JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 364 & 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentences under each count with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 2.1 Deceased, Sandeep was aged about 10 years. He was son of Ram Sumer (PW-2) and Chetan Bai (PW-3). The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.02.2006 at about 2 p.m. the deceased was playing with Ku. Filmi (PW-1). She was-aged about 6 years. At that time, the appellant, who was their neighbour, came to that place and gave coconut and gram (chana) to the deceased and took him towards Transport Nagar on his bicycle. Thereafter, whereabouts of the deceased was not known and ultimately at about 5 p.m. his dead body was found near the railway line in village Dabara, which was at a distance of about 9-10 km from the place where he was allegedly playing with Ku. Fimli (PW-1). 2.2 Somebody informed to the police. Inquest (Ex.P-13) was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. B.N. Dewangan (PW-14). According to the postm0l1em report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and it was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report is Ex.P-24. 2.3 The parents of the deceased came to know about his death at about 6 p.m. when they saw the dead body in the mortuary of the District Hospital, Durg. 2.4 The prosecution came with the case that the deceased was playing with Ku. Filmi (PW-1) the appellant came there, abducted him and took him towards Dabara Para near railway line in order to commit his murder and thereafter, his murder was committed by him. 2.5 Ku. Filmi (PW-1) was the solitary witness of the alleged incident of abduction. 2.6 Chetan Bai (PW-3), mother of the deceased, was informed by Ku. Filmi (PW-1) that the deceased was taken by the appellant. Accordingly, Chetan Bai (PW-3) informed it to Ram Sumer (PW-2). 2.5 Ku. Filmi (PW-1) was the solitary witness of the alleged incident of abduction. 2.6 Chetan Bai (PW-3), mother of the deceased, was informed by Ku. Filmi (PW-1) that the deceased was taken by the appellant. Accordingly, Chetan Bai (PW-3) informed it to Ram Sumer (PW-2). 2.7 The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimony of Chetan Bai (PW-3) and held that the deceased was abducted by the appel1ant. It was also held that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together, therefore, it was, proved that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased in the above manner. The appellant, thus, was convicted and sentenced as above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that Ku. Fimli (PW-1) was aged about 6, years, she was a child witness; her evidence was not reliable as she clearly admitted in the cross-examination that neither the appellant had visited to the place where they were playing nor the deceased was taken by the appellant; she also denied many other relevant facts. He also argued that the diary statement of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) and the diary statement of Chetan Bai (PW-3) were recorded after 14 days and the diary statement of Ram Sumer was recorded after 2 days of the incident. In appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, it would appear that, according to them, Ku. Filmi had told them about the abduction of the deceased by the appellant at about 2 p.m. but, this fact is not mentioned in their diary statements. He submitted that in the above facts & circumstances of the case, conviction based on solitary testimony of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) can not be sustained. He also pointed out other infirmities in the case of the prosecution. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. The case of the prosecution was mainly based on the evidence of Ku. Filmi (PW-1). Admittedly, she was aged about 6 years on the date of recording her evidence on 25.05.2006. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that the deceased was taken by the appellant on his bicycle after giving coconut and gram to him. She had identified the appellant on dock. Filmi (PW-1). Admittedly, she was aged about 6 years on the date of recording her evidence on 25.05.2006. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that the deceased was taken by the appellant on his bicycle after giving coconut and gram to him. She had identified the appellant on dock. She also deposed that it was the incident of about 2 p.m. However, in her cross-examination by the defence, she completely denied all above facts. 7. We would like to mention para 5 and 6 of her cross-examination by the defence which reads as under:- ^^5- ;g dguk lgh gS fd blds iwoZ eSa Hkh U;k;ky; esa c;ku nsus vk;k FkkA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd ml le; eq>s jkelqesj o vU; O;fDr eksVj lkbZfdy ij fcBkdj odhy ds ?kj ys x;k FkkA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd ogk¡ ij eq>s fl[kk;k x;k Fkk fd D;k c;ku nsuk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa gkftj vnkyr vkjksih dks ugha tkurh gw¡A ;g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVuk okys fnu eSa vkSj lanhi ugha [ksy jgs FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus ch-bZ-lh- dkyksuh rjQ ls U;k;ky; mifLFkr vkjksih dks p’ek yxkdj vkrs gq, ns[kk FkkA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd eSaus fdlh dks Hkh p’ek yxkdj vkrs gq, ugha ns[kk FkkA mifLFkr vkjksih us lanhi ls puk ,oa ukfj;y f[kykus okyh ckr ugha dgh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksih lanhi dks lkbZfdy ij fcBkdj ugha ys x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus vkjksih dks lanhi ds ?kj vkrs tkrs ugha ns[kk gSA 6- eSaus lanhi dh eka dks Hkh ugha crk;k FkkA ml fnu esjs ikl <aw<rs gq, Hkh ugha vk;k FkkA esjs ikl dksbZ iqfyl okys Hkh ugha vk;s FksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd iqfyl us esjk dksbZ c;ku Hkh ugha fy;k FkkA** 8. The learned State counsel, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, has argued that in re-examination by the public prosecutor, Ku. Filmi (PW-1) has admitted some facts and she has also admitted that the appellant had taken the deceased on his bicycle. 