AMARESH KUMAR LAL, J.:–Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 129 of 1991 has been filed by Ashok Dome, whereas, Cr. Appeal (D. B.) No. 155 of 1991 has been filed by the appellants Ganesh Dome and Lallan Dome against the judgment and order of sentence dated 30.3.1991 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1988/ 15 of 1988 by which the appellant Ashok Dome has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Lallan Dome and Ganesh Dome have been found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and all of them have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5.7.1987 at about 6.30 p.m. the informant Pachu Dome (P.W. 2), his mother Phulpati Devi (deceased) and his sister Shanti Kumari (deceased) were present in their house situated in village Turha Dom Toli, Anand Nagar, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna. In the meantime, Ashok Dome, appellant who lives in a nearby hut entered into their house with three persons Kedar Dome (absconder), Lallan Dome and Ganesh Dome (appellants) and asked from the mother of the informant about her husband. She replied that her husband was not present in the house. The appellant Ashok Dome was armed with Chhura and the remaining three were also armed with some weapon which could not be seen by the informant. Ashok Dome and other three scuffled with the mother of informant. She came out of her house and rushed nearby house of Wakil Dome. They followed and assaulted his mother with Chhura causing her death. The sister of the informant followed her mother who was also assaulted with Chhura resulting into her death. Thereafter, all the accused dragged both the body to his darwaja. Lallan Dome and Ganesh Dome are residents of Phulwari and Kedar Dome is resident of Turha Toli. After this occurrence, the informant P.W. 2 rushed to the police outpost and informed about the occurrence prior to reaching the police there all the accused fled away. There was dispute between Ashok Dome (appellant) and the father of the informant for which Ashok Dome was always quarrelling with his father. After the occurrence Dukhan Ram, the father of the informant came there to whom he also narrated about the occurrence. There was dispute between Ashok Dome (appellant) and the father of the informant for which Ashok Dome was always quarrelling with his father. After the occurrence Dukhan Ram, the father of the informant came there to whom he also narrated about the occurrence. The fard beyan of the informant (P.W. 2) was recorded by Sub-Inspector R. B. Singh (P.W. 3) on 5.7.1987 at 20.15 hours at the spot. On the fardbeyan Danapur P.S. Case No. 164 of 1987 was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC against the appellants and Kedar (absconder). After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken; the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant Ashok Dome and charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all the appellants which they denied and claimed to be tried. 3. The defence of the appellants is of false implication. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the whole prosecution case is based on a single child witness. The learned trial court had based his finding only on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 2 who is the son of the deceased Phulwatiya Devi and the brother of deceased Shanti Kumari. Dukhan Ram, the father of P. W. 2 was present at the time of fardbeyan, but he has not been examined even as a hearsay witness. It has also been found by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 3 that the occurrence has taken place where they are several houses, but no witness other than P. W. 2 has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The whole judgment moves around the evidence of P. W. 2 who is a child witness and on the evidence of a child witness, the conviction should not be made. P. W. 2 has not been able to say the circumstance of the occurrence. P. W. 2 has denied the suggestion of the defence that his mother Phulwariiya Devi has lodged a case against his father Dukhan Ram for causing her burn injury. His version stands falsified by Ext. A the FIR lodged by Shila @ Phulwari Devi, wife of Dukhan Dome vide Phulwari P. S. Case No. 173 of 1986 for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 IPC against Dukhan Dome, her husband. His version stands falsified by Ext. A the FIR lodged by Shila @ Phulwari Devi, wife of Dukhan Dome vide Phulwari P. S. Case No. 173 of 1986 for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 IPC against Dukhan Dome, her husband. He has further submitted that judgment of conviction should not have been passed on the basis of the evidence of a child witness, P.W. 2. The judgment of conviction of an accused should not be made on the basis of a single witness. In support of his contention, he has referred following decisions:— AIR 1938 Patna 153 Darpan Potdarin Vs. Emperor in which it has been held that the evidence of children unless immediately available and unless received before any possibility of coaching is eliminated is notoriously dangerous and it is unsafe to convict on the evidence of a child. AIR 1982 SC 1157 Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra: it appears that this case was based on circumstantial evidence and it has been held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy three tests:- (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. AIR 1980 SC 1621 State of Delhi Vs. Vijay Pal- In that case it was found that the prosecution story was based on the testimony of child witness and oral extra judicial confession. The circumstances were raising serious doubts of child’s claims to being an eye witness and also destroying the veracity of evidence regarding the alleged confession and it was held that acquittal was proper. AIR 1983 SC 274 State of Assam Vs. The