JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon. Om Prakash-VII, J.) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants Jageshwar and Daya Ram against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1982 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S. T. No. 380 of 1981 (State Vs. Jageshwar and others) pertaining to crime No. 110 of 1981, under Sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC"), Police Station Kotwali, district Fatehpur whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment. Co- accused Ram Lakhan has been acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is as follows:- On 6.3.1981, one Ram Lakhan, husband of the deceased, moved a written report (Ex. Ka 3) at police station concerned mentioning therein that in the previous night informant was present in his flour mill with his partner Bhagwan Deen Murai. At about 6 A.M. when he came to his house then he found that several persons were present at his residence. Smt. Media, wife of the first informant was lying dead on the cot. Meera, aged about 10 years, daughter of the first informant, and his wife Smt. Media both were present in the house in the night. Meera, informed to the first informant that in the midnight one Jageshwar son of Chhedua and Daya Ram son of Chandra Pal Murai had committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating her to death. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that he does not know why they have committed the murder of his wife. The informant had sold potatoes amounting to Rs. 4,000/- eight days prior to the incident and deposited the amount of sale proceeds towards the loan of Baroda Bank and the Gramin Bank, Fatehpur. Thus prayer was made to lodge the F.I.R. and to take action. Dead body of the deceased was lying on the spot. On the basis of Ex. Ka -15, the written report, F.I.R. was lodged at police station concerned on 6.3.1981 at 9.15 A.M. against the accused appellant Jageshwar and Daya Ram under Section 302 IPC and the investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector K. P. Tripathi (P.W.-6). The chick F.I.R. is Ex. Ka-15. The G.D. Entry was also made at the same time which is Ex. Ka-16. Investigating Officer reached on the spot and prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4). The chick F.I.R. is Ex. Ka-15. The G.D. Entry was also made at the same time which is Ex. Ka-16. Investigating Officer reached on the spot and prepared the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4). He had also prepared the photo nash (Ex. Ka-8); Form No. 13 (Ex. Ka-9); letter to police station Kotwali, Fatehpur (Ex. Ka-10); sample seal (Ex. Ka-11) and also other police papers. Investigating Officer had also recovered hair said to be of the accused persons from both the palm and near the neck on the cot of the deceased and prepared memo (Ext. Ka.-7). Dead body was also kept in sealed cover preparing the sample seal (Ex. Ka-11) and was dispatched to the mortuary for post mortem through constables CP 18 Arjun Prasad and Constable CP 27 Sheo Shankar Lal, Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur. In the post mortem report it was shown that the deceased was aged about 25 years and was of average built body. Time of the death was about 1-1/2 days. Rigor mortis was present in the upper and lower limb. Eyes were closed. Doctor has found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. 1.Contused abrasion 6" x 2-1/2" over the front and lateral side of the neck. 2.Hyoid bone fractured. Membrances were found congested. Extravasation of blood into subcutaneous tissue underneath the abraded contusion and also in the muscles of neck. No defect in the small intestine and large intestine was found. Small intestine was empty. Some faecal matter was found in the large intestine. Spleen and kidney both were found congested. Bladder was full of urine. As per Doctor, the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. With the permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate the Investigating Officer had also taken the sample of hair of both the accused and after keeping them in a sealed cover sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with the hair recovered from the body of the deceased. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the similarity of hair has been proved and is on record as Ex. Ka-1. Investigating Officer has also interrogated Km. Meera (P.W.-1) and has recovered lathi and the shoes found in the house of the deceased and also prepared the memo (Ex. Ka-6) in his writing. He had also interrogated witnesses, inspected the site and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-19) mentioning all the details. Ka-1. Investigating Officer has also interrogated Km. Meera (P.W.-1) and has recovered lathi and the shoes found in the house of the deceased and also prepared the memo (Ex. Ka-6) in his writing. He had also interrogated witnesses, inspected the site and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-19) mentioning all the details. The Investigating Officer had also collected the evidence regarding crime no. 294 of 1980 under Section 294 IPC interrogating Ram Lakhan. Statement of Km. Meera under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded before the concerned Magistrate on 9.3.1981. Evidence regarding sale of Potatoes was also collected. After completing entire formalities and collecting evidence Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet not only against the appellants but also against the informant Ram Lakhan. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. Trial court after hearing the parties framed charges against the accused appellants and the informant Ram Lakhan (who has been acquitted). Accused persons denied the charges and claimed their trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined P.W. -1 Km. Meera, daughter of the deceased; P.W.-2 Dr. S. N. Tiwari, Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow; P.W.-3 Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava, Medical Officer of District Hospital, Fatehpur; P.W.-4 Jagroop; P.W.-5 Sheo Ram Singh; P.W.-6 Kamta Prasad Tripathi, S.I. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial court has also recorded the statement of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused appellant Daya Ram in his statement has admitted that Smt. Media the wife of Ram Lakahn, was done to death on the date and time mentioned in the F.I.R. Submission of written report (Ex. Ka-. 3) was also admitted. He had stated that Motilal was the Lekhpal of his village and there was illicit relations between Ram Lakhan and the daughter and wife of Lekhpal Moti Lal. Case crime no. 294 of 1980 was registered against the accused applicant Ram Lakan, which ended in a final report. He has denied any conversation between him and Jageshwar on 5.3.1981 at 7 P.M. and any conspiracy hatched with the co-accused Ram Lakhan to eliminate Smt. Media. He has specifically stated that the accused Ram Lakhan was not sleeping in his flour mill in the night of the incident. He has denied any conversation between him and Jageshwar on 5.3.1981 at 7 P.M. and any conspiracy hatched with the co-accused Ram Lakhan to eliminate Smt. Media. He has specifically stated that the accused Ram Lakhan was not sleeping in his flour mill in the night of the incident. He has denied the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. and stated by the witnesses regarding the manner and participation of the appellants in the incident. Nothing was stated about recovery of dibbi (Diya). Recovery of hair from both the palms and near the neck of the deceased was also stated to be false. Statement of Km. Meera, P.W.-1 and Jagroop, P.W.-4 regarding extra judicial confession and taking away of Km. Meera from the place of occurrence and keeping her with Jagroop, P.W.-4 was also stated to be false. Statement made by the witnesses regarding manner of incident was disputed by the accused. Extension of threat to Km. Meera by Jagroop and Daya Ram was also stated to be false. Information said to have been given by Km. Meera to the wife of Jagroop, her father and grand father was also stated to be false. Ignorance was pleaded about the preparation of police papers, inquest report, recovery of hair, lathi, shoes. It has been stated that nothing was recovered from the palms and near the neck of the deceased and also from the place of occurrence, as has been stated by the prosecution witnesses. He does not know whether Investigating Officer has prepared any site plan or not. He has accepted that the sample of hair of the accused was taken in pursuance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate but sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory was disputed and pleaded ignorance about report, submitted by the P.W.-2 S. N. Tiwari and also about the theory of the last seen evidence. As per this accused, false charge sheet was submitted against him only to save accused Ram Lakhan. He has specifically submitted that Investigating Officer forcibly taken the hair of appellants. Co-accused Jageshwar has also stated more or less the same facts. He has specifically stated that Ram Lakhan himself has committed murder of his wife. Since he had illicit relationship with the daughter of Lekhpal, he committed murder of his wife and falsely implicated him. He has specifically submitted that Investigating Officer forcibly taken the hair of appellants. Co-accused Jageshwar has also stated more or less the same facts. He has specifically stated that Ram Lakhan himself has committed murder of his wife. Since he had illicit relationship with the daughter of Lekhpal, he committed murder of his wife and falsely implicated him. When he came to know about this fact he surrendered before the court. Trial court after hearing the parties by impugned judgment and order convicted the accused appellants, hence this appeal. Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no motive at all attributed against the appellants to commit the present offence, hence the trial court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence and reached on obviously wrong conclusion. The whole prosecution story is unnatural and improbable. Conduct of P.W. 1 Km. Meera itself shows that she had not seen the occurrence. She had made a false statement before the court. She is a tutored witness from the very beginning. It was also submitted that it is improbable and unbelievable that accused would take P.W.-1 Km. Meera to the residence of prosecution witness Jagroop and disclose his alleged culpability in the commission of offence to Jagroop. Nothing was recovered from the place of occurrence but the police only to falsely implicate the appellants had shown false recovery of lathi and shoes. Police had also made false recovery of hair from the palms and near the neck of the deceased. Actually when police took the sample of hair of the appellants on the basis of order passed by the C.J.M. Concerned, the Investigating Officer kept the same in two different packets and sent for forensic examination. Therefore, evidence in this respect cannot be believed and no reliance can be placed. It was further argued that circumstances of the case clearly go to show that no extra judicial confession was made by the accused appellant. Incident is said to have taken place in the night. There is major contradiction in the statement of witness P.W.