JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole convict, namely, Rajendra Bediya has challenged the judgment of his conviction under section 302 and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. Case No. 223 of 2008. 2. In S.T. No. 223 of 2008, the appellant has faced the trial for murder of Rehana and for attempting to commit murder of Afsana. 3. A first information report vide Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 301 of 2007 was lodged against unknown on 28.12.2007, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Mumtaz Ansari, the father of the victims, namely, Afsana Khatoon and Rehana Khatoon. The complicity of the appellant in the crime was disclosed by the younger daughter of the informant, namely, Afsana Khatoon. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; Afsana Khatoon has been examined as P.W.-5. The post-mortem report and the injury report were duly proved by the doctors. 4. The prosecution has projected Afsana Khatoon as an eye witness; she is a child witness. 5. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on 27.12.2007 at about 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon his daughters, namely, Rehana Khatoon aged about 6 years and Afsana Khatoon aged about 4 years had gone to village fair at Pali with other kids of the neighbourhood. At about 5 p.m. while other children came back home his daughters did not return and, therefore, he went for their search. The informant says that he tried to search his daughters till 11 p.m., however, when they could not be found then he came back home. Next day morning, at about 8:30 a.m., when he was starting to leave for search of his daughters his daughter, namely, Afsana Khatoon came back home. At that time she looked frightened and he detected black mark around her neck. She informed him that her sister is sleeping and when she tried to wake up her she did not wake up. As informed by her, the informant went near the forest at Chitapiri Tanr where he found the dead body of his daughter Rehana Khatoon. At that time she looked frightened and he detected black mark around her neck. She informed him that her sister is sleeping and when she tried to wake up her she did not wake up. As informed by her, the informant went near the forest at Chitapiri Tanr where he found the dead body of his daughter Rehana Khatoon. He had found black mark around the neck of Rehana also. In his fardbeyan, the informant has claimed that Afsana has informed him that two persons had brought them to the place of occurrence when they were returning from village fair (mela). The informant has, therefore, expressed his suspicion that those persons have killed Rehana and tried to kill Afsana. 6. The informant has been examined in the court as PW-4. He has narrated a similar story about the incident of 27.12.2007 and 28.12.2007 as narrated by him in his fardbeyan. He has spoken about his daughters going to the village fair, other children of the village coming back from the fair at about 5 p.m. but not his daughters, his search for his daughters on 27.12.2007 and Afsana coming back home the next day morning and informing him about the incident. The informant has stated that the next day morning when he was about to leave for search of his daughters his co-villagers, namely, Bhim Mahto and Nirdhan Mahto were with him. He says that his younger daughter has informed him that Rajendra Sir had forcibly taken them on the cycle and thereafter he had sexually assaulted her elder sister and tried to kill her. The informant has identified the appellant in the court. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has not seen the actual occurrence and he has deposed on the basis of what has been informed to him. 7. Md. Haroon Ansari, who is the grand-father of the victim girls, has been examined as PW-1. He has supported the evidence of his son, the informant, to the extent that his grand-daughters had gone to the village fair and his son had gone in search for them. He has stated about his grand-daughter Afsana informing him that the accused had taken them to Chitapiri Tanr. He says that she has stated about Rajendra Master taking her and Rehana to the bushes where he had killed Rehana Khatoon and assaulted her. He has stated about his grand-daughter Afsana informing him that the accused had taken them to Chitapiri Tanr. He says that she has stated about Rajendra Master taking her and Rehana to the bushes where he had killed Rehana Khatoon and assaulted her. The co-villagers of the informant, namely, Bhim Mahto and Nirdhan Mahto have been examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. They are not the eye-witness to the actual occurrence. Both these witnesses have deposed in the court about Rehana and Afsana going to the village fair and when they did not return back in the night their father went in search for them. Next day morning, they were with Mumtaz Ansari, father of the victim girls, and they have stated that Afsana had informed them that Rajendra Master had taken them away and he has assaulted her and killed her elder sister Rehana. Both these witnesses have seen injury marks on Afsana Khatoon. 8. The victim girl, namely, Afsana Khatoon was aged about 4 years at the time of the incident and when she was examined in the court she was 7 years old. The learned Sessions Judge has tested her maturity by putting some questions to her and on having satisfied himself about her maturity has proceeded to record her statement in the court. In her examination-in-chief, PW-5 has stated that when she along with her sister were returning from village fair Rajendra Sir took them towards forest and when she started weeping he threatened her. She has narrated the incident that has happened in the evening of 27.12.2007. She had specifically spoken about the appellant undressing them and assaulting both the sisters. She has stated that when she came back home she informed about the incident to her family members and the villagers and when the police came there she had informed him also about the incident. 