circumstances were raising serious doubts of child’s claims to being an eye witness and also destroying the veracity of evidence regarding the alleged confession and it was held that acquittal was proper. AIR 1983 SC 274 State of Assam Vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed- In that case it was held that the conviction can be based on dying declaration provided it was held that there can be conviction on the basis of dying declaration and it is not at all necessary to a corroboration provided the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is a truthful dying declaration and not vitiated in any other manner. (1973) 3 SCC 219 , Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra- In that judgment it has been held that the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence upon which an order of acquittal has been passed by the sessions court. It has also been held that the informant is neither an eye witness himself nor his report is based on the information given by the eye witness. Non-mention of the weapon in the first information report is of no consequence. Where the only witness who claimed to be eye witness was a teenager. Only question for consideration would be whether her evidence was acceptable or not. Her evidence in that connection has to be scrutinized with care and caution. If she stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in her evidence it cannot be discarded merely on the ground the weapon with which the deceased was done to death was not mentioned in the first information report. This decision is helpful to the prosecution and not the accused. (1976) 2 SCC 217 Bajrang Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan is with regard to the conviction under Section 5(1) D read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 120(B), 465 IPC. This decision has not at all bearing in this case. (1986) 4 SCC 439 State of Assam Vs. Mohim Barkataki and another. This decision relates to dying declaration where the judgment of trial court was upheld and the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court was set aside on the ground of dying declaration made before the witness while suffering severe pain from grievous burn injuries was found and held truthful and reliable. 5. Mohim Barkataki and another. This decision relates to dying declaration where the judgment of trial court was upheld and the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court was set aside on the ground of dying declaration made before the witness while suffering severe pain from grievous burn injuries was found and held truthful and reliable. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted in this case that admittedly, P. W. 2 is a child witness. His evidence has been recorded by the police officer immediately after the occurrence. His evidence stands corroborated by the police officer who immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. His evidence stands corroborated by medical evidence. His evidence has rightly been found truthful and relied by the learned trial court and no interference in the impugned judgment is required by this Court. 6. In this case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 Raghu Nandan Prasad is a formal witness who has proved the signature of Shiv Prasad Singh, the Officer-in-charge, Danapur police on FIR (Ext. 1), Fard Beyan (Ext.2) and the endorsement of Officer-in-Charge, Shiv Prasad Singh, of Danapur Police Station on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3). 7. P.W. 2 is the informant of this case. He is aged about 12 years. His understanding has been tested by the learned trial Court and he has been found fit to depose. He is the informant of this case. He has stated that his mother (Phulwatiya Devi) and sister Shanti Kumari were killed. At the time of occurrence about 6 to 6.30 p.m. he was at his house. His mother and sister (both deceased) were present. His mother was cutting vegetable. In the meantime, the appellants, Ashok Dome, Lallan Dome and Ganesh Dome came there. Ashok Dome enquired about his father from his mother who replied that he was not present. After hearing it all the accused started quarrelling thereafter all of them started quarrelling with his mother. His mother fled to the house of Wakil Dome. The accused followed and killed her by assaulting with knife. His sister went to her rescue. He was also killed by assaulting with knife. P.W. 2 raised alarm but no one came there. After killing the deceased, the accused fled away. He went to the police outpost and reported the occurrence. The police officer came to his house and recorded his statement. His sister went to her rescue. He was also killed by assaulting with knife. P.W. 2 raised alarm but no one came there. After killing the deceased, the accused fled away. He went to the police outpost and reported the occurrence. The police officer came to his house and recorded his statement. He saw the dead body of his mother and sister and also observed the blood on the place of occurrence. He has identified all the accused Ashok, Lallan and Ganesh. They (all the three) were armed with knife. He has stated that the police officer came to his house and he gave his statement to him. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after the occurrence he rushed to the police outpost which is at a distance of walking of 10 minutes or less. He had identified four accused, one out of them is absconder. The police officer came from the police station to the place of occurrence at that time his father was available there. His father did not convey anything to him, rather he conveyed about the occurrence to his father. He has further stated that only he has seen the occurrence and no one is. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence it was not dark. The house of Wakil Dom is after two houses of his house. When the accused were assaulting with knife, he was observing the appellants behind the clippers of pumpkin. He was not visible. No one could see him. He has denied the suggestion of the accused that his mother had lodged a case against his father for setting fire after sprinkling kerosene. He has stated that while his mother was cooking, she got some burn injury. He has also stated that the clippers were at a distance of 4-5 steps from the house of Wakil Dome. His mother and sister went in Courtyard of Wakil Dome. There are two doors in the house of Wakil Dome. One is in the front and other is in the back. The entrance is in the east. He has denied the suggestion that his father quarreled with his mother and sister and his father killed both of them and a false case has been lodged. In his further cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of occurrence his mother was cutting vegetables in the kitchen room. The entrance is in the east. He has denied the suggestion that his father quarreled with his mother and sister and his father killed both of them and a false case has been lodged. In his further cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of occurrence his mother was cutting vegetables in the kitchen room. He was at Darwaja. All of a sudden, all the accused rushed in his house and made quarry from his mother. His mother moved from there. Her mother also raised alarm, but no one came there. His mother rushed to the varanda of Wakil Dome at that time the house of Wakil Dome was opened. The wife and children of Wakil Dome were present. Wakil Dome and his son were not present. The wife and daughter of Wakil Dome did not come to rescue of his mother. P. W. 2 also followed his mother and raised alarm, but the accused after killing the deceased went away quickly. After killing his mother the accused dragged the dead body to the house. Blood was oozing out. There were blood stains from the house of Wakil Dom to the house of the informant (P.W. 2). In paragraph 14, he has stated that Lallan Dome and Ganesh Dome were also coming to his house prior to the occurrence. They were also quarrelling. He does not know the reason behind the quarrel. When the police officer came from the police station, his father was present and four persons from Mohalla also came there. He knows Prakash one of them. Prior to 2 to 3 days earlier, his father had gone out and returned to his house on the date of occurrence as about 7-8 P.M. In paragraph 17, he has stated that 3-4 knife blows were given to his mother and 3-4 knife blows were given to his sister. Assault was made on the chest of both of them. In paragraph 18, he has stated that his father was in the job of State Transport prior to the occurrence. His father and mother were living at Phulwari Mohalla. He has denied that his father was playing witch craft. 8. P.W. 3, Raghubansh Singh, is the investigating officer and he has also recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 2). He has identified the formal FIR (Ext. 4). He started investigation of the cased, recorded the restatement of the informant. His father and mother were living at Phulwari Mohalla. He has denied that his father was playing witch craft. 8. P.W. 3, Raghubansh Singh, is the investigating officer and he has also recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 2). He has identified the formal FIR (Ext. 4). He started investigation of the cased, recorded the restatement of the informant. The place of occurrence is at Ardali Bazar Turaha Toli, Dome Toli Colony which has been established by the Government. The place of occurrence is the government quarter of Wakil Dome, son of Laxmi Dome the courtyard and exit in the northern side of his house. There is continuous house of Sundar Dome, son of Mithu Dome in mohalla. There is house of the Dome Community. In the northern side, there is house of deceased Phulwatiya, wife of Dhukhan Ram, adjacent quarter of Wakil Dome is vacant. All these houses are facing east. In the eastern side of these houses, there are houses facing west consisting of house of Ganesh Dome (appellant). Pattu Dome and Sakaldeep Dome. The dead body of Phulwatiya was found at the house of her darwaja. At the place of occurrence there was huge quantity of blood. It was stated to him that Phulwatiya and his daughter Shanti Kumari were assaulted with Chhura near the exit of the house of Wakil Dome which is at a distance of 18 steps. The dead body was lying at a distance 18 steps from there. The dead body of Phulwatiya was at a distance of three steps west from her house in the varanda from the dead body of Shanti Kumari. In the house of the deceased there was a room facing south and in the western side of the veranda there was fencing which was used as kitchen. The width of the way was 9 feet between two quarters. There was graveyard in the north side of all those houses and a temple in the western side. The house of accused Ashok Dome was at a distance about 30 feet from the place of the occurrence. There was huge quantity of blood near the house of Wakil Dome and with a view to screen, soil was put on it and the courtyard was cleaned with water. The investigating officer (P.W. 3) seized the blood stained soil and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 5). There was huge quantity of blood near the house of Wakil Dome and with a view to screen, soil was put on it and the courtyard was cleaned with water. The investigating officer (P.W. 3) seized the blood stained soil and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 5). The inquest reports were prepared near the dead body Phulwatiya Devi which is Ext. 6 and of Shanti Devi is Ext. 7. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted showing Kedar Dome as absconder. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was informed about the occurrence by telephone from the police outpost. In paragraph 11, he has stated that the informant ( P. W. 2) did not tell him in his fard beyan that Ganesh and Lallan were armed with Chhura. It was also not stated by P.W. 2 before him that Ganesh and Lallan assaulted with Chhura. No witness has stated before him that Lallan and Ganesh assaulted the deceased with Chhura. The witness Guriya Kumari (not examined) did not state before him that Lallan and Ganesh were present at the place of occurrence. Ram Kumari Devi and Phulwa Devi also did not name these two accused Lallan and Ganesh. 9. P. W. 4 Dr. Md. Afzal has held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shanti Kumari female child aged about 8 years on 6.7.1987 at 7 a.m. and found following injuries:– (i) 1 ½” x ¼” x deep 2” on the back of neck incised wound. (ii) 1 ½” x ¼” on the chest 1” away from middle towards the right deep to the chest cavity incised wound. (iii) Incised wound 5”x 1/2'” x 1 ½” deep in the right thigh. Internal examinations:- All the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Chaku, Chhura. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. Cause of death was haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries. He has identified the post-mortem report (Ext. 8). On the same date at 7.30 a.m. he held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Phulpatia, wife of Dukhan Dome and found the following injuries:– (i) 1 ½” x ¼” x deep to chest cavity 2” away from the middle of chest towards right side incised wound. (ii) Incised wound on right side of breast 1 ½” x ¼” x deep to chest cavity. (ii) Incised wound on right side of breast 1 ½” x ¼” x deep to chest cavity. (iii) Incised wound on left doresum of hand with tailing size 1” x 1/6’ x 1/6”. All these injuries were found ante mortem caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be chaku, chhura. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours. Cause of death is haemorrhage. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ext. 8/1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there are several types of sharp cutting weapons, light sharp cutting weapon and some heavy sharp cutting weapon. Incised injuries have been found on both the dead body caused by light sharp cutting weapon. 10. The defence has not examined any witness but the certified copy of an FIR lodged by Sheela @ Phulwatiya Devi has been filed showing that it was lodged against her husband Dukhan Ram. 11. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that he has stated that Lallan Dome and Ganesh Dome were also armed with Chhura, whereas, P.W. 3 Investigating Officer has stated in paragraph 11 that P.W. 2 (informant) had not stated before him that Ganesh and Lallan were armed with Chhura and both of them assaulted with Chhura. No other witness has been examined which could have stated that Lallan and Ganesh were also armed with Chhura and assaulted both the deceased, whereas, the informant (P.W. 2) has stated in his cross-examination that Lallan and Ganesh were also armed with Chhura and assaulted both the accused with Chhura. To this extent, the evidence of P.W. 2 regarding the assault made by Lallan and Ganesh does not inspire confidence and it is not fit to be accepted that Lallan and Ganesh assaulted both the deceased with Chhura. The evidence of P.W. 2 remains constant regarding the assault made by Ashok Dome to his mother (Phulwatia Devi) and sister (Shanti Kumari) of the informant (P.W. 2) with chhura. P. W. 3, the investigating officer has also stated that P.W. 2 had stated before him that Ashok Dome assaulted both the deceased with Chhura. He also found the blood stains near the house of Wakil Dome and his courtyard was also washed to remove blood. The evidence of P.W. 2 has been corroborated by the medical evidence. P. W. 4 has found sharp cutting injuries caused by chhura or knife on both the deceased causing their death. He also found the blood stains near the house of Wakil Dome and his courtyard was also washed to remove blood. The evidence of P.W. 2 has been corroborated by the medical evidence. P. W. 4 has found sharp cutting injuries caused by chhura or knife on both the deceased causing their death. It has been seen earlier that though P. W. 2 is a child witness but he was capable to understand and he is also the informant of this case on whose fardbeyan the case has been instituted. His evidence remains constant so far the charge against Ashok Dome is concerned. On careful consideration of his evidence, it appears that he stood the test of cross-examination and there is no infirmity in his evidence so far the accused Ashok Dome is concerned. 12. In the facts and circumstances stated above, we find that the judgment of conviction and sentence, so far the appellant Ashok Dome is concerned, does not require any interference. So far the conviction of Ganesh Dome and Lallan Dome is concerned, their conviction is also based on the evidence of P. W. 2, which does not inspire confidence as he has not made any statement in the first information report or in the restatement before the Investigating Officer P. W. 3 that they were armed with chhura or chaku and it has not been stated that they assaulted the deceased with chaku and chhura, as such the evidence of P.W. 2 does not inspire confidence. In this view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and sentence so far Ganesh Dome and Lallan Dome is concerned, is fit to be set aside and accordingly their conviction and sentence is set aside. They are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Thus, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 155 of 1991 is allowed. 13. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 129 of 1991 is dismissed. The bail bond of Ashok Dome is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence. DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–I agree. ?