-1 Meera. Prosecution has also failed to establish this fact that whether hair said to have been taken from the palms and neck of the deceased was kept intact in proper custody till submission of it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Incident is said to have taken place in the night. There is major contradiction in the statement of witness P.W.-1 Meera. Prosecution has also failed to establish this fact that whether hair said to have been taken from the palms and neck of the deceased was kept intact in proper custody till submission of it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has argued that prosecution was able to establish date, time and place of the occurrence. Appellants have not disputed the fact that deceased was done to death in the night as is mentioned in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 Km. Meera was the eye witness. She was sleeping at the time of incident along with her mother (deceased). She had seen the incident. Accused had taken her to the house of witness Jagroop. Extra judicial confession made by the appellants before the witness Jagroop is fully reliable and corroborated with the statement of P.W.-1 Meera. Omission to put question to P.W.-1 to ascertain her understanding and capability to recapitulate facts in her memory is not relevant as she was cross examined at length by the appellants and she answered the question clearly and intelligently. Therefore, her testimony cannot be thrown away. Medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. There is no reason attributable to the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants. We have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties in consonance with the fact and evidence of the matter and have also gone through the relevant legal position applicable in the matter. Before proceeding to discuss the grounds raised by the parties, we prefer to quote the legal position for acceptance of the testimony of a child witness. The Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar son of Kalyan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 , examining the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 held that every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise. The Apex Court further held that it is desirable that Judges and magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the witness may be seriously affected, so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the Magistrate or Judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate. In Mangoo & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 959 , the Apex Court while dealing with the evidence of a child witness observed that there was always scope to tutor the child, however, it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored. The Court must determine as to whether the child has been tutored or not. It can be ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof as to whether there are any traces of tutoring. In Panchhi and others Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726 , it has been observed that testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. Recently the Apex Court in Nivrutti Pandurang and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 1460 has held that : "The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make-believe. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness." Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2292 and in State of U. P. Vs. Krishna Master and others, AIR 2010 SC 3071 . In the matter of Gagan Kanojia and another Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516, the Apex Court has also held that part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from untutored part, in such case remaining untutored part inspires confidence. In such an eventuality the untutored part can be believed or at least taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. Thus from the legal position enumerated herein above now it is clear that deposition of a child witness may be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the court and is not affected by embellishment or improvement therein. Only caution has to be exercised in evaluating evidence of a child witness, the court should be more careful and cautious because the child witness is susceptible to tutoring. In the light of above legal position, the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding credibility of the testimony of P.W.-1 Km. Meera has to be scrutinized by the court. In the present matter prosecution has relied upon the testimony of eye witness account, extra judicial confession, circumstantial evidence like recovery of hair of the accused persons from the scene and also of the lathi and shoes belonging to the accused from the place of occurrence. Meera has to be scrutinized by the court. In the present matter prosecution has relied upon the testimony of eye witness account, extra judicial confession, circumstantial evidence like recovery of hair of the accused persons from the scene and also of the lathi and shoes belonging to the accused from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.W.-1 Km. Meera has not seen the occurrence. She has not given any details of the recovery of the hair etc. It was also argued that while examining the P.W.