Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.490 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. He was alleged to have committed the murder of his wife Yellavva on 22-08-2007. The trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and imposed punishment of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the accused and the deceased took place about 25 years prior to the date of the incident and out of their wedlock, a son and a daughter (PW.4) were born. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. PW.1 submitted a complaint (Ex.P.1) before P.S.Vemulawada stating that ever since the marriage of the deceased with the accused, there used to be disputes and quarrels and that accused used to demand additional dowry and suspect the character of the deceased. Panchayats were said to have been conducted on several occasions and that the accused was admonished by the elders. It was also alleged that the accused went to gulf countries and whenever the accused is in India, he used to harass the deceased. PW.1 stated that he dropped his daughter and her children at the house of the accused on 20-08-2007, again he went there on 22-08-2007 and remained there up to 10.00 a.m. He stated that after he came back to his house, he received a phone call at 2.00 p.m., from one Regula Rajanarsu (PW.6) to the effect that the accused murdered the deceased – Yellavva. On his further verification, PW.6 is said to have received the information about the death of the deceased from PW.5, by name Sarupula Thirupathi. 3. On receipt of the complaint from PW.1, the police registered case in Cr.No.212 of 2007 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The steps contemplated under law, such as preparation of scene of offence panchanama, causing of inquest and post-mortem were completed by the Investigating Officer (PW.16). 4. The accused is said to have confessed the commission of offence by him before PW.15 in the presence of PW.13. On the basis of the said confession and other information gathered during the course of investigation, PW-15 filed the charge sheet. 5. 4. The accused is said to have confessed the commission of offence by him before PW.15 in the presence of PW.13. On the basis of the said confession and other information gathered during the course of investigation, PW-15 filed the charge sheet. 5. The trial court framed necessary charge and took up the trial, on denial of the commission of offence by the accused. The prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 16, filed Exs.P.1 to P.14; and M.Os.1 to 4 were taken on record. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The nature of disposal given by the trial court in the case has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs. 6. Sri P. Sajan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only source of information for PW-1 to submit Ex.P.1 complaint was the phone-call said to have been made by PW-6 (Rajanarsu), and not only that witness, but also P.W.5 who is said to have given information to him i.e., PW.6 did not support the case of the prosecution and the version presented through Ex.P.1 becomes unbelievable. He submits that even according to PWs.1 and 2, there is a grown up son for the accused and the deceased, and leaving him aside, the prosecution has examined their minor daughter (PW-4) and the trial Court did not take any precaution, as required under law, before the evidence of a minor witness is recorded. He further submits that the so called extra-judicial confession of the accused is totally unbelievable and even the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that once the factum of death of the deceased is not disputed, the very fact that the material witnesses turned hostile does not make any difference. She contends that the death of the deceased took place during the day time, that too when the children of the deceased and the accused were not there, and the suspicion naturally would be towards the accused. 8. The machinery of the police administration became active in relation to the death of the deceased with the submission of Ex.P.1 by PW.1. It is said to have been submitted within one hour from receiving the information. Ex.P.1 has made a detailed reference to the nature of relation that is said to have existed between the deceased and the accused. The machinery of the police administration became active in relation to the death of the deceased with the submission of Ex.P.1 by PW.1. It is said to have been submitted within one hour from receiving the information. Ex.P.1 has made a detailed reference to the nature of relation that is said to have existed between the deceased and the accused. Reference was made to the panchayats that have been held about the disputes. At the end of the complaint, the factum and manner of receiving information about the death of the deceased are mentioned. The last part of Ex.P.1 reads as under: “Later when enquired Regula Rajanarsu was informed by one Salarampalli person by name Surupu Tirupathi stating that Ellavva was murdered by my son-in-law Srinivas. This incident was informed by my son-in-law Srinivas to Tirupathi and this was informed to me by Rajanarsu. When my daughter Ellavva was killed by my son-in-law Srinivas, it is suspected that his family members and relatives have encouraged him. Therefore, I request penal action against the persons who murdered my daughter”. 9. From this, it is evident that the information about the death of deceased was first furnished by the accused to PW.5 and that in turn was passed on to PW.6. The phone-call from PW.6 is said to have been received by PW.1. The complaint is silent as to whether the accused was present when PW.1 proceeded to the place of occurrence. Even in chief-examination, he did not state about it. 10. Since PW.6 was the source of information for PW.1, his evidence would be of much use. However, not only PW.6, but also the person (PW.5), who is said to have informed him about the death of the deceased, were declared hostile. 11. Another way of examining the veracity of the evidence of PW.1 or the contents of Ex.P.1 is to see whether the panchayats mentioned therein were held at all. To prove that fact, the prosecution examined PWs.10 and 11, the elders. However, both of them did not support the case of the prosecution. 12. In the cross-examination of PW.1 specific questions were put as to whether he submitted any complaint about the alleged harassment by the accused, and the answer was given in the negative. So is the case with PW.2, the mother of the deceased. 13. However, both of them did not support the case of the prosecution. 12. In the cross-examination of PW.1 specific questions were put as to whether he submitted any complaint about the alleged harassment by the accused, and the answer was given in the negative. So is the case with PW.2, the mother of the deceased. 13. The prosecution next sought to rely upon the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before PW.15, in the presence of PW.13. The only recovery, which is said to have been affected on the basis of confession, is a towel. By no stretch of imagination, a towel, that too after so many days after the incident, can be said to be an object, with which the crime can be perpetrated. Once that fails, nothing remains to connect the accused with the offence. 14. Effort was made by the prosecution to prove past conduct of the accused by examining PW.4, the daughter of the accused and the deceased. This witness was aged about 13 years at the time of examination. The trial Court did not take any precautionary measures that are required in law. Even where such precautions are taken, the evidence of a juvenile witness is required to be assessed carefully. Once the witness was not put on notice that she is deposing in a Court and her statement would lead to various legal consequences, the same cannot be acted upon. Further, she is not an eye-witness and what all she stated is that there used to be quarrels between her parents. The mere existence of disputes in the family cannot lead to an inference that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. Further when a grown-up son of the deceased and the accused was very much there, it is just not understandable as to how the prosecution has chosen to examine PW-4. We find it difficult to sustain the conviction ordered by the trial Court against the accused. Therefore, we allow the appeal. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.490 of 2008 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 30-11-2009, against the appellant-accused are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.490 of 2008 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 30-11-2009, against the appellant-accused are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.