9. In appreciation of her evidence, we find that she had given different versions at different stages of her examination and cross-examination. In her cross-examination by the defence she completely denied the fact that the deceased was taken by the appellant on his bicycle before her. 10. 9. In appreciation of her evidence, we find that she had given different versions at different stages of her examination and cross-examination. In her cross-examination by the defence she completely denied the fact that the deceased was taken by the appellant on his bicycle before her. 10. We have noted that she was not declared hostile by the prosecution and the prosecution has relied on the testimony of this witness. Therefore, her evidence was binding on the prosecution as held in the case of Javed Masood and another vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 979 . In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Para-12 as under:- "12. The testimony of Mohammad Ayub (PW-6) cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in clear terms that PWs 5, 13 and 14 were not present at the scene of occurrence. It is not known as to why the public prosecutor in the trial court failed to seek permission of the court to declare him hostile. His evidence is binding on the prosecution as it is. No reason, much less valid reason has been stated by the Division Bench as to how evidence of PW-6 can be ignored." 11. In K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 73 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a child witness by reason of his tender age, is a pliable witness. He can be tutored easily either by threat, coercion or inducement. Hence, his statement can be accepted only if court comes to a conclusion that child understands questions put to him and he is capable of giving rational answers and that child is not tutored and his evidence has a ring of truth. Careful evaluation of evidence of a child witness in the background and context of other evidence on record for purposes of corroboration is a must before court decides to rely upon it. 12. In Alagupandi alia Alagupandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 10 SCC 451 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a child witness can be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is reliable and truthful. While assessing evidence of a child witness court must carefully observe his/her demeanour to eliminate likelihood of tutoring. 12. In Alagupandi alia Alagupandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 10 SCC 451 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a child witness can be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is reliable and truthful. While assessing evidence of a child witness court must carefully observe his/her demeanour to eliminate likelihood of tutoring. Conviction can be allowed to stand without any corroboration, but as a rule of prudence it is always desirable to seek corroboration of such evidence from other reliable evidence on record. 13. It is on these principles, the credibility of evidence of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) was to be examined. The learned Sessions Judge has held that though Ku. Filmi (PW-1) has deposed in above manner in her cross-examination by the defence, however, later on she had said that the appellant had taken the deceased, therefore, her evidence regarding abduction and last seen was intact. 14. On due appreciation of her evidence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge does not appears to be correct. Ku. Filmi (PW-1) in para 5 has clearly admitted that she was taken to the house of the lawyer and she was tutored by him. After making admission to this effect, she has deposed in clear words that the deceased was not taken by the appellant as she had deposed in her examination-in-chief. Evidence is to be read as a whole and a part of evidence is not to be taken in isolation. Over all evidence of the witness decides his/her testimony whether it was reliable or not. 15. The learned Sessions Judge has taken parts of the evidence of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) and has held that her evidence was reliable. If we look into the entire evidence of Ku. Filmi (PW-1), it would appear that her evidence was not reliable because she had changed her versions at three stages and while cross-examination by the defence, she clearly denied about the incident. That apart, her admission regarding tutoring by a lawyer also remained intact. 16. We are of the view, that version of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) was not reliable I and the learned Sessions Judged has erred in relying the version of Ku. Filmi (PW-1). 17. Ms. That apart, her admission regarding tutoring by a lawyer also remained intact. 