-1 Km. Meera, who was only aged about 11 years, the trial court has not administered the oath to ascertain whether she was capable of giving the rational answer and to understand the question to be put by the defence. Therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon. The Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar (Supra) has held that testimony of any child witness cannot be disbelieved only on this ground that the court dealing with the matter has not administered oath before recording the evidence. The view expressed by the Apex Court in the above case is clearly applicable in the present matter. Trial court has not administered the oath to P.W.-1 Km. Meera who was aged about 11 years but a lengthy cross examination has been made by the defence apart from the examination in chief. On close scrutiny of the statement of P.W-1 Km. Meera, recorded by the trial court, it is evident that she has given rational answers of the question put to her. She was capable of understanding the questions put to her. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. Finding recorded by us also find support from the fact that while recording statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. concerned Magistrate had administered oath to P.W.-1 certifying that she was able to give rational answer of the questions put to her. Thus in our view, only requirement of law in the present matter is that deposition made by the P.W.-1 Km. Meera, who is a child witness, has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. We proceed to take up at first the presence of Km. Meera at the time of occurrence. Prosecution case is that in the night of incident P.W.-1 Km. Meera was sleeping along with her mother deceased Media on the same cot. Meera, who is a child witness, has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. We proceed to take up at first the presence of Km. Meera at the time of occurrence. Prosecution case is that in the night of incident P.W.-1 Km. Meera was sleeping along with her mother deceased Media on the same cot. She was awakened on the hue and cry of the deceased and saw the incident. As per P.W.-1 initially both the accused were pressing the neck of the deceased but thereafter appellant Jageshwar put the barrel of the country made pistol upon the neck of the deceased and pressed it causing the death of the deceased. After committing the offence both the accused are said to had taken away the P.W.-1 Km. Meera to the house of P.W.-4 Jagroop and told him that they have committed the murder of Smt. Media, wife of Ram Lakhan and asked the P.W.-4 to keep Km. Meera with him and not to inform about the incident to anybody otherwise he would also be killed. Both the accused persons had also threatened Km. Meera. Offence is said to have been committed in the midnight. P.W.-1 Km. Meera laid in bed near P.W.-4 Jagroop under the chhappar till morning. When wife of Jagroop opened the door of the house and wanted to know the reason why she was weeping, she narrated the whole incident to her. Thereafter P.W.-1 Meera went to her grand father's house. Ram Lakhan, the father of Km. Meera also reached the place of occurrence and P.W.-1 Meera narrated the entire incident to him also. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that conduct of the P.W.-1 Km. Meera clearly goes to show that she was not present on the spot at the time of incident. Had she actually witnessed the incident, the natural conduct would have been that she would have informed about the incident to her near relative. Non complaining to anyone about the incident in the night itself clearly create doubt about the presence of this witness at the place of occurrence. Reference at this stage may be made to the cross examination of this witness wherein she has admitted that she used to visit the house of Jagroop and also stayed there for some time. Referring to this admission, it was argued that P.W.-1 Km. Reference at this stage may be made to the cross examination of this witness wherein she has admitted that she used to visit the house of Jagroop and also stayed there for some time. Referring to this admission, it was argued that P.W.-1 Km. Meera was actually sleeping at the residence of Jagroop at the time of the incident. If the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is considered in the light of the fact and nature of the case as well as the finding arrived at by the trial court, it is clear that only on this basis that P.W-1 Km. Meera used to visit the house of Jagroop, it cannot be presumed that she was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. Trial court has observed that P.W.-1 Km. Meera is the daughter of the deceased and is a female child. It is natural and probable conduct that she would have been sleeping with her mother at the time of occurrence. It is also observed that since accused persons had pressurized her, therefore, due to fear she could not tell anything in the night itself to anyone. The finding recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by by the trial court is the only possible view on a proper appraisement of evidence and no other view is possible. As far as the competency of the P.W.-1 Km. Meera is concerned we have made it clear in the earlier part of the judgment that the testimony of this witness shall be scrutinized very cautiously and carefully and if required, corroboration from other evidence would be seen. Statement of P.W.