JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. This appeal seeks to challenge judgment dated 15.09.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the accused-appellant Om Prakash @ Padda has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC and sentenced as under: Section 302 IPC: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment. Section 364 IPC: Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment. Section 201 IPC: Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on 06.04.2007 at around 3.00 P.M., complainant Mohar Pal (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-2) to S.H.O., P.S. Rajgarh, Alwar alleging therein that his son Roop Singh aged about 5-6 years went to see the fair (mela) of Nangeshwar Baba at Barabadhkol. Whole day, his son was with him, but suddenly around 6.00 P.M., he went missing. When complainant and his son along with other children were preparing to board bugga (a vehicle also known as 'jugad') for returning to their homes, his son Roop Singh went missing from the site. Complainant made intensive search for his son, but no trace of him was found. His son was of fair complexioned and slender in physic. He was wearing pant and a lining shirt. On the basis of aforesaid report, the police registered a missing person report (Exhibit P-1). On 08.04.2007, complainant Mohar Pal (P.W.1) again submitted a report to the effect that on 05.04.2007, his son Roop Singh went with the family members to see the fair of Nangeshwar Baba at Barabadhkhol and due to heavy rush in the fair, his son separated from the family. He made a search for his son all around, but could not find him. A missing person report was lodged at Police Station Rajgarh, Alwar. It was further averred in the report that when they were searching for his son, one Amit Lal (P.W.7), a boy aged 8 years, of his village informed him that on the said day, he saw Om Prakash @ Pada taking Roop Singh towards the temple on the pretext of offering 'prasad'. It was further averred in the report that when they were searching for his son, one Amit Lal (P.W.7), a boy aged 8 years, of his village informed him that on the said day, he saw Om Prakash @ Pada taking Roop Singh towards the temple on the pretext of offering 'prasad'. It was also mentioned in aforesaid report that few days prior to this incident, some exchange of hot words took place between informant and accused at the residence of former and on that occasion, accused had threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, he doubted that Om Prakash had taken his son to some unknown place. On the basis of aforementioned written report, regular FIR No. 93/07 (Exhibit P-3) was registered at Police Station Rajgarh, Alwar for offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 IPC. Police started investigation and recorded statement of witnesses and prepared site plan. Dead body of deceased Roop Singh was recovered upon information obtained from the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and post mortem of dead body was conducted. Accused-appellant was arrested by police. Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC. Charges under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused-appellant, which he denied and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence. No witness was produced by defence and only four documents were exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated hereinabove. We have heard Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant and Ms. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae argued that finding of conviction recorded by the trial court, being contrary to the provisions of law as also the facts of case and the material on record, is legally not sustainable. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no conviction can be recorded against the accused-appellant. Entire edifice of the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no conviction can be recorded against the accused-appellant. Entire edifice of the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Not only no individual circumstance against the accused-appellant has been proved, but when these circumstances are joined together, the same do not form a chain so complete, so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and none else. The prosecution witnesses, while making statements, have made material improvements upon their earlier versions given to the investigating agency. Therefore, their testimony is not worthy at all. It is argued that only incriminating circumstance against the accused-appellant is that he was last seen in the company of the deceased as per the version of Amit (P.W.7), who is child of eight years. Since child witness is easily susceptible to be doctored and tutored. It is wholly unsafe to convict the accused-appellant only on the basis of the testimony of a child witness, unless the testimony of such witness is corroborated in material parts. Trial court committed a grave error of law in convicting the accusedappellant on the basis of testimony of Amit (P.W.7), whose testimony does not find corroboration from the testimony of Mangtu Ram (P.W.9) and Smt. Sharda (P.W.10), who were said to be present with Amit (P.W.7) when he first met the accused-appellant in the fair ('mela'). There are also material contradictions in statements of aforesaid three witnesses regarding their presence in the fair and also the sequence of events, in which Amit (P.W.7) had allegedly met the accusedappellant in the fair and had seen taking the deceased along with him towards the temple. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that contradictions are such, which go to the root of the case and cannot be ignored. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that Rati Ram, father of Amit (P.W.7) was having inimical relation with him due to land dispute. Rati Ram is his maternal uncle and, therefore, he had conspired with the family members of the deceased in order to implicate him due to enmity. Thus, the testimony of Amit (P.W.7), being tutored, is unreliable. The trial court has failed to consider this aspect of the case while placing reliance upon the testimony of child witness, Amit (P.W.7). Rati Ram is his maternal uncle and, therefore, he had conspired with the family members of the deceased in order to implicate him due to enmity. Thus, the testimony of Amit (P.W.7), being tutored, is unreliable. The trial court has failed to consider this aspect of the case while placing reliance upon the testimony of child witness, Amit (P.W.7). The trial court has therefore committed grave error of law in placing reliance upon testimony of aforesaid witness. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that since the present case rest upon circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be so complete, leaving no room for any other hypothesis that the crime has been committed by none other than the accused. The chain of circumstances should be complete and probable, indicating to the guilt of the accused, but in this case there are many missing links in the chain of circumstances. Only incriminating circumstance against the accused-appellant is that he was lastly seen in the company of the deceased taking him towards the temple and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant from the fields in the jungle. There was a long time span between two events viz. When the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused-appellant and the dead body was recovered. Evidence with regard to chain of events of the intervening period is totally missing. There is no incriminating circumstances during this period against the accusedappellant, so as to connect him with the alleged crime. There is every possibility that the accused-appellant might have left the deceased in the temple and after that some other person might have taken the deceased from there and committed crime. Thus, the trial court has committed a grave error of law in convicting the accused-appellant merely on the basis of last seen evidence despite the fact that chain of circumstances against accused-appellant had broken and missing links. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that trial court failed to consider and appreciate that recovery of dead body allegedly made at the instance of the accused-appellant is of no avail because dead body was actually recovered from the jungle, which is an open place and accessible to all and was not in the exclusive possession of the accused-appellant. It is argued that motive for the present crime has to be essentially proved. It is argued that motive for the present crime has to be essentially proved. In the present case, it has been put forth by the prosecution witnesses that the accused-appellant made indecent overtures towards Smt. Seva (P.W.12), wife of brother of the complainant and for this reason, the family members of the complainant reprimanded him and in retaliation, the accused-appellant threatened them with dire consequences. But Smt. Seva (P.W.12), herself has not supported this prosecution story and was declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she had stated that her father-in-law-namely Khairati (P.W.6) alone went to the fair on that day and deceased Roop Singh was present at home. There was one furious buffalo in the house, which broke away the chain and dashed into the deceased, as a result of which he died on spot. She has also stated that the accusedappellant has been falsely implicated in the case and the alleged incident of overtures towards her is totally false. Thus, the motive of the crime, put forth by the prosecution is not proved. Referring to examination of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned Amicus Curiae argued that the accused-appellant also stated therein that he has been falsely implicated and Roop Singh died due to furious buffalo that went out of control and dashed into him. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that as per the medical report, the cause of death was asphyxia, yet no ligature marks was found upon the person of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to explain as to under what circumstances asphyxia can be caused without the presence of any ligature mark and under what circumstances the injuries found upon the person of the deceased could be caused/sustained, so as to co-relate the same with the other material circumstances of the case. Therefore, conviction of the accused-appellant cannot be upheld. The trial court has further failed to consider that all the prosecution witnesses are partisan/interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined in support of the prosecution story. It is a rule of prudence that the testimony of interested witness has to be relied upon with great care and caution and in the case in hand, there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is a rule of prudence that the testimony of interested witness has to be relied upon with great care and caution and in the case in hand, there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It has been alleged by the complainant in FIR that the deceased Roop Singh went to the fair along with the complainant whereas he, in the trial court, has stated that his son went with his father Kharati (P.W.6) to the fair. Contrary to this, Smt. Seva (P.W.12) deposed in her cross examination that her father-in-law, Kharati (P.W.6) went to the fair all alone and the deceased was present in the house. Contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are not superficial, but go to the root of the case and cause dent in the prosecution story. The prosecution witnesses have made material improvements in their statements vis-a-vis their police statements. It is thus evident that origin and genesis of the incident has been concealed by the prosecution. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae further argued that testimony of Havvad Ram (P.W.4) is wholly unreliable. It does not inspire confidence that Amit (P.W.7) was lastly seen with accused Om Prakash. If Amit (P.W.7) has any thing to say about the deceased Roop Singh, why did he keep silent for two days. Referring to statement of Smt. Sharda (P.W.10) and her husband Mangtu Ram (P.W.9), sister and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively, learned Amicus Curiae argued that these witnesses have not given any explanation why they left a boy aged 6 years alone in the fair and returned back to village. Mangtu Ram (P.W.9) has stated that he saw Om Prakash getting down from the bus around 5.30 P.M. At that time, Amit (P.W.7) was with this witness and was insisting that he would go to village in bugga (jugad). Place of incident was about 2.5 k.m. away from the village of his in-laws. Smt. Sharda (P.W.10) has given different version and stated that Amit (P.W.7) was separated from them in the fair and they came alone. Although, Smt. Sharda (P.W.10) has been declared hostile, nevertheless, contradiction between what she has stated and what her husband, Mangtu Ram (P.W.9) stated, cannot be ignored. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-15) proved by Dr. Meena Gupta (P.W.11) indicated that injury no. 2 and 3 were also fractures. Although, Smt. Sharda (P.W.10) has been declared hostile, nevertheless, contradiction between what she has stated and what her husband, Mangtu Ram (P.W.9) stated, cannot be ignored. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P-15) proved by Dr. Meena Gupta (P.W.11) indicated that injury no. 2 and 3 were also fractures. There was mark of bruise in the size of 10 x 6 c.m. on side thoracic region of the chest resulting into fracture of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs, yet there was no ligature mark. No explanation has been given in this regard. Besides, no weapon of offence has been recovered. It is, therefore, prayed that the present appeal be allowed and judgment passed by the trial court be quashed and set aside and the accused-appellant be acquitted of all the charges. Ms. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and argued that written report (Exhibit P-2) was submitted by Mohar Pal (P.W.1), complainant stating that his son went missing. Family also made search on that day and immediately missing person report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged. Khairati (P.W.6) has also corroborated the aforesaid facts. The fact that before the incident, there was enmity between complainant and the accused is also proved by testimony of Mohar Pal (P.W.1) and Khairati (P.W.6). It is argued that the deceased was last seen with the accused. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor referred to statement of Amit (P.W.7), aged 8 years, who stated that he saw the deceased with the accused. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded at the place of incident. In the court, he did not resile from his previous statement, although he was grilled too much, which is evident from the fact that he, in the concluding part of his statement, repeated so while crying that he was speaking the truth. Amit (P.W.7) cannot be said to be tutored witness because his testimony did not shatter in cross-examination. Reliance in this connection has been placed on judgments of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 389 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandgi Ram, (2014) 14 SCC 596 . Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Mohar Pal (P.W.1) and Khairati (P.W.6) have also proved the fact that accused-appellant abducted the deceased due to enmity. Reliance in this connection has been placed on judgments of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 389 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandgi Ram, (2014) 14 SCC 596 . Learned Public Prosecutor argued that Mohar Pal (P.W.1) and Khairati (P.W.6) have also proved the fact that accused-appellant abducted the deceased due to enmity. The prosecution has proved the aforesaid fact and there is no evidence available on record to show that Amit (P.W.7) and Mangtu Ram (P.W.9) had any enmity with complainant party. Therefore, their version is natural and in accordance with what they had actually seen. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that accused was arrested on 09.04.2007 at 6.30 A.M. vide Exhibit P-17 and information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act regarding dead body was obtained from him at 6.40 A.M. vide Exhibit P-18 and in pursuance thereto, dead body was recovered vide Exhibit P-4 at 8.25 A.M. Witnesses of Recovery memo are Mohar Pal (P.W.1), Havad Ram (P.W.4) and Amar Chand (P.W.13). All these witnesses have supported the prosecution story. All the circumstances when have been proved by the prosecution points towards the guilt of the accused that he is the only perpetrator of the crime and none else. It is argued that minor contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses should not come in way of other strong circumstantial evidence which cumulatively taken together forms a complete chain of events. Learned Public Prosecutor, in this behalf, has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Alias Monu Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 148 . Learned Public Prosecutor argued that in absence of any explanation put forth by accused as to what happened to deceased thereafter, which factum was specially within knowledge, presumption could be drawn that accused had murdered the deceased, since he was found murdered within short time after abduction. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pram Shivam Vs. State, (2015) 13 SCC 300 . Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 664; Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 ; Pundappa Yankappa Pujari Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 372 ; Madhu alias Madhuranatha & Another Vs. State, (2015) 13 SCC 300 . Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 664; Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 509 ; Pundappa Yankappa Pujari Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 372 ; Madhu alias Madhuranatha & Another Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 419 ; Sukhwnder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 490 . We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. Even though, Amit (P.W.7) is a child witness aged 8 years, but record reveals that he has throughout remained consistent as to the fact that the deceased was last seen with the accused whereas the accused has not come out with an explanation whatsoever as to what happened to deceased after he parted company with him. Amit (P.W.7) stated that he has accompanied his sister, Smt. Sharda (P.W.10) and brother-in-law, Mangtu Ram (P.W.9) to fair (mela). While they left early, he stayed back there. Roop Singh was also there in the fair (mela). Accused Om Prakash came there in a bus. He purchased offering (prasad) of Rs. 5/-. This witness stated that he came to his house in 'bugga' and he lastly saw Roop Singh with Om Prakash. This witness has been thoroughly cross-examined, but in spite of his tender age, he stood the scrutiny of cross-examination. He has stated that he did not accompany Om Prakash in the temple to offer prasad. At one point of time, in cross-examination, this witness stated that he could not say whether accused left mela venue or not while this witness was there, but he saw the accused going alone, but then he, on his own, corrected himself by stating that Roop Singh was also accompanying him. When a suggestion was put to him that he was speaking false at the askance of Mohar Pal (P.W.1), he firmly denied that suggestion and stated that he was speaking truth. Mohar Pal (P.W.1), father of the deceased, has stated that he lodged missing person report on second day of incident. On third day, after the incident, Amit (P.W.7) told him that deceased Roop Singh was lastly seen in the company of Om Prakash. He stated that Om Prakash purchased prasad of Rs. Mohar Pal (P.W.1), father of the deceased, has stated that he lodged missing person report on second day of incident. On third day, after the incident, Amit (P.W.7) told him that deceased Roop Singh was lastly seen in the company of Om Prakash. He stated that Om Prakash purchased prasad of Rs. 5/- and he caught hands of Roop Singh and took him inside the temple. When panchayat was convened in presence of the villagers, Om Prakash denied this allegation. It was thereafter, that written report (Exhibit P-2) was registered by him expressing doubt against Om Prakash. This witness stated that Om Prakash had made indecent overtures towards wife of his younger brother 10-15 days before the incident. When they forbade him, he ran away leaving behind his cycle. At that time, he threatened that he would do some such thing to the family that all members would keep crying for rest of their life. Havvad Ram (P.W.4) has proved the fact