JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. The appellant Jamumasi @ Jumbo @ Puthu Mahanandia was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No. 47/61 of 2002 for committing murder of his wife Munni Buda @ Mahanandia (hereafter ‘the deceased’) on 11.08.2000 inside Hatidharsa jungle under Rajgangpur Police Station in the district of Sundargarh. The learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, as per the First information report (Ext.3) presented by Mangal Majhi (P.W.3) on 12.08.2000 before the Inspector in charge, Rajgangpur Police Station is that on 11.08.2000 at about noon, the informant had been to Hatidharsa jungle to tend cattle along with small children. At about 5.00 p.m. while the informant was returning home, on the way he found the dead body of a young lady approximately aged about 19 to 20 years. He found injury mark on the cheek and neck of the dead body and one two to three months baby girl was lying near the dead body and crying. He noticed blood stain on the head of the baby girl. The informant returned to the village with the baby girl and informed others in the village about the location of the dead body. On the basis of the oral report of P.W.3 which was reduced to writing by the IIC, Rajgangpur Police Station, First Information Report was drawn up and Rajgangpur P.S. Case No. 166 dated 12.08.2000 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person and IIC, Rajgangpur Police Station directed Jagat Jiban Patel (P.W.14), S.I. of Police to take up investigation of the case. 3. During course of investigation, P.W.14 examined the informant, sent requisition to the Scientific team of DFSL, Rourkela, commanded a constable to collect blood stain from the face of the baby girl through Medical Officer, visited the spot and prepared spot map Ext.12. On being identified by the brother of the deceased namely, Kalo Bada (P.W.5), he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report Ext.4. He seized blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot and prepared seizure list Ext.7. He also seized one umbrella, a pair of baby chappals, a pair of plastic chappals under seizure list Ext.6. On being identified by the brother of the deceased namely, Kalo Bada (P.W.5), he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report Ext.4. He seized blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot and prepared seizure list Ext.7. He also seized one umbrella, a pair of baby chappals, a pair of plastic chappals under seizure list Ext.6. He examined further witnesses and sent the dead body to Rajgangpur Government Hospital for post-mortem examination. P.W.2 Dr. Saroj Kumar Parida who was attached to the said hospital as Medical Officer conducted post-mortem examination and opined the cause of death was due to injuries to the vital organs and hemorrhage and shock. The Investigating Officer (P.W.14) seized one sealed bottle containing blood stain collected from the face of the baby girl and prepared seizure list Ext.9. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased under seizure list Ext.8. On 19.08.2000 the appellant was arrested and basing on his statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, one Falsia @ Budia was recovered from inside Ghurukuni jungle and seized under seizure list Ext.5. The wearing apparels of the appellant were seized on his production under seizure list Ext.15. The I.O. also seized nail clippings, sample blood of the appellant on being produced by the constables under seizure list Ext.11. The full pant of Deepak Tanti (P.W.10) was also seized under seizure list Ext.10 which was sent to Scientific Officer, DFSL, Rourkela for examination and opinion regarding availability of blood stain in it. He received the post mortem examination report. The I.O. sought for the opinion of the doctor regarding possibility of the injuries noticed on the deceased with the weapon seized and obtained query report vide Ext.2 from the doctor. All the exhibits were sent to the Director, SFSL, Rasulgarh through J.M.F.C., Sundargarh for serological examination on 20.10.2000. The chemical examination report was received and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant on 22.11.2000 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. All the exhibits were sent to the Director, SFSL, Rasulgarh through J.M.F.C., Sundargarh for serological examination on 20.10.2000. The chemical examination report was received and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant on 22.11.2000 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned Trial Court charged the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 16.01.2003 and since the appellant refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 5. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. P.W.1 Netrananda Pal was the constable attached to Rajgangpur Police Station who stated about the seizure of blood stain from the body of a baby. P.W.2 Dr. Saroj Kumar Parida, Medical Officer attached to Rajgangpur Government Hospital conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 12.08.2000 and found number of incised wounds on her person and all the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature and cause of death was due to injuries to the vital organs and hemorrhage and shock. He proved post-mortem examination report Ext.1. He further examined the falsia produced before him on 10.10.2000 and gave his opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible by the said weapon as per his query report Ext.2. P.W.3 Mangal Majhi is the informant in the case who detected the dead body of a lady with cut injuries on her cheek and throat inside the jungle and a baby girl crying by her side. He is a witness to the inquest over the dead body and proved inquest report Ext.4. He is also a witness to the seizure of falsia under seizure list Ext.5 at the instance of the appellant. P.W.4 Dayadham Ekka stated about the disclosure made by P.W.3 regarding the location of the dead body inside the jungle. He further stated about the seizure of blood stained earth and sample earth under seizure list Ext.7 and seizure of one umbrella, a pair of baby chappals and a pair of plastic chappals and white colour cloth stained with blood under seizure list Ext.6. He further stated about the seizure of blood stained earth and sample earth under seizure list Ext.7 and seizure of one umbrella, a pair of baby chappals and a pair of plastic chappals and white colour cloth stained with blood under seizure list Ext.6. P.W.5 Kalo Bada is the younger brother of the deceased who stated about the seizure of different articles from the spot by police. He is also a witness to the preparation of the inquest report. P.W.6 Eich Kissan stated to have visited the jungle and located the dead body of a female after getting information from P.W.3. He also stated about the seizure of different articles under seizure lists Ext.6 and Ext.7. He identified the folding umbrella as M.O.I and plastic pair of chappals as M.O.II seized from the place of occurrence. P.W.7 Kiran Tapno stated that the appellant with two children and one man came near her and asked her the way leading to Sunakhani. She identified the pant of the appellant as M.O.III. P.W.8 Tikeswar Badi was the Gramarakshi who found the dead body of a female as well as a female child crying near the dead body. He proceeded to the Police Station along with P.W.3 for reporting the matter. He also stated about the seizure of falsia at the instance of the appellant under seizure list Ext.5. P.W.9 Bhupati Seth was the constable attached to Rajgangpur Police Station who stated about the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased and one sealed bottle containing blood by the police under seizure lists Ext.8 and Ext.9. P.W.10 Dipak Tanti is the nephew of the deceased and the appellant who is an eye witness to the occurrence. He also stated about the seizure of his pant, shirt and ganji as well as tangia from his house. P.W.11 Susanta Kumar Patra is a witness to the seizure of pant of P.W.10 under seizure list Ext.10. P.W.12 Benudhar Patra was the Gramarakshi who is a witness to the seizure of two bottles containing nail clippings and blood sample of the appellant as per seizure list Ext.11. P.W.13 Linial Marsin is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased who is also an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 14 Jagat Jiban Patel was the S.I. of Police attached to Rajgangpur Police Station who is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution exhibited nineteen documents. P.W.13 Linial Marsin is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased who is also an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 14 Jagat Jiban Patel was the S.I. of Police attached to Rajgangpur Police Station who is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution exhibited nineteen documents. Ext.1 is the post-mortem report, Ext.2 is the query report of P.W.2, Ext.3 is the First Information Report, Ext.4 is the inquest report, Exts.5 to 11 are the seizure lists, Ext.12 is the spot map, Ext.13 is the dead body challan, Ext.14 is the statement of the appellant, Ext.15 is the seizure list, Ext.16 is the opinion of the scientific officer, D.F.S.L., Rourkela, Ext.17 is the query made by the I.O., Ext.18 is the memo of J.M.F.C., Rajgangpur and Ext.19 is the chemical examination report. The prosecution also proved five material objects. M.O.I is the folding umbrella, M.O.II is the plastic pair of chappals, M.O.III is the brown khaki pant, M.O.IV is the tangia (axe), M.O.IV-A is the falsia and M.O.V is the pant of P.W.10. 6. The defence plea of the appellant was that in his absence, the police officials of Kuanrmunda had been to his house and that his children disclosed before him that P.W.10 Deepak Tanti had committed murder of the deceased. It was further pleaded that he was taken to the house of P.W.10 who was not present and that he has been falsely entangled in the case. 7. The learned Trial Court has been pleased to hold that the prosecution has established that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The learned Trial Court further held that in view of the relationship of P.W.13 with the appellant, infirmities in material particulars and possibility of tutoring, the testimony of P.W.13 was held to be not reliable. The learned Trial Court further held that the version of P.W.10 is unshaken, trustworthy and reliable and corroborated by P.W.2 as well as documentary evidence like Exts.1, 5, 14 and 17 and M.O. IV-A. The learned Trial Court also accepted the evidence of P.W.7 and found the appellant guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Adverting over the nature and cause of death of the deceased, we find that apart from the inquest report Ext. 4, the prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. 