ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Mr. Nehru Mahto, the learned A.P.P tenders a copy of the affidavit sworn on 25.06.2019. 2. Taken on record. 3. The Superintendent of Jail, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi has filed this affidavit stating that appellant no.3 namely, Tumpu Bodra, son of late Moran Bodra [in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.155 of 2010] has died on 22.07.2016 at RIMS, Ranchi in course of his treatment. 4. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.155 of 2010 qua appellant no.3 namely, Tumpu Bodra stands abated. 5. These criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2008 under section 302/34 I.P.C and the order of sentence dated 29.11.2008 of R.I for life and fine of Rs.5000/-against each of the appellants passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007 and, therefore, these appeals were heard together and now disposed of by this common order. 6. Five persons were put on trial in Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007 on the charge of committing murder of Pratap Bodra. In her fard-beyan Sombari Kui has stated that she received an information from her son namely, Ajay Bodra that her husband has been stoned to death by the appellants namely, Dadi Bodra [in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.261 of 2009] and Tipru Bodra, Nato Bodra, Tumpu Bodra and Hagru Bodra [in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.155 of 2010]. She came to her village and found her husband murdered. She has stated that there was a long standing partition dispute between her deceased husband and the accused persons and the accused persons were forcibly cultivating the land in dispute. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-beyan, Manjhari P.S Case No.19 of 2007 dated 16.06.2007 under section 302/34 I.P.C against the abovenamed accused persons has been registered. 7. During investigation, the investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence and seized the blood-stained soil and the stone and statement of the witness namely, Ajay Bodra has been recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses; the informant-Sombari Kui is P.W 2 and her son who has been projected as an eye-witness is P.W 3. Dr. B. K. Singh, the Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy over the dead body is P.W 7 and the investigating officer has examined himself as P.W 4. 8. P.C. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses; the informant-Sombari Kui is P.W 2 and her son who has been projected as an eye-witness is P.W 3. Dr. B. K. Singh, the Medical Officer, who has conducted autopsy over the dead body is P.W 7 and the investigating officer has examined himself as P.W 4. 8. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II at Chaibasa has found testimony of the child witness trustworthy and on the basis of the evidences laid before him he has held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under section 302/34 I.P.C against all the accused persons. 9. It has come on record that there was a long standing land dispute between the parties and the accused persons were demanding partition of land which was finally not resolved. The informant was married to Pratap Bodra but Ajay Bodra, her son, was born from her first husband. Admittedly, Ajay Bodra-P.W 3 is the sole eye-witness of the alleged incident. At the time of the occurrence he was aged about 12 years and he says that he was in his house. The house of the deceased was about 100 yards from the field of 'Niyansh' land where the accused persons have assaulted Pratap Bodra. His statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C contains only three sentences. His evidence in the court during the trial of Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007 is also cryptic. He speaks in 'Ho' language and does not know 'Hindi' language. Therefore, 'Ho' language knowing advocate was appointed as interpreter. However, the learned Judge has not taken pains to assess his maturity. In the dock, he points out towards the accused persons who assaulted Pratap Bodra with lathi and stone and in the cross-examination, he admits that there are other houses adjoining his house, however, he did not inform any villager regarding assault by the accused persons on Pratap Bodra. He travels about 10 kilometers to village-Sarengvil to inform his mother about the occurrence. His mother comes back to village-Lowa Mandir Dobrobasa where she found her husband dead then she goes to the police station. This is her statement recorded in the court during the trial of Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007. He travels about 10 kilometers to village-Sarengvil to inform his mother about the occurrence. His mother comes back to village-Lowa Mandir Dobrobasa where she found her husband dead then she goes to the police station. This is her statement recorded in the court during the trial of Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007. However, the investigating officer says that he received rumours about killing of a person in the village-Lowa Mandir Dobrobasa, where he has recorded fard-beyan of Sombari Kui at 14.00 hrs. on 16.06.2007. 10. In “Kuna V. State of Odisha” reported in (2018) 1 SCC 296 , the Supreme Court has held as under: 11. That conviction can be based on a testimony of a single eye-witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important, have been propounded consistently in Anil Phukan [ (1993) 3 SCC 282 ], Ramji Surjya [ (1983) 3 SCC 629 ], Patnam Anandam [ (2005) 9 SCC 237 ] and Gulam Sarbar [ (2014) 3 SCC 401 ] with the apparent emphasis that evidence must be weighed and not counted, decisive test being whether it has a ring of truth and it is cogent, credible, trustworthy or otherwise. 11. It is also true that there is no universal rule that testimony of a child witness cannot be acceptable, rather the law is if testimony of a child witness inspires confidence it is sufficient to record conviction of an accused. Naturally, whether corroboration is necessary in a case which is solely founded on the evidence of a child witness would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In “K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of A.P” reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: 9. ….......A child witness, by reason of his tender age, is a pliable witness. He can be tutored easily either by threat, coercion or inducement. Therefore, the court must be satisfied that the attendant circumstances do not show that the child was acting under the influence of someone or was under a threat or coercion. Evidence of a child witness can be relied upon if the court, with its expertise and ability to evaluate the evidence, comes to the conclusion that the child is not tutored and his evidence has a ring of truth. Evidence of a child witness can be relied upon if the court, with its expertise and ability to evaluate the evidence, comes to the conclusion that the child is not tutored and his evidence has a ring of truth. It is safe and prudent to look for corroboration for the evidence of a child witness from the other evidence on record, because while giving evidence a child may give scope to his imagination and exaggerate his version or may develop cold feet and not tell the truth or may repeat what he has been asked to say not knowing the consequences of his deposition in the court. Careful evaluation of the evidence of a child witness in the background and context of other evidence on record is a must before the court decides to rely upon it. 12. Now viewed in the context of the above proposition in law, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish how fard-beyan of Sombari Kui was recorded in the village at 14.00 hrs. on 16.06.2007; distance between the two villages and the police station is more than 50 kilometers and the informant has asserted that she received information through her son-Ajay Bodra at about 11.00 a.m when she was in village-Sarengvil with her elder sister. The medical evidence led by the prosecution through P.W 7 would disclose that death has occurred between 12.00-48.00 hrs. P.W 7 has conducted autopsy over the dead body at 10.30 a.m on 17.07.2007. Evidently, the time of death of Pratap Bodra who according to P.W 3 has died on the spot at about 10.00 a.m on 16.06.2007 is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The post-mortem examination was conducted within twenty-four hours and, therefore, such a huge gap in the time of death becomes relevant. 13. In the above facts, after examining the records of Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007 we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302/34 I.P.C against the appellants and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C dated 28.11.2008 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2008 of R.I for life and fine of Rs.5000/-imposed upon each of the appellants in Sessions Trial Case No.218 of 2007 are set-aside. The appellants namely, Dadi Bodra [in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.261 of 2009] and Tipru Bodra, Nato Bodra and Hagru Bodra [in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.155 of 2010] shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection to any other criminal case. 14. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.261 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.155 of 2010 are allowed. 15. We appreciate the efforts of Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, the learned Amicus who has prepared notes on the prosecution evidence and ably assisted the Court arguing these criminal appeals on behalf of the appellants. 16. The assistance rendered by Mr. Nehru Mahto, the learned A.P.P is also appreciated. 17. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills(s) for both the cases. He shall be paid Rs.5500/-for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017. 18. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'. 19. Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.