9. PW-5 has identified the appellant in the court. 10. Mr. She had specifically spoken about the appellant undressing them and assaulting both the sisters. She has stated that when she came back home she informed about the incident to her family members and the villagers and when the police came there she had informed him also about the incident. 9. PW-5 has identified the appellant in the court. 10. Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that: (i) there is considerable improvement in the prosecution’s story as has been recorded by the informant in his fardbeyan and statement of the witnesses in the court, (ii) the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence and, (iii) the informant has not disclosed the name of the accused person in the fardbeyan and inconsistent with what has been stated by the informant in the fardbeyan he and his daughter both have introduced story of the appellant meeting them, taking them away on a cycle and assaulting both of them. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. 12. To fortify his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions in “Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417 and “Hamza Vs. Muhammedkutty Alias Mani and Others” reported in (2013) 11 SCC 150 . 13. The law on the acceptability of testimony of a child witness is by now well settled. It is not that in every case evidence of a child witness is seen with suspicion. On the contrary, the law is that if evidence of a child witness is cogent and of such sterling quality that it leaves no manner of doubt on complicity of the accused in the crime, it must be accepted. It is only a rule of prudence that some corroboration may be insisted by the court before conviction is recorded on the basis of testimony of a sole child witness. It is only a rule of prudence that some corroboration may be insisted by the court before conviction is recorded on the basis of testimony of a sole child witness. In “Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan” reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 , the Supreme Court has held: “19 … The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge…..” 14. In this context, we may also refer to the judgment in “Suresh vs. State of U.P.” reported in (1981) 2 SCC 569 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the children mix up what they see and what they like to imagine to have seen. 15. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of PW-5 is not trustworthy rather she is a tutored witness. 16. During her cross-examination, PW-5 has remained unshaken. Not only she has identified the appellant in the court, she has stated that she had informed the police about the incident. In paragraph no.14 of her cross-examination, she says that Chikor Lapanga School is in front of her house and the appellant is a teacher there. Presumably to a suggestion by the defence that there is another Rajendra Master, this witness has denied the suggestion and asserted that there is only one Rajendra Master teaching in Chikor Lapanga School and the appellant is the person who has committed the crime. In paragraph no.22 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she has informed the police about the incident and her statement was recorded by the police, may be she has failed to give the date when her statement was recorded by the police. Again in paragraph no.34 of her cross-examination, she has asserted that the teacher who belongs to the school is the person who has committed murder of her sister and that person is “Rajendra Sir”. 17. While examining the testimony of PW-5, we have taken note of the other circumstances also which have come on record, such as; the informant becoming unconscious, the victim girl returning home naked and being frightened. 17. While examining the testimony of PW-5, we have taken note of the other circumstances also which have come on record, such as; the informant becoming unconscious, the victim girl returning home naked and being frightened. The physical condition of PW-5 is an indication to the horror she has undergone. She was undressed and strangulated by the appellant and she has seen brutal assault by the appellant on her elder sister. It may be possible that in the morning of 28.12.2007 when she came back home at the first instance she on account of the trauma could not inform her father the name of the appellant who had committed the crime but from the prosecution’s evidence it becomes clear that she has disclosed the name of the appellant before the police and in the court she has asserted so. True, the investigating officer has not been examined during the trial and, therefore, he could not be asked about the statement of PW-5, but then, he could have deposed only with respect to the statement made by PW-5 under section 161 Cr.P.C. and PW-5 has stated that her statement was recorded by the police. The incident had left an indelible imprint on her mind and that is the reason she has firmly held her ground on the complicity of the appellant in the crime, when she was cross-examined in the court. On non-examination of the investigating officer, all that we wish to record is that what prejudice has been caused to the appellant has not been brought to the notice of the court. In the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses nothing has been elicited which would have necessitated examination of the investigating officer for proving the previous statement of a witness in terms of section 162 Cr.P.C. r/w section 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. 