8. Adverting over the nature and cause of death of the deceased, we find that apart from the inquest report Ext. 4, the prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Saroj Kumar Parida who was attached to Rajgangpur Government Hospital as Medical Officer and he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 12.08.2000 and found number of ante mortem incised injuries on the neck and right index finger of the deceased. He further opined that cause of death was due to injuries to the vital organ and hemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem report was marked as Ext.1. The learned Trial Court has held that the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The learned amicus curiae for the appellant did not challenge the findings of the post mortem examination report. After perusing the evidence on record, the inquest report Ext.4, post-mortem examination report Ext.1 and the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Saroj Kumar Parida, we are of the view that the findings of the learned Trial Court regarding the nature of death of the deceased to be homicidal is based on clinching materials and therefore, we concur with such findings and we are also of the view that prosecution has successfully established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 9. Mr. Prakash Kumar Jena, learned counsel appearing as amicus curie for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the evidence of the child witness P.W.13 even though it has stood the test of scrutiny and is clear, cogent, unembellished and free from tutoring. The learned counsel further held that the conduct of P.W.10 Deepak Tanti is very suspicious and recovery of his blood stain pant and tangia from his house are the other factors which lend credence to the evidence of P.W.13 that it is he who had committed the murder of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that the motive behind commission of crime has also not been established and the falsia which was stated to have been seized at the instance of the appellant was not sent for chemical examination. It was urged that it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. Mr. The learned counsel further submitted that the motive behind commission of crime has also not been established and the falsia which was stated to have been seized at the instance of the appellant was not sent for chemical examination. It was urged that it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submitted that in view of the statement of eye witness P.W.10 and recovery of falsia at the instance of the appellant which according to the doctor (P.W.2) can cause the injuries found on the body of the deceased, the learned Trial Court was quite justified in convicting the appellant for committing murder of the deceased. 10. We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions vis-a-vis the evidences on record. P.W.13 Linial Marsin is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased who was aged about ten years at the time of her deposition in Court during trial. The learned Trial Court after putting some formal questions was satisfied that she was quite competent to depose and she was matured and giving rational answers. P.W.13 has stated that P.W.10 is her uncle who committed murder of the deceased with a sword. She further stated that she along with her younger brother, the deceased and P.W.10 were going together to one village on the date of occurrence and after committing murder, P.W.10 took them to his house and the appellant was not present with them. She further stated that she had seen the occurrence and telling the truth. She further stated that grandmother told her that the appellant had killed the deceased. She further stated that she had come to the Court with her grandmother and P.W.10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.W.13 inspires confidence and there is no embellishment or improvement. The learned counsel further urged that the observation of the learned Trial Court that the testimony of P.W.13 suffers from infirmities in material particulars and there was possibility of tutoring is not correct and based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.W.13 inspires confidence and there is no embellishment or improvement. The learned counsel further urged that the observation of the learned Trial Court that the testimony of P.W.13 suffers from infirmities in material particulars and there was possibility of tutoring is not correct and based on no evidence. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.13, we find that even though she was tutored by her grandmother that the appellant had killed the deceased and even though she was brought to the Court by her grandmother and P.W.10 but she specifically stated that it was P.W.10 who committed the murder of her mother and identified P.W.10 in Court. She has further stated that the appellant was not present when the occurrence took place. Law is well settled that a child witness can be a competent witness provided that his statement is reliable and truthful and free from tutoring and as a matter of prudence, the Court requires corroboration to the evidence of such witness. The Investigating Officer seized the full pant of P.W.10 under seizure list Ext.10 and sent it to the Scientific Officer, D.F.S.L., Rourkela to ascertain the availability of blood stain in the pant. The report of the Scientific Officer which has been marked as Ext.16 indicates regarding presence of blood on the bottom inner pant in a very minute quantity. Though the I.O. was advised to send the pant to the Director of S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar for biological/serological examination and opinion but the same was not done. P.W.10 himself stated that apart from his pant, his shirt and ganji were also seized but peculiarly the seizure list Ext.10 only reflects about the seizure of a pant. P.W.10 further stated that the police took away one tangia from his house but no such seizure list is available on record. The tangia was also not produced before the doctor seeking his opinion regarding possibility of injuries on the person of the deceased by the said weapon. Thus it appears that the Investigating Officer has deliberately suppressed material facts and conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner to save P.W.10 and to falsely implicate the appellant. The tangia was also not produced before the doctor seeking his opinion regarding possibility of injuries on the person of the deceased by the said weapon. Thus it appears that the Investigating Officer has deliberately suppressed material facts and conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner to save P.W.10 and to falsely implicate the appellant. P.W.10 Dipak Tanti has stated that while he along with his uncle (appellant), aunt (deceased) and three children of the deceased were proceeding to the house of the deceased, on the way the appellant and the deceased quarreled with each other and the appellant dealt falsia blow on the throat of the deceased and threw the falsia in a bush. P.W.10 admits that he had not disclosed about the incident to his inmates or before anybody and he had not gone to the Police Station to inform about the incident. He further stated that his pant and shirt were stained with blood but he handed over the same to the police after washing them as those were dirty. This conduct of P.W.10 in attempting to cause disappearance of evidence by way of washing his blood stained wearing apparels is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act. P.W.10 stated that the appellant dealt one blow on the throat of the deceased which runs contrary to the medical evidence inasmuch as the doctor has noticed four incised wounds on the neck and one incised wound on the right index finger. Thus the evidence of P.W.10 that the appellant was the author of the crime does not inspire confidence and accordingly we are unable to place any reliance on the same. The evidence of P.W.7 Kiran Tapno indicates that three to four years back while she was clearing gross from the paddy crops field, at about 3.00 p.m. the appellant along with two children and a man came there and the appellant asked her the way leading to Sunakhani and she showed the way to them. She stated in the cross-examination that the appellant was not known to him prior to the incident and she had not marked any identifying feature of the person on that day who asked her about the way. In absence of any T.I. parade to establish the identity of the appellant by P.W.7, the identification of the appellant for the first time in Court by P.W.7 is not acceptable. In absence of any T.I. parade to establish the identity of the appellant by P.W.7, the identification of the appellant for the first time in Court by P.W.7 is not acceptable. Moreover when it is the prosecution case that on the date of occurrence the appellant and the deceased with their children were proceeding to Sunakhani which was the father-in-law’s place of the appellant, it sounds improbable that the appellant would ask P.W.7 about the way his father-in-law’s house. Therefore, we are of the view that P.W.7 is a got up witness of the prosecution. So far as the recovery of falsia at the instance of the appellant on 19.08.2000 is concerned, when P.W.10 had seen the appellant throwing the falsia into a bush, he could have easily pointed out the same to the police when he was interrogated. It is pertinent to note that P.W.8 has stated that on the next day of lodging of the FIR (which is obviously on 13.08.2000), police brought the appellant to the spot and assaulted the appellant even though the appellant denied to have killed the deceased. He further stated that the appellant and the villagers searched for the weapon of offence and the appellant brought out the axe from the bush. Thus it appears that the recovery of the falsia has been stage managed by the investigating officer just to create evidence against the appellant. In view of the nature of evidence on record, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence relating to recovery of falsia at the instance of the appellant. 11. In view of the materials available on record, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has not properly assessed the evidence on record. The evidence of the child witness P.W.13 has not been properly appreciated and illegally discarded. The investigation was perfunctory and evidence has been created against the appellant by the investigating agency just to falsely entangle him in the crime. The evidence of P.W.10 does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, we are not able to agree with the findings of the Trial Court and we hold that the case against the appellant has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.10 does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, we are not able to agree with the findings of the Trial Court and we hold that the case against the appellant has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed there under is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other crime. Lower Court Records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. I. Mahanty, J. I agree.