JUDGMENT K.C. Banu, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment, dated 08.05.2009, in Sessions Case No. 316 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Mahabubnagar, whereunder and whereby, appellant herein/sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C") and accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Deceased Buddanna (hereinafter referred to, as 'the deceased') is a native of Thirumalayapally Village and doing Hamali work. Deceased used to go to rice mill in the morning and returned to home in the night. On 29.12.2007, deceased went to rice mill in the morning and returned back in the night after attending routine work. At about 8.00 PM, deceased went to the house of L.W. 4 (Kotagouni Venkatanna Goud) and had a liquor and went away by leaving his new shirt. Thereafter, accused came to the house of said Venkatanna Goud for having liquor. After having liquor, accused had took away the shirt of the deceased. Then deceased again went to the house of said Venkatanna Goud and asked him about his shirt. Then he replied that his took away by the accused. On which, deceased accompanied P.W. 3 and went to the accused at Ajjakol road at Thirumalayapally village, where deceased asked the accused to give his shirt. A scuffle ensued between the deceased and accused, which leads physical assault on the deceased, accused took a cart peg dealt a heavy blow repeatedly on the head and other parts of body causing instantaneous death. P.W. 3 witnessed the incident and ran away due to fear and informed to his father Kotagouni Venkatanna Goud (L.W. 4). After killing the deceased, accused dragged the dead boy abandoned at bus stage. P.W. 13, visited the scene of occurrence, conducted scene of occurrence panchanama in the presence of P.Ws. P.W. 3 witnessed the incident and ran away due to fear and informed to his father Kotagouni Venkatanna Goud (L.W. 4). After killing the deceased, accused dragged the dead boy abandoned at bus stage. P.W. 13, visited the scene of occurrence, conducted scene of occurrence panchanama in the presence of P.Ws. 6 and L.W. 8 (Sandu Nagendram), then got photographed the scene of occurrence in the presence of mediators, seized blood stained earth, control earth under the cover of panchanama, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased before panchas and thereafter, sent to Government Area Hospital, Wanaparty for post-mortem examination. P.W. 4, is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries. On 01.01.2008, P.W. 9 apprehended the accused at his house and in the presence of L.W. 9 (Desi Sheshanna) and P.W. 7, confessional statement of the accused was recorded and later one blue shirt belonged to the deceased was seized from the cattle shed and later accused was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the material objects were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion. After receipt of relevant reports and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 2. The trial Court framed the following charge against the accused: Firstly:-that you on or about during the intervening night of 29th day of December, 2007 at Thirumalayapally Village, Kothakota Mandal, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Sri Sandu Buddanna S/o Nadipanna, age 50 yrs, caste: Boya, occ: Hamali, R/o Thirumalayapally Village by attacking with a cart peg dealt heavy blow on the head of the deceased and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code within my cognizance. 3. When the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and Exs. P-1 to P-9 were got marked besides case properties-M.Os. 1 to 7. 5. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused. 6. 1 to 10 and Exs. P-1 to P-9 were got marked besides case properties-M.Os. 1 to 7. 5. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused. 6. The trial Court, basing on the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the charge levelled against him and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 7. The points for determination are: Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant/sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper or not? 8. Points:-Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused contended that absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused is assailant of the deceased; that the entire case rests upon solitary evidence of a child witness-P.W. 3; that if really the incident had taken place in the presence of P.W. 3, he would have reported the matter to the elders of the village or at any rate to the close relatives of the deceased; that it is unnatural for a boy like P.W. 3 to go to arrack shop during night time and witness the incident; that the persons who were present on the date of the incident at the arrack shop are not examined to show that accused is assailant of the deceased; that prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State contended that evidence of P.W. 3 is very clear that it is the accused, who beat the deceased with a cart peg indiscriminately, and due to fear, P.W. 3 could not inform to anybody, but on the next day, he was examined by the police and on that day he revealed the incident to police; that there is no motive for P.W. 3 to foist a false case against the accused, leaving the real assailants; that the medical evidence is completely in corroboration with ocular testimony; that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and that order needs no interference by this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. The entire case rests upon solitary evidence of child witness-P.W. 3. P.W. 3 is a child witness, aged about 10 or 11 years on the date of taking place of the offence. Law is well settled that after evaluating the evidence of a child witness, if it is found to be true and correct and not as a result of tutoring by some of the relatives, it can be acted upon. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and others v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 12 SCC 565 , wherein it was held thus (para 10): 6....The Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act') does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease-whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. This position was concisely stated by Brewer, J. in Wheeler v. United States (40 L Ed 244 : 159 US 523 (1895). A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. This position was concisely stated by Brewer, J. in Wheeler v. United States (40 L Ed 244 : 159 US 523 (1895). The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected-per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon, (see Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001) 9 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri.) 413. 11. Absolutely there is no motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. No doubt, motive is not an integral part of crime, it can only be taken as aid and assessment of the criminality. Absence or non-proof of motive is not a ground for the accused to acquit but, it only cautious the Court to evaluate the evidence of eyewitnesses carefully and cautiously. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 807 , wherein it was held thus (para 6): ..............That is true; and where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty but the absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. If the prosecution had proved by clear evidence that the appellant had reasons of his own for getting his first wife out of the way, that would have (sic) additional assurance to the circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt. But the fact that the prosecution has failed to lead such evidence has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be very closely examined. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. P.W. 6 is one of the inquest mediators, who was present when P.W. 10 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of shock due to haemorrhage due to injuries. 12. P.W. 6 is one of the inquest mediators, who was present when P.W. 10 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of shock due to haemorrhage due to injuries. P.W. 4 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries: 1. Contusion of size 9 x 2 cms on the right side of forehead. 2. A contusion of size 8 x 2 cms below left orbit cheek bone. 3. A lacerated wound of size 9 x 3 cms on left side of chin. A lacerated would of size 4 x 4 cms on the middle of the chin if is fracture of mandible incisors and canans are lost On internal examination, he found the following injuries: 1. Subcutaneous clots on the skull present. 2. Fracture of frontal bone skull bone was present. 3. Fracture of anterior subdural hematoma are present. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased is as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained by him and that those injuries can be caused with a blunt object like stone or any wooden stick. Ex. F. 2 is the post-mortem report. In the cross-examination he admitted that those injuries are possible by falling from a height on a hard surface. Therefore, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. P.W. 1 is son of the deceased. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of the incident. The incident had taken place on 29.12.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. in the arrack shop of P.W. 3. Therefore, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. P.W. 1 is son of the deceased. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of the incident. The incident had taken place on 29.12.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. in the arrack shop of P.W. 3. It is the evidence Of P.W. 1 that on coming to know about lying of a dead body of the deceased by the side of the road at Ajjakodu Village of Kottamota Mandal he along with his mother, went there and saw the dead body; that he came to know from one K. Venkatanna Goud (L.W. 4), who is no other than father of P.W. 3, that accused went to the arrack shop and took the shirt belonged to the deceased with him stating that it belonged to him; that when the deceased questioned about his shirt, the accused beat him with cart peg indiscriminately and caused injuries; that when accused tried to beat P.W. 3, he absconded. He is not an eyewitness to the incident, but he came to know about the incident through Kotagouni Venkatanna (L.W. 4). Admittedly, the said Kotagouni Venkatanna (L.W. 4), was not examined by police, though he was cited as an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, his evidence is not much relevant for the purpose of proving the charge. 14. P.W. 2 is wife of the deceased. She came to know from P.W. 3 about the accused beating the deceased with cart peg. That aspect of the case has not been stated by her, when she was examined by police. P.W. 3 has not stated that he went and informed her about the accused beating the deceased. Therefore, her evidence is not much relevant for the purpose of proving the charge. 15. Now coming to the evidence of P.W. 3, who is no other than son of owner of arrack shop of Venkatanna Goud (L.W. 4), where the incident is alleged to have taken place. Therefore, her evidence is not much relevant for the purpose of proving the charge. 15. Now coming to the evidence of P.W. 3, who is no other than son of owner of arrack shop of Venkatanna Goud (L.W. 4), where the incident is alleged to have taken place. It is in his evidence that on the date of the incident, the deceased forgot his shirt, which was taken by the accused, then the deceased came to his house and he accompanied the accused and asked his shirt; that when the deceased asked the accused about the shirt, the accused got enraged, took cart peg and beat the deceased indiscriminately, as a result the deceased fell down and died on the spot; that when the accused tried to beat him with a cart peg, he absconded from the scene of occurrence; that due to fear he did not inform to anybody, but, on the next day he informed to police. He admitted in the cross-examination that daily he sleeps by 10.00 p.m.; that his mother sells arrack; that he did not sell arrack. He was aged about 10 or 11 years on the date of taking place of the offence. It is highly improbable for him to be present at arrack shop during night time. It is not his case that now and then he used to go to arrack shop of his parents in order to sell or assist in selling arrack. On his own showing, he sleeps at 9.30 p.m. and so, his presence at 10.00 p.m. at the scene of occurrence is very doubtful. Admittedly, the deceased came to his house and thereafter, he along with the deceased went to the house of the accused for return of shirt. There was no necessity for him to go to arrack shop of his parents during nighttime. 16. While evaluating the evidence of a witness, two important considerations have to be taken into consideration 1) in the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of eyewitness is found to be probable and 2) whether he can be in a position to identify the accused because the incident had taken place during night time. It is not the case of P.W. 3 that the place of occurrence is sufficiently illuminated with lights which were burning in the arrack shop. It is not the case of P.W. 3 that the place of occurrence is sufficiently illuminated with lights which were burning in the arrack shop. The evidence of P.W. 3 does not indicate that the place of the incident is sufficiently illuminated. When there is no existence of street lights or lights in the arrack shop, it is not possible for PW. 3 to identify the assailant of the deceased. Furthermore, the conduct of P.W. 3 after the incident is highly unnatural, because if really he had witnessed the incident, he would have informed about the incident to his parents or at any rate to the Village elders or to the close relatives of the deceased. He did not inform to anybody. Therefore, such is the case, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W. 3, though he is a child witness. In the factual back ground of the case, the evidence of P.W. 3 cannot put in the category of wholly reliable. Then his evidence requires corroboration. Such corroboration is lacking in this case. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge against the accused are liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Mahabubnagar, vide judgment, dated 08.05.2009, in Sessions Case No. 316 of 2008 against the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant/accused is found not guilty of the above offence and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.