ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole accused has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC and section 201 IPC dated 05.12.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I for life under section 302 IPC and R.I for three years under section 201 IPC dated 06.12.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1998. 2. In his fardbeyan which was recorded on 12.03.1995 at Chatro Chatti, Baijnath Kandu has stated that his wife who was staying with his mother, younger brother, brother’s wife and sister had proceeded for Hazaribagh on 27.02.1995 to join him at Hazaribagh, however, she did not reach there. He started enquiry and search for his wife and then he came to know that in the evening of Sheoratri his younger brother-Baleshwar Kandu and his brother’s wife, his sister and mother had committed marpit with his wife and that was the reason his wife had left home at 5:00 a.m next day to join him at Hazaribagh. The informant says that from Hazaribagh he proceeded for Nawadih where he enquired about his wife from his uncle in-law and others, however, nobody gave any information about Munwa Devi, his wife. So, he proceeded for Chatro Chatti with his uncle in-law, namely, Shahdeo Kandu searching for Munwa Devi where the villagers told them that in the night of Sheoratri his mother, brother, brother’s wife and sister have abused his wife and committed marpit with her. When he asked about the incident from his mother she admitted quarrel between them but she denied that there was any marpit between them. The informant has further stated that Gundan Kandu, who is the son of Chottan Kandu, told him that on 04.03.1995 he has seen eagles and crows hovering over Ganesh Nalla. Thereafter, he called his brother and mother to Ganesh Nalla where his mother has identified the clothes of the dead body as belonging to Munwa Devi. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Baijnath Kandu, Gomia P.S. Case No. 19 of 1995 was registered under section 498(A)/306/34 IPC against the family members of the informant. 4. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and charges under section 302, 498 (A) and 201 IPC were framed against him. 5. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Baijnath Kandu, Gomia P.S. Case No. 19 of 1995 was registered under section 498(A)/306/34 IPC against the family members of the informant. 4. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and charges under section 302, 498 (A) and 201 IPC were framed against him. 5. The dead body of Munwa Devi was not recovered and during the trial the investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution. 6. The son of the informant, namely, Chandan Kumar-P.W.2 has been projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. 7. Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned Amicus has raised two fold contentions; (i) testimony of Chandan Kumar who is a child witness is not reliable and on the basis of his testimony conviction of the appellant for a crime like murder cannot be recorded, and (ii) without producing cogent and convincing evidence on death of Munwa Devi, absence of corpus delicti has proved fatal for the prosecution. 8. Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned Amicus has relied on the decisions in “Bhagwan Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P.” reported in (2003) 3 SCC 21 , “State of Assam Vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed” reported in (1983) 2 SCC 14 , “Digamber Vaishnav and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh” reported in (2019) 4 SCC 522 and “Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand” reported in (2013) 12 SCC 551 . 9. In “Mafizuddin Ahmed”, the Supreme Court has observed that: “... the evidence of a child witness is always dangerous unless it is available immediately after the occurrence and before there were any possibility of coaching and tutoring”. In paragraph no. 20 of his cross-examination, P.W.2 admits that when his statement was recorded by the police his father, maternal grand-father and maternal grand-mother were present there. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police after so many days (para-7). He has also said that his father has married his maternal aunt. In “Bhagwan Singh” on which the learned Amicus has heavily relied on, the Supreme Court has held that: 19. ….“The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony.” 10. In “Bhagwan Singh” on which the learned Amicus has heavily relied on, the Supreme Court has held that: 19. ….“The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, always the court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony.” 10. In his fardbeyan the husband of the deceased, namely, Baijnath Kandu has suspected that his wife on account of harassment by his family members has committed suicide. By the time the fardbeyan of Baijnath Kandu was recorded his wife was missing for about a fortnight and by that time he had no inclination that his wife could have been done to death. There is not even a whisper about any doubt of the informant that his family members have killed his wife. This fact shows that the alleged incident of marpit in the night of Sheoratri which, of course, has not been proved by the prosecution did not end in murder of Munwa Devi. On the contrary, it was the specific case of the informant that due to harassment by his family members his wife left home for Hazaribagh. 11. The son of the deceased, namely, Chandan Kumar-P.W.2 has appeared on the scene much latter. In his fardbeyan, the informant says that on 05.03.1995 Chottan Kandu, a co-villagers, had informed him at Hazaribagh about quarrel between his wife and other family members and thereafter he had gone to Nawadih and then he came to his village-Chatro Chatti where he has met his son, however, he has not stated that his son has informed him that in the intervening night of 27/28.02.1995 his family members have killed his mother. He says that six days after the incident his father along with his maternal grand-father and maternal grand-mother came to the village and then he has informed them about the incident. But this fact is not stated by the informant in his fardbeyan. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that there were several houses adjoining to his house and there is a common courtyard for all. In paragraph no. 10 of his cross-examination, he has stated that there are houses of Chamari Sao, Sheonarayan, Triloki, Shiku Kandu and Hari Kandu adjacent to his house. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that there were several houses adjoining to his house and there is a common courtyard for all. In paragraph no. 10 of his cross-examination, he has stated that there are houses of Chamari Sao, Sheonarayan, Triloki, Shiku Kandu and Hari Kandu adjacent to his house. He has further stated that he informed the chowkidar about the incident and when he informed the chowkidar there were shopkeepers and 6-7 other persons present there, however, he has failed to name any of them during his cross-examination. He admits that the temple road passes through his house and police station is adjacent to the temple, but he has never gone to the police station to report the incident. 12. From the testimony of P.W.2, we gather that not only his conduct in not informing his father, police and others was unnatural, the fact that his statement was recorded by the police so many days after registration of the first information report and, that too, in presence of his father, maternal grand-father and maternal grand-mother, his evidence has become suspect and it is not free from doubt and therefore must be excluded from consideration [refer: “Lahu Kamlakar Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417 ]. 13. The defence set-up by the prosecution is that Munwa Devi had fled away with a constable stationed at the nearby police outpost. 14. During cross-examination of the informant, a specific suggestion was given to him that his wife used to leave home to visit the police outpost. A similar suggestion was given to the P.W.3 also. P.W.3 has spoken about skeleton at Ganesh Nalla when he had gone there with the informant, however, this evidence is inconsistent with the testimony of P.W.1; P.W.1 has stated that he did not find remains of a dead body at Ganesh Nalla. Both P.W.1 and P.W.3 have stated that mother of the informant has identified the clothes of Munwa Devi. In our opinion, it would be really a dangerous preposition to hold that without any cogent and clinching evidence death of a person can be inferred on the basis of identification of his clothes only. In “Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand”, the Supreme Court has explained the law on the subject, thus : “14. In our opinion, it would be really a dangerous preposition to hold that without any cogent and clinching evidence death of a person can be inferred on the basis of identification of his clothes only. In “Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand”, the Supreme Court has explained the law on the subject, thus : “14. In the absence of corpus delicti what the court looks for is clinching evidence that proves that the victim has been done to death. If the prosecution is successful in providing cogent and satisfactory proof of the victim having met a homicidal death, absence of corpus delicti will not by itself be fatal to a charge of murder. Failure of the prosecution to assemble such evidence will, however, result in failure of the most essential requirement in a case involving a charge of murder. That is precisely the position in the case at hand. There is no evidence either direct or circumstantial about Abdul Mabood having met a homicidal death.……..” 15. Besides the error in law committed by the learned Sessions Judge on the above issues, we find that he has referred to statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and statement of the other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C to hold that testimony of P.W.2 is convincing and reliable. 16. In “State of Karnataka Vs. P. Ravikumar alias Ravi & Ors.” reported in (2018) 9 SCC 614 , it has been held that when a witness resiles from his earlier statement, his statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C is of no relevance nor can it be considered substantial evidence to base conviction solely thereupon. In “Narra Peddi Raju Vs. State of A.P. now State of Telangana” (Criminal Appeal No. 1553 of 2019), the Supreme Court has held that the conviction of an accused cannot be based on the statement of a witness recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 17. In the light of the foregoing discussions and the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 IPC and under section 201 IPC against the appellant. 18. In the light of the foregoing discussions and the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 IPC and under section 201 IPC against the appellant. 18. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC and section 201 IPC dated 05.12.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I for life under section 302 IPC and R.I for three years under section 201 IPC dated 06.12.2001 passed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1998 are set-aside. 19. The appellant, who is on bail, stands discharged of the liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 20. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 34 of 2002 is allowed. 21. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned Amicus who has prepared notes on the prosecution evidence and tendered a paper-book of typed deposition. 22. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 23. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.