18. The prosecution’s case as narrated by PW-5, the eye witness, finds support from the medical evidence. 19. Dr. Subhash Prasad PW-6, who has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Rehana has found ligature mark extending to 1”x1/4”, brown and dry, situated below the level of thyroid cartilage. It was horizontal and encircled the neck completely. Bleeding through mouth has been seen by PW-6. 19. Dr. Subhash Prasad PW-6, who has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Rehana has found ligature mark extending to 1”x1/4”, brown and dry, situated below the level of thyroid cartilage. It was horizontal and encircled the neck completely. Bleeding through mouth has been seen by PW-6. On dissection of neck, subcutaneous areolar tissue was found ecchymosed, thyroid cartilage fractured and there was haematoma on both sides of trachea as well as contusion of muscles. 20. Dr. Utpal Kumar Choudhary PW-8, who was posted as Medical Officer at Bhurkunda CCL Hospital, has examined Afsana Khatoon on 28.12.2007 and found a faint black abrasion at the centre of front of her neck and ecchymosis mark around the neck at upper level of thyroid cartilage. He has seen small abrasion on both her cheeks. 21. The incident has happened on 27.12.2007, the dead body was recovered in the evening of 28.12.2007 and the post-mortem examination was conducted on the same day. PW-5, who is an injured witness, has also been examined on the same day. PW-8 has stated that the injuries found on the person of Afsana Khatoon were caused within twenty-four hours and PW-6 has opined that the time elapsed since death was between six hours to thirty-six hours. The injury on the neck of the victim girls as seen by the doctors corroborates the manner of occurrence described by PW-5. The other prosecution witnesses have also seen injury mark on the neck of the victim girls. 22. In the above facts, we find that omission of the informant to name the appellant as an accused in his fardbeyan is not fatal to the prosecution’s case; after all a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of all that had happened on the fateful day. It has come in the prosecution’s evidence that on seeing the dead body of Rehana in a horrifying condition the informant became unconscious. Moreover, he is not an eye-witness and there is reason, a good reason, why Afsana may not have disclosed the name of the appellant immediately when she came back home. On this issue we may profitably refer to the observation in paragraph no.26 of “Lahu Kamlakar Patil” vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: “26. On this issue we may profitably refer to the observation in paragraph no.26 of “Lahu Kamlakar Patil” vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: “26. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is vivid that witnesses to certain crimes may run away from the scene and may also leave the place due to fear and if there is any delay in their examination, the testimony should not be discarded. That apart, a court has to keep in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations. Some witnesses get a shock, some become perplexed, some start wailing and some run away from the scene and yet some who have the courage and conviction come forward either to lodge an FIR or get themselves examined immediately. Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behavior allowing variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded.” 23. In the above state of affairs – testimony of PW-5 finding corroboration from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, the medical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case; PW-5 found naked and frightened, PW-4 becoming unconscious on seeing dead body of his elder daughter; other witnesses supporting the prosecution’s case on material aspects and, maybe not conclusive but of some significance that the appellant has failed to plead any animosity or a reason for his false implication – in our opinion the defence raised by the appellant on his identification must fail. The prosecution has proved that the appellant is the person who has committed the crime. 24. In the background of the above discussions and having examined the evidences brought during the trial of S.T. No. 223 of 2008, we hold that no mistake has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in convicting the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code for murder of Rehana Khatoon. 25. However, conviction of the appellant under section 307 IPC for murderous assault on Afsana Khatoon is not sustainable. 25. However, conviction of the appellant under section 307 IPC for murderous assault on Afsana Khatoon is not sustainable. The injury found by PW-8 on Afsana Khatoon was not such which under the circumstances could have caused death of Afsana Khatoon; no such opinion has been rendered by PW-8. 26. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are set-aside. He is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for seven years under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. With the above modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag against the appellant in S.T. No. 223 of 2008, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 632 of 2011 is dismissed. 28. Let lower court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith.