He stated that he enquired about the accused at Jamiguda, but he was not available in the village. On 18.11.2007, on information, he along with his staff and mediators, namely P. Sankara Rao and Bhaskara Rao left to Munching put and reached Jamiguda village 11.00 a.m. He found the accused and he arrested and questioned him. The accused voluntarily confessed about the offence. He also produced M.O.1 from the ataka of cattle shed and handed over the same to him. He found bloodstains on M.O.1. He seized M.O.1 in the presence of mediators under cover of mediator’s report. He obtained the signatures of the mediators on a slip and also signed on it and pasted it to M.O.1. On 19.11.2007, he sent the accused to the Court at Paderu for remand. On 22.11.2007, he received Ex.P5-post mortem report. In his cross-examination, he stated that he visited the scene of offence at 12.45 p.m. At the time of visit, the dead body of the deceased was in the house. He observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. He denied the suggestion that the accused never beat the deceased, but due to fall on a stone, the injury was caused to the deceased and she died. On 16.11.2007, at 4.00 p.m., he sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit the offence and at the instance of blood relatives of the deceased, he implicated the accused in the case. P.W.8 stated that after receipt of RFSL report, he filed the charge sheet and denied the suggestion that no blood stains were found on M.O.1 and that he filed the charge sheet mechanically without properly verifying the investigation done by P.W7. P.W.8 stated that after receipt of RFSL report, he filed the charge sheet and denied the suggestion that no blood stains were found on M.O.1 and that he filed the charge sheet mechanically without properly verifying the investigation done by P.W7. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.W.1, who is the daughter of the accused and the deceased, aged about 11 years old and happens to be the eye-witness to the incident. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased and the accused were married about 13 years back and blessed with three children. Since two months prior to the date of the incident, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, and in this connection, disputes arose between the accused and the deceased. P.W.2 and her husband tried to resolve the disputes between them, but in vain. Thus the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and decided to kill her, and accordingly brutally murdered her by beating with a wooden pestle on her head, and therefore, liable to be punished for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1, who is a child witness and eye-witness to the incident, has not stated anything with regard to the differences between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident or just before the incident. She stated that the accused beat the deceased with rokalibanda and immediately, she informed about the same to Mattam Landa, her grand father, P.W.2, her grand mother and Mattam Babu Rao, her maternal uncle, at the whose instance, the police registered the complaint. In her cross-examination, she stated that the incident happened at 4.30 in the early morning and the room was dark. She further stated that she witnessed the incident and she recognized the accused picking up M.O.1 by hearing the sound. Whereas P.W.2, the grandmother of P.W.1 stated that just prior to the incident, the accused has informed her that the deceased is not fit for leading conjugal life. According to her, when she was informed about the incident at 4’O clock by P.W.1 and when she reached the place, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood on the road. According to her, there were lights in the room at the time of incident. According to her, when she was informed about the incident at 4’O clock by P.W.1 and when she reached the place, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood on the road. According to her, there were lights in the room at the time of incident. P.W.3, who is the maternal uncle of P.W.1, has not stated anything about the differences between the deceased and the accused, but only deposed to the extent that he was informed by his father that the accused killed the deceased. P.W.4 merely stated that he visited the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.5, who is mediator to the scene of offence, seizure and confession of the accused, in his cross-examination stated that though he is a witness, he is not sure whether M.Os. 2 and 3 were seized at the time of seizure. He further stated that M.O.1 was brought by P.W.2 from the cattle shed. P.W.6, the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased might have died due to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to brain haemorrhage due to head injury and the injury may be caused by M.O.1. It is the evidence of P.W.7-Investigating Officer that the complaint is given on 15.11.2007. He went to the village on 16.11.2007, accused was arrested on 18.11.2007. On that day, the accused confessed the commission of the crime and produced M.O.1. If we look at Ex.P1-observation report of the scene of offence, the dead body is lying on the southern side room of the house of the accused and the deceased. Ex.P3 is the mediators report. As per that, the accused voluntarily confessed and took out M.O.1-pestle from the ataka in the cattle shed and showed to all the persons present. Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of the mediator’s report, wherein it is mentioned that the accused voluntarily confessed and took out M.O.1. Ex.P6 is the report given by the brother of the deceased on 15.11.2007 at 6.00 p.m. No explanation was given for giving the complaint after such inordinate delay and the complainant was not examined by the police. As per Ex.P14-RFSL report, blood was detected on item Nos.1 to 6, but blood group could be detected only on item Nos. 3 and 4 and on M.O.1-wooden pestle, blood group could not be detected. As per Ex.P14-RFSL report, blood was detected on item Nos.1 to 6, but blood group could be detected only on item Nos. 3 and 4 and on M.O.1-wooden pestle, blood group could not be detected. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions on behalf of the appellant-accused as well as the respondent-State, and to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the evidence let in by the prosecution. What culls out from the evidence discussed by us in the above paragraphs is that as per the prosecution case, the motive for the accused to kill his wife-the deceased, is suspecting her fidelity. The prosecution witnesses have not stated about this attitude of the accused, except P.W.2. If we look at the evidence of P.W.2, in her chief-examination, she stated that the accused has informed her that the deceased is unfit for family life, which is contrary to the case of the prosecution. P.W.3, who happens to be the brother of the deceased has not stated anything to support the case of the prosecution about the conduct of the accused and the differences between the accused and the deceased. The prosecution has not examined any other independent witness to elicit from them the conduct of the accused. The prosecution could not prove the motive for the accused to commit the crime. Definitely the absence of motive itself cannot adversely affect the prosecution or benefit the accused, because existence or otherwise of motive may be relevant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution could not establish the motive for the accused to commit the crime. The entire case of the prosecution looms largely on the testimony of P.W.1. She stated that she has seen the accused beating the deceased with rokalibanda at 4.30 in the morning. There was no light in the room nor even as per her own evidence, no altercation took place between the accused and the deceased, but why she woke up at that hour and how she could see M.O.1, all these doubts arise, when we look at the evidence of P.W.1. In the light of the settled law, now we shall examine whether this Court can convict the accused, basing on the solitary testimony of P.W.1. In the light of the settled law, now we shall examine whether this Court can convict the accused, basing on the solitary testimony of P.W.1. Conviction can be solely based on the evidence of child witness, when only it is cogent, worthy of total credence and repose belief which cannot be doubted on any reasonable basis. The competency of child witness to testify his credibility and the evolution of his testimony have always been intricate questions. Manu, the earliest jurist placed a child in the category of persons who were not competent to testify, but he also felt the difficulty that at times, the only witness available to the occurrence may be a child witness when the offence has been committed in a house, which no person other than a child was present. In those contingencies, Manu allowed the child to be a competent witness. Coming to modern era, Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down a general rule that every person, irrespective of his age, is competent to testify unless he is found incompetent due to the reasons mentioned therein. Section 118 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the sole test of the competency of the child to give evidence depends not on his age, but the degree of his understanding. The section lays emphasis on the understanding and not on the age of the witness. There is a general belief that a child is artless, innocent and uncraftful, but at the same time, a child is susceptible to external influences and can be easily tutored as to what he has to speak in a court. Once the child has been influenced and tutored to his raw understanding and softness of brain it is very difficult to find out what he is saying is true or false. Therefore, while assessing and evaluating the testimony of a child witness, the possibility of his being tutored and influenced especially when there is an opportunity for doing so, will have to be consistently kept in view. If after careful scrutiny the testimony of a child witness, it appears, pure, serene and unpolluted from external influence, it is entitled to high credit. If after careful scrutiny the testimony of a child witness, it appears, pure, serene and unpolluted from external influence, it is entitled to high credit. The Apex Court, in the case of Dattu Rama Rao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997 SCC (Crl) 685), took the following view: “A child witness is found competent to depose to the facts and realize one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words, even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule of practice that in every case, the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand, but however, as a rule of prudence, the court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record”. Expectation of corroboration to the evidence of child witness is not a rule of law, but it is only a rule of prudence. Coming to the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. According to P.W.1, the incident has taken place at 4.30 a.m., but it is the case of P.W.2 that the incident was informed to her by P.W.1 at 4.00 a.m. As per P.W.1, there was no light in the room, but as per the evidence of P.W.2, there was light at the place of occurrence. Even with regard to where the body of the deceased was lying, it is the evidence of P.W.2, that when she went to the scene of offence, the dead body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood on the road, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. Even with regard to where the body of the deceased was lying, it is the evidence of P.W.2, that when she went to the scene of offence, the dead body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood on the road, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in the early hours at 4.30 a.m. on 14.11.2007, but the incident was reported to the police on 15.11.2007 at 6.00 P.m. Why this delay has taken place is not at all explained by the prosecution. This Court is aware of the position that mere delay, even for a longer period, alone will not be enough to disbelieve the prosecution case, but when the delay is unexplained, it shall cause a reasonable suspicion that there could be concoction after deliberation and embellishment might have been brought. The prosecution has not given any reasons for the delay in filing the complaint. Non-explanation of the delay is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution. Another glaring fact is the recovery of M.O.1. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that M.O.1 was brought by P.W.2 from the loft of the cattle shed of the accused, and it is the case of P.W.7-Investigating Officer that M.O.1 was produced by the accused himself. There is some suspicion regarding the recovery of M.O.1 and in these circumstances, we disbelieve the prosecution story regarding seizure of M.O.1. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider all these lacunae in the prosecution in its proper perspective. Had it been considered, it could have noticed that there are several improbabilities in the prosecution case. Suspicion, however, strong it may be, it cannot take the place of proof. We are of the view that though based on the solitary evidence of child witness conviction can be recorded against the accused, but prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought from other prosecution evidence to support the testimony of a solitary witness, particularly where such witness also happens to be closely related to both the deceased and the accused. We are of the view that though based on the solitary evidence of child witness conviction can be recorded against the accused, but prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought from other prosecution evidence to support the testimony of a solitary witness, particularly where such witness also happens to be closely related to both the deceased and the accused. Hence, in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the scene of offence, motive, recovery of M.O.1, coupled with delay in filing the complaint, which stands unexplained, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused, by judgment dated 29.03.2008 passed in S.C. No. 78 of 2008 by the by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the said charge and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.