JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of accused appellant Suwa to challenge the judgment dated 31.10.1991 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, whereby he recorded conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and awarded sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Additional sentence for six months rigorous imprisonment was awarded in default of payment of fine. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant and also learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR Ex.- P/1 was filed by the complainant Subhan on 24.4.1991 stating therein that his younger brother Suwa inflicted injury on the head of his wife Sayari at about 9:00 a.m. This information was given by his daughter Aamna, aged 10 years. At that time, he had gone to the mines. On receiving the information, he came back home and found that his wife was lying unconscious. She was taken to the hospital in Beawar by a bullock cart where she was declared dead. FIR was lodged on this written report. After conducting required investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Suwa for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Charge was framed against the accused by the learned trial court for the aforesaid offence, to which he denied and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution got as many as 11 witnesses examined. 14 documents were also exhibited during trial. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein he denied the prosecution evidence. No evidence was adduced by the accused in his defence. After hearing both the sides, learned trial court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC, but convicted him for the offence under Section 304 IPC and awarded sentence as stated above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has assailed the judgment impugned on many grounds. His first argument is that as per prosecution story there is said to be a sole eye-witness of the incident, who is 10 years old girl PW-1 Aamna. Being a child witness, absolute reliance cannot be placed upon her statement. Further, there are many contradictions and anomalies in her statements. His first argument is that as per prosecution story there is said to be a sole eye-witness of the incident, who is 10 years old girl PW-1 Aamna. Being a child witness, absolute reliance cannot be placed upon her statement. Further, there are many contradictions and anomalies in her statements. FIR Ex.-P/1 which is said to be written by Subhan as per the narration given by Aamna, mentions that there was only one injury on the head of deceased Sayari, whereas PW-1 Aamna has stated that accused inflicted two injuries, one on the head and another on stomach of deceased Sayari. It has also been argued by learned counsel that PW-1 Aamna has stated that blood fell on the spot which came out of the injury sustained by Sayari. She stated that the police picked up blood from the chowk near the fire place. She has also stated that 'Odhni' of her mother became blood stained because of the injury. On the contrary, Investigation Officer PW-11 Bheru Singh has denied the fact that cloths of Sayari got stains of the blood, which were not seized by him advertent. The I.O. has also stated in his evidence that no blood was found and picked up by him from the spot. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement given by Aamna in her cross-examination that when she reached on the spot, her mother was found lying there. His contention is that in this situation, Aamna cannot be considered to be an eye-witness. Learned counsel has also vehemently argued that the fact of giving information of the incident by Aamna to her father is not reliable. It is humanly improbable that a girl of tender age would be sent to give information about the incident when other elder family members were also present. His argument is that in view of above the very basis of the FIR becomes doubtful. 7. Learned counsel for the accused has stated that PW-5 Babu, PW-6 Kamla, PW-7 Hanja, PW-8 Kamal @ Kamma and PW-10 Deena have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution story. PW-1 Aamna has admitted in her cross-examination that when the injury was inflicted by accused then Babu, Deena and other masons were present there. Out of them, PW-5 Babu and PW-10 Deena have turned hostile. PW-1 Aamna has admitted in her cross-examination that when the injury was inflicted by accused then Babu, Deena and other masons were present there. Out of them, PW-5 Babu and PW-10 Deena have turned hostile. It has also been strenuously argued by learned counsel that PW-9 Dr. Sugan Chand Jain has not stated in his evidence that the injury found on the body of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is not sustainable. 8. In the last, he has also argued that even if prosecution story is presumed to be true, incident took place suddenly on a trivial dispute on exchange of rebukes between ladies, as stated by PW-1 Aamna. Only one injury is said to have been caused by the accused, that to by 'Jatu' which is generally found in the house of villagers. The accused and deceased are close relatives i.e. Dewar and Bhabhi. The incident is of the year 1991. The accused has been behind the bars for about 10 months. In light of these facts, learned counsel submits that even if the conviction is upheld, the period of sentence is required to be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments to support his contentions :- (I)- Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1985 RCC Aug., 281. (II)- Rameshwar Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1985 RCC 203. (III)-Savia & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1985 RCC Feb., 65. (IV)- Fateh Singh @ Fatte v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1972. (V)- Dana Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1986 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 247. (VI)- Mohan Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 372. (VII)- Chhotu v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 408. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appellant. He submits that there is no evidence on record that PW-1 Aamna was tutored prior to giving her statement. The prosecution witnesses, who have turned hostile are brother and close relatives of accused Suwa. This is the reason, they have turned hostile. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appellant. He submits that there is no evidence on record that PW-1 Aamna was tutored prior to giving her statement. The prosecution witnesses, who have turned hostile are brother and close relatives of accused Suwa. This is the reason, they have turned hostile. The argument advanced by learned counsel that it was improbable to send the girl of tender age to call her father is immaterial and is therefore, of no consequence. The shortfalls of investigation, if any, cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. He, thus, submits that the learned trial court has passed the judgment in consonance with the evidence available on record. There is no infirmity in the judgment impugned. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and also material available on record, I have found that the judgment impugned suffers from many infirmities. 12. Indisputably, PW-1 Aamna is the sole eye-witness in this case, who was 10 years of age at the time of incident. She is said to be the person who informed her father Subhan, who in turn got the FIR lodged in this case. But the anomalies and contradictions which appears in her statement and the contents of FIR does not inspire confidence. She has stated that accused Suwa inflicted two injuries on the deceased by 'Jatu', one on the head "duiVh" and an other on stomach. Even during cross-examination, PW-1 Aamna has stated that she told her father about two injuries of her mother, one on stomach and another on the head. But in FIR Ex.-P/1 only one injury is stated to have been caused by Suwa, which is on the head of the deceased. In the postmortem report Ex.P/12 also, there is mention of only one injury on the body of the deceased. PW-9 Dr. Sugan Chand Jain also stated that only one injury was found, being contusion 4" x 4" over right temporal frontal region, which was caused by blunt weapon. Thus, there appears material contradiction in the statement of PW-1 Aamna. 13. Aamna has also stated that blood fell on the ground from the injuries sustained by her mother. She has also stated that police personnel's picked the blood from the spot. Thus, there appears material contradiction in the statement of PW-1 Aamna. 13. Aamna has also stated that blood fell on the ground from the injuries sustained by her mother. She has also stated that police personnel's picked the blood from the spot. She has also stated that due to the injury on head 'Odhna' of her mother got stains of the blood. But these facts have been negated by the Investigation Officer PW-11 Bheru Singh. He has denied the suggestion that blood was lying on the site of occurrence which was not intentionally picked up by him during investigation. He has also denied that he did not intentionally seize the blood stained cloths of deceased Sayari. 14. On perusal of the site plan Ex.-P/5 it is found that there was no sign of any blood on the place of occurrence marked as 'A'. The weapon of offence 'Jatu' was seized by seizure memo Ex-P/6. On perusal thereof, it is found that no blood stains were there on that weapon of offence. Thus, the narration given by PW-1 Aamna appears to be an exaggeration, which is not fortified by any other prosecution evidence. 15. PW-1 Aamna has been produced as an eye-witness. But in her cross-examination he has stated that eSa igqaph rc esjh eka fxjh gqbZ iM+h Fkh This statement goes contrary to the prosecution story that Aamna was eye-witness of the incident. As per this statement, it appears that she came from somewhere else and on arriving at the spot she found her mother lying down on the floor. PW-5 Babu has also stated in cross-examination that when he went to the house of Sayari, her daughter Aamna was playing on the road. This statement also shows that she was not present on the scene of occurrence when it took place. 16. Aamna has stated in her cross-examination that when the injury was caused, her uncle, Babu, Deena and some other masons were also standing there. Babu has been examined as PW-5, who has stated that when he reached on the spot, he was told that Sayari fell down on becoming unconscious. PW-10 Deena has also stated that he and Babu rushed to the house of Subhan from the nearby house where they were doing masonry work. On reaching there, he found that Sayari was lying down on the floor. PW-10 Deena has also stated that he and Babu rushed to the house of Subhan from the nearby house where they were doing masonry work. On reaching there, he found that Sayari was lying down on the floor. Both the witnesses have denied their police statements (Ex.-P/7 & Ex.-P/13). 17. In light of these contradictions, anomalies and embellishment, the statement of PW-1 Aamna does not inspire confidence. In such situation, it cannot be ruled out that she has been falsely projected as an eye-witness of the incident. This possibility is also not ruled out that she has been tutored and prompted to depose as if she was an eye-witness. 18. In the judgment Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, it has been observed as follows :- "13. Now, there is a general belief that a child is artless, innocent and un-crafty. But at the same time; a child is susceptible to external influences and can be easily tutored as to what he is to speak in a court, Once the child has been influenced and tutored to give a particular statement, he fails to distinguish between what he has been tutored due to his raw understanding and softness of brain. Therefore, while assessing the evaluating the testimony of a child witness, the possibility of his being tutored and influenced, especially when there is an opportunity for doing so, will have to be consistently kept in view. If after carefully scrutinizing the testimony of a child witness, it appears pure, serene and unpolluted from external influences. It is entitled to the highest credit.......................... 15. The position, therefore, boils down to this that the Courts are generally chary and reluctant of putting absolute reliance on the evidence of a solitary chief witness and look for corroboration of the same from other circumstances in the case. When there is only witness speaking about the occurrence is a child witness, extreme care and caution is required in scrutinizing his testimony." 19. In the judgment Rameshwar Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "21. While considering the statement of a child, the Court should not forget that sometimes, a witness may forget a thing while stating before the police and may recollect the same while standing in the witness box. In the judgment Rameshwar Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "21. While considering the statement of a child, the Court should not forget that sometimes, a witness may forget a thing while stating before the police and may recollect the same while standing in the witness box. For this reason minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in various statements given by a child witness should not be attached much importance. However, if there is material omission in the police statement or there inconsistency between the police statement, the earliest version of the child, and his subsequent deposition in the Court after lapse of some time since the occurrence, it may be inferred that the witness was under some influence or he was coached to improve upon his statement so that it may fit in with the prosecution story coming forth from the statements of other witnesses, circumstances available on the record." 20. In another judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the accused-appellant Suvia & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) following observation has been made in regard to the sole child witness :- "18. A child of tender age is raw and influence easily works on him. As such his evidence can be easily shaped and moulded and he can be tutored to state what he is made to state by the persons who exercised influence on him. It is why the Courts hesitate to base the conviction on the testimony of a solitary child witness. The Courts, therefore, look for corroboration in such cases where the conviction is sought on the basis of testimony of a solitary child witness. Corroboration from independent source in such a case is required by way of caution and prudence and not as a rule of law." 21. In view of the principles laid down in above quoted citations, while scrutinizing the testimony of the sole eye-witness, who is a child of tender age, corroboration from other evidence is essentially required. It is a settled law that his statement is required to be scrutinized very cautiously. It is to be ensured that the deposition made by child witness is not under the influence of whatever has been tutored to him. It is a settled law that his statement is required to be scrutinized very cautiously. It is to be ensured that the deposition made by child witness is not under the influence of whatever has been tutored to him. In the case in hand, there are so many contradictions and embellishments in the statement given by PW-1 Aamna which clearly show that she is not a reliable witness. The possibility of having been tutored her is not ruled out in light of the contradiction with rest of the prosecution evidence. In this fact situation, I am not convinced with the conclusion drawn by learned trial court that the statement of PW-1 Aamna can be relied upon to record conviction against the accused-appellant on her sole testimony. The judgment thus suffers from serious infirmity. 22. Other judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the accused-appellant are relevant on the point that if there is no pre-meditation of murder and single injury has been inflicted by the accused, the offence only under Section 304 Part-II IPC can be made out against him and looking to the protracted litigation and other attending circumstances, he can be given the benefit by reducing the period of sentence to the period already undergone. As the offence is not proved against the accused-appellant in the matter in hand, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant on this point are not worth consideration. 23. In light of discussions made above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment impugned dated 31.10.1991 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304 IPC and awarding sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- is quashed and set-aside.