-4 Jagroop is relevant only in relation to extra judicial confession which had been made by the accused persons to him. The said extra judicial confession made by the accused persons regarding confession of the offence has also been supported by P.W.-1 Km. Meera. P.W.-4 Jagroop bore no enmity with the accused person. He is also not interested or related witness so that his testimony be discarded. Regarding acceptability of the extra judicial confession, the Apex Court in the matter of Nishi Kant Jha Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422 has propounded the theory of exculpatory and inculpatory part of the statement. P.W.-4 Jagroop bore no enmity with the accused person. He is also not interested or related witness so that his testimony be discarded. Regarding acceptability of the extra judicial confession, the Apex Court in the matter of Nishi Kant Jha Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422 has propounded the theory of exculpatory and inculpatory part of the statement. The Apex Court again in the case of Chandra Bonia Vs. State of Assam, (2011) 14 SCC 760 has held that extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis of such evidence cannot be maintained. In the present case the extra judicial confession is said to have been made by both the accused before the P.W.-4 Jagroop. This fact has been consistently stated by P.W.-1 Km. Meera and P.W.-4 Jagroop. Accused persons also threatened P.W.-4 Jagroop to kill him if he would disclose this to anyone. Extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence, therefore, in our opinion, the same has to be seen in the light of the entire facts and circumstances and other evidence available in the matter. Trial court has also placed reliance on the recovery of lathi and shoes belonging to accused Jageshwar and Daya Ram. Fact of recovery of these two articles had been proved not only by the Investigating Officer but by P.W.-5 Sheo Ram Singh also. Statement of P.W. 5 Sheo Ram Singh is only relevant to the extent that he was the witness of the said recovery. Statement regarding conduct of the present appellants and other co-accused Ram Lakhan (acquitted by the court below) is not relevant in the present matter as conversation made between them was not heard by this witness. Although trial court has placed reliance on this recovery on the basis of statement of P.W.-5 Sheo Ram Singh but the accused persons in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has denied of any such recovery. Source of knowledge whether the lathi actually belong to Daya Ram and shoes to the accused Jageshwar is not forthcoming. Whether shoes, said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence, actually belonged to accused Jageshwar or not, there is no other evidence, therefore in our opinion it is a very weak piece of evidence to connect the lathi and shoes with the accused person. Whether shoes, said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence, actually belonged to accused Jageshwar or not, there is no other evidence, therefore in our opinion it is a very weak piece of evidence to connect the lathi and shoes with the accused person. So far as the recovery of hair from the palms and near the neck of the deceased is concerned, this fact finds place in the inquest report which was prepared just in the morning of the incident. If hair had not been recovered from the body of the deceased, this fact could not find place in the inquest report. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that recovery of the hair is forged and planted one and was taken forcibly cutting the hair of the accused. If this argument is closely scrutinized with the evidence of the present case, we are of the view that plea taken by the appellants are not acceptable. Investigating Officer had obtained permission from the concerned Magistrate for taking the sample of hair of the accused persons and on that basis he had cut the hair and the same was kept in the sealed cover in the court itself. Both the packets were sent by him to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the sample of hair taken from the accused persons were kept in two different sealed packets and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, therefore, positive report was submitted by the Laboratory. Original hair recovered from the palms and near the neck of the deceased were not sent to Laboratory. We have also closely scrutinized this fact with the evidence available on record. Certainly the hair recovered from the body (palms and neck) of the deceased was kept in the sealed cover in the police station itself and was not deposited in Sadar Malkhana but as per the testimony of Dr. S. N. Tiwari when he received the packets he found that the seal of the packet was intact. The laches appears to have been done on the part of the Investigating Officer. Fact of recovery of the hair from the palms and near the neck of the deceased clearly and consistently finds support from the statement of P.W.-5 Sheo Ram Singh. The laches appears to have been done on the part of the Investigating Officer. Fact of recovery of the hair from the palms and near the neck of the deceased clearly and consistently finds support from the statement of P.W.-5 Sheo Ram Singh. The Investigating Officer has also explained the reason for not depositing the hair in the Sadar Malkhana. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abu Thakir & others Vs. State, AIR 2010 SC 2119 has held that if investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent of the impact of the faulty investigation; otherwise criminal trial will descend to the Investigating Officer ruling the roost. It has also been held that if the court is convinced that the evidence of eyewitnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the Investigating Officer in the case is suspicious. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias Shera & others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920 , has also held that the accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation; to do so would be playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer whose investigation was defective by design. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, through Secretary Home, AIR 2008 SC 441 . If the fact and evidence of the present case is taken into consideration with the settled legal position it is clear that only on the basis of a faulty and defective investigation the prosecution case can not be disbelieved. If it goes to the root of the prosecution case and create doubts then only prosecution case can be disbelieved. In the present matter, from the perusal of the statement of P.W.-2 Dr. S. N. Tiwari and P.W.-6 Kamta Prasad Tripathi; P.W.-5 Sheo Ram Singh, it is clear that recovery of hair is not doubtful. Hair recovered from the body of the deceased belonged to both the accused Jageshwar and Daya Ram. There were similarity in the hair taken by the Investigating Officer from the accused after obtaining permission of the concerned Magistrate with the hair recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, trial court has rightly placed reliance on the recovery of hair. Hair recovered from the body of the deceased belonged to both the accused Jageshwar and Daya Ram. There were similarity in the hair taken by the Investigating Officer from the accused after obtaining permission of the concerned Magistrate with the hair recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, trial court has rightly placed reliance on the recovery of hair. Observation recorded by the trial court in this respect is not interfereable. In the present matter there is laches on the part of the Investigating Officer in non depositing the sealed packets of hair in the Malkhana but it did not destroy the prosecution case specially when P.W.-2 found the seal of both the packets intact. Certainly in the present matter there is no motive attributed to the accused to commit the present offence. Although in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. appellants have taken plea that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the Investigating Officer only to save accused Ram Lakhan. It is to be mentioned here that trial court after hearing the parties has acquitted the accused Ram Lakhan with the charge under Section 120-B IPC as the trial court did not find any evidence of conspiracy. No benefit was extended to the present appellants as there was sufficient evidence against them. P.W.-1 Km. Meera is although a child witness but she is a natural and probable witness. She was present at the time of occurrence on the spot. She had seen the occurrence. If she had not disclosed details of every moment then also her statement cannot be discarded. Offence is said to have taken place in the midnight. Km. Meera was sleeping with her mother Smt. Media, she was awakened and saw the incident and deposed the whole prosecution story not only in the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but also in the trial court. Her statement is also not tutored one. She is a competent witness. She had not disclosed the fact in the night itself as she was frightened. Statement of P.W.-2 regarding extra judicial confession finds support from the evidence of Km. Meera and also from the circumstances like recovery of hair. Thus trial court findings regarding guilt of the appellants is based on evidence available on record. No illegality or infirmity is found. Medical evidence also fully supports the prosecution case. Statement of P.W.-2 regarding extra judicial confession finds support from the evidence of Km. Meera and also from the circumstances like recovery of hair. Thus trial court findings regarding guilt of the appellants is based on evidence available on record. No illegality or infirmity is found. Medical evidence also fully supports the prosecution case. Deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. P.W.-3 Dr. Satish Chandra Srivastava also support this fact that injuries found on the neck of the deceased may be caused by putting and pressing the country made pistol. Accused Jageshwar was armed with country made pistol. Accused appellants have not challenged in so many terms the place of occurrence. There was no enmity of the prosecution witnesses with the accused appellants to have falsely implicated them in the present case. Therefore, in our considered view the trial court has rightly held the appellants guilty of committing the murder of Smt. Media and convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is well discussed and the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is liable to be upheld and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.1982 is hereby confirmed. The appellants Jageshwar and Daya Ram are on bail. Their personal and surety bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned immediately to serve out the remaining sentence imposed upon them by the trial court. In case they fail to surrender, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take coercive action against them in this regard. Copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent immediately to the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for compliance. ———————