of convening of panchayat. In fact, he has stated that when they confronted Amit (P.W.7) with Om Prakash, he virtually denied that Roop Singh was with him. Amit (P.W.7) still maintained that he lastly saw Roop Singh in the company of Om Prakash, who held the hands of Roop Singh and took him to temple and Om Prakash had purchased offering (prasad) of Rs. 5/- and then took Roop Singh to temple. Khairati (P.W.6), father of the complainant and grand father of the deceased, also stated that on third day of incident, Amit (P.W.7) son of Ratiram told him that Om Prakash had taken Roop Singh with him to temple. He purchased offering (prasad) and then went to the temple. A panchayat was also convened in which Amit repeated his allegation in presence of Om Prakash, who denied the same. When Om Prakash denied the same, Amit (P.W.7) firmly stated that he had seen Roop Singh with Om Prakash. Amar Chand (P.W.13), the investigating officer, has stated that he arrested accused Om Prakash on 09.04.2007 vide Exhibit P-17. Om Prakash gave information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit P-18) that he had concealed the dead body of Roop Singh in a pit adjacent to 'med' (mud boundary) of agricultural field in the jungle at kuccha rasta going to Dhakpuri situated ahead Shyam Ganga on Bilandi Wali Road. Om Prakash gave information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit P-18) that he had concealed the dead body of Roop Singh in a pit adjacent to 'med' (mud boundary) of agricultural field in the jungle at kuccha rasta going to Dhakpuri situated ahead Shyam Ganga on Bilandi Wali Road. He accompanied the accused to the place where from the accused removed the sand and took out dead body of Roop Singh in the presence of Harbal and Mohar Pal. Attesting witness Mohar Pal (P.W.1) immediately recognised dead body to be of his son Roop Singh. Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-5) was prepared then and there. Factum of recovery of dead body has been proved not only by Mohar Pal (P.W.1), but also Harchand (P.W.5). They were attesting witnesses to Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-5). They were also attesting witnesses of site plan of place of recovery (Exhibit P-13). Ishar (P.W.3) has also stated that accused removed the sand from his own hands and took out dead body. Similar statement has been given by Harchand (P.W.5), Mohar Pal (P.W.1) and Bholuram (P.W.8), who is also attested witness of Exhibit P-12. Contention of learned Amicus Curiae that present case being of circumstantial evidence, alleged motive has not been proved, which should be taken as an important missing link in the chain of circumstances is noted to be rejected for the stated reasons. It is true that Mohar Pal (P.W.1), father of the deceased and Khairati (P.W.6), grand father of the deceased have made allegations against the accused that he made indecent overtures towards Smt. Seva (P.W.12), aunt of the deceased and that when he was reprimanded, he fled leaving behind his cycle in their house but when these statements are examined in conjunction with the statement of Smt. Seva (P.W.12), alleged motive is rather fully proved. Mohar Pal (P.W.1) has stated that when they forbade the accused Om Prakash for making indecent overtures toward Smt. Seva (P.W.12), he went away leaving behind cycle, but at that time he threatened that he would teach them such a lesson that all family members would cry forever. In crossexamination, when it was asked to him, he candidly admitted that no report was lodged with the police station about the allegation of sexual advancement towards Smt. Seva (P.W.12) against the accused. In crossexamination, when it was asked to him, he candidly admitted that no report was lodged with the police station about the allegation of sexual advancement towards Smt. Seva (P.W.12) against the accused. Khairati (P.W. 6) has also corroborated the aforesaid allegation made by Mohar Pal (P.W.1) that about 10-15 days before the incident, when the accused was trying to take liberty with Smt. Seva (P.W.12), wife of his younger son, he was reprimanded. The accused ran away from their house and while leaving, he threatened them of dire consequences. This witness also stated that they did not deliberately lodge the report against the accused at that time due to the fear that whole family would be defamed. Now, in the light of this allegation, when we read the statement of Smt. Seva (P.W.12), wife of younger son of Mohar Pal (P.W.1) and aunt of the deceased, it is found that this witness has been declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. She denied allegation that Om Prakash entered their house to harass her and made any indecent overtures towards her. She also denied the fact that Om Prakash left cycle in their house. She also denied that her father-in-law Khairati (P.W.6) and Mohar Pal (P.W.1) quarreled with Om Prakash and further denied the allegation of threat given by Om Prakash. But in cross-examination, she has gone out of the way to construct new story of defence for the accused. She, thus, retracted from her earlier statement given to police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-16) wherein she also made similar statement. She failed to give any explanation when she was confronted with her statement given to police that Om Prakash was trying take liberty with her and she raised hue and cry and her family members manhandled Om Prakash and pelted stones at him and Om Prakash ran away from their house leaving behind his cycle and that they did not lodge any report because it would have defamed their family. Om Prakash, while leaving, threatened them of dire consequence and that he would do some such thing which the whole family would remember throughout their life. All this was denied by Smt. Seva (P.W.12). Om Prakash, while leaving, threatened them of dire consequence and that he would do some such thing which the whole family would remember throughout their life. All this was denied by Smt. Seva (P.W.12). However, in her cross-examination by counsel for the accused, this witness had gone to extent of saying that her father-in-law had gone to fair (mela) alone and Roop Singh was at home and there was a violent buffalo in the house which broke the chain and dashed into Roop Singh, as result of which he died on spot. It was thereafter that statement of Amar Chand (P.W.13) was recorded. Statement of one more prosecution witness Duli Chand Verma (P.W.14), photographer was recorded. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he took same defence as was offered by Smt. Seva (P.W.13) in her cross-examination. Mere fact that Mohar Pal (P.W.1) and Khairati (P.W.6) did not lodge first information report against Om Prakash cannot be a reason to brush aside case of the prosecution on this aspect. In fact, Amar Chand (P.W.13), Investigating Officer, in crossexamination by none other than counsel for the accused, has categorically stated that his investigation revealed that Om Prakash was having illicit relations with Smt. Seva (P.W.12). And he denied suggestion that he had falsely implicated accused owing to any such illicit relations. Alleged contradiction between missing person report (Exhibit P-1) and first information report (Exhibit P-2) is not so significant as to completely discard entire prosecution case. In fact, Mohar Pal (P.W.1) is an illiterate person, which is evident from his thumb impression on the written report (Exhibit P-2). When he was asked to explain this discrepancy, he stated that he is an illiterate person and he approached someone in Rajgarh to type the complaint, but the typist due to inadvertence mentioned the fact that his son was with him in fair (mela) whereas the fact is that his son went to fair (mela) with his father Khairati (P.W.6). Missing person report (Exhibit P-2) depicts that where name of Mohar Pal (P.W.1) was mentioned by hand, also contains his thumb impression. It is true that testimony of a child witness must be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out possibility of tutoring. But if the court finds that child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of obligation of oath, it can be relied upon. It is true that testimony of a child witness must be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out possibility of tutoring. But if the court finds that child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of obligation of oath, it can be relied upon. Such evidence can be accepted, provided there is adequate corroboration to what the witness has stated. The Supreme Court in Dharam Deo Yadav (supra) has held that circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Even when there is no eyewitness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances, which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to be proved, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case relied upon its earlier judgment in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 wherein it was held that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal (supra) held that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are immaterial. The Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal (supra) held that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are immaterial. When a witness is examined at length, it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. The courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with credibility of his version, that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. The Supreme Court in Madhu alias Madhuranatha & Another (supra) upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence of kidnapping and murder on the basis of extra judicial confession and held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect core of prosecution case, must not prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court should examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to heard of the matter and shake the basic version of prosecution witness. In the present case, minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses do not change basic version of the prosecution about allegations against the accused. In view of above discussion, we are not inclined to uphold the contention that chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant is having missing links and such chain is not so complete, so as to rule out every hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.