16. We are of the view, that version of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) was not reliable I and the learned Sessions Judged has erred in relying the version of Ku. Filmi (PW-1). 17. Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi has argued that documents belonging to the appellant were found near the dead body of the deceased, which shows that the appellant had visited that place and it becomes relevant and incriminating against the appellant. On 06.02.2008 at about 17.30 hrs. the police had seized an empty packet of panama cigarette vide seizure memo Ex./P-5. According to them, two documents i.e. pay slip and letter of the company, where the appellant had worked (Ex.P-6 and P-7) were found inside the packet. 18. Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant has argued which we find correct that prior to seizure of the above articles, Investigating Officer, T.R. Nagwanshi (PW-11) had visited the place of occurrence and had made minute observation and a map was also prepared by him at 17.15 hrs. This map is Ex./P-4. His submission was that in the map though it was mentioned that an empty packet of cigarette was found there, but, it is not mentioned that it was containing two documents (Exs. P-6 & P-7) of the appellant. This creates a doubt on the seizure of the above documents. 19. That apart, out of two witnesses of seizure, namely, Sitaram (PW-5) and Suresh Kumar (PW-12), Suresh Kumar (PW-12) has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Sitaram (PW-5) has deposed that the seizure of an empty packet of cigarette was made by the police vide Ex./P-5 which carries his signature at place A to A, but, he clearly deposed that he does not know as to what was inside the packet. Later on, he was told that two documents relating to the appellant were found therein. 20. On appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, it appears that an empty packet of cigarette was seized from the place of occurrence, but, it was not established that in the said packet two documents Exs.P-6 and P-7 were present. 21. The police had also taken the memorandum (Ex./P-12) of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and a bicycle was seized from Pawan Kumar (PW-9). 21. The police had also taken the memorandum (Ex./P-12) of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and a bicycle was seized from Pawan Kumar (PW-9). According to Pawan Kumar (PW-9) the said bicycle was mortgaged by the appellant. He has deposed that on earlier occasions also, the appellant had mortgaged his bicycle and money was taken by him. How these circumstances would be incriminating against the appellant? It is not a case in which the concerned bicycle was identified by Ku. Filmi (PW-1) saying that the appellant had visited the place of occurrence by the said bicycle. We are of the view that in the above situation, these circumstances may not be incriminating against the appellant. 22. It comes in the evidence of Chetan Bai (PW-3) that while she was making search of her son (deceased), she had asked Ku. Filmi (PW-1). She had told that he was playing with her and she also stated that he (deceased) was taken by the appellant on his bicycle. According to Chetan Bai (PW-3) this was told to her at about 2 p.m. If this was the position, the fact of abduction of the deceased by the appellant must have been disclosed by Chetan Bai (PW-3) to her husband and in turn, it must have been deposed by Ram Sumer (PW2), whose diary statement (Ex.D-1) was recorded on 08.02.2006. But, this fact is an omission in his diary statement. 23. That apart, diary statement of Ku. Filmi (PW-1) and Chetan Bai (PW-3) were recorded on 20.02.2006. They have has not assigned any reason regarding late disclosure made by them to the police. On this count also their evidence becomes shaky. 24. We also note that the appellant was not known to Ku. Filmi (PW-1) by name, but, even after that, no identification parade was conducted by the police and Ku. Filmi (PW-1) identified the appellant on dock after a very long time. 25. The motive suggested by the prosecution was that the appellant was not repaying Rs. 13,000/- taken as a loan from Rajesh (PW-4) for which Ram Sumer (PW-2) was a guarantor, therefore, Ram Sumer (PW-2) used to demand that money and the appellant was unhappy upon his conduct. 26. We find from the evidence of Rajesh (PW-4) that the entire money was repaid to him by the appellant. 13,000/- taken as a loan from Rajesh (PW-4) for which Ram Sumer (PW-2) was a guarantor, therefore, Ram Sumer (PW-2) used to demand that money and the appellant was unhappy upon his conduct. 26. We find from the evidence of Rajesh (PW-4) that the entire money was repaid to him by the appellant. Therefore, there was no reason that the appellant would be unhappy either against Ram Sumer (PW-2) or against Rajesh (PW-4). Moreover; it does not appear to be reasonable that on such a small matter, there would be a motive for the appellant to commit murder of minor son of Ram Sumer (PW-2). Therefore, the motive suggested by the prosecution was insufficient and was not properly established. 27. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant and the same deserves to be set aside. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence I awarded to the appellant under Sections 364 and 302 IPC arc set aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 29. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 08.02.2006. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal Allowed.