JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. The appellant has assailed his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Court (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.” in brevity) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in judgment dated 31.08.1999 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No. 22 of 1998. 2. Narrated in nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 25.10.1997 at about 3.00 P.M. deceased Dhobuni Khatua had gone to inspect her paddy field in her village Kantapada. She did not return till 5.00P.M. On being asked by nieces, informant Bhrama Khatua (P.W.5) went to search and found the cadaver of the deceased floating in the Nala. He brought out the dead body and laid on the ridge of the tank and found the missing of the gold ornaments from the neck and ear. He suspected that somebody might have taken away the ornaments after committing murder. At 9.30 P.M. he lodged F.I.R. before the A.S.I., Beguniapada Out Post, which was entered vide Station Diary No.386. The said report was registered under section 302/379 of the I.P.C. at Kodola P.S. at 10.00 P.M. vide Kodola P.S. Case No. 141 of 197. In course of investigation the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as “I.O.” in short) examined the witnesses including two child witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 2 on 25.10.1997. No clue was found. Inquest over dead body was made and on 26.10.1997 at 6.30A.M. Vide Exhibit-5 Postmortem was conducted by the doctor P.W.11. One Amar Khatua (P.W.4) was examined by the I.O. after ten days. The statements of P.Ws 1, 2 and P.W.4 were recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” in brevity) on 13.11.1997. Police took P.W.1 to the village of accused Budiali and got the accused identified through her. Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as “T.I. Parade” in short) was conducted on 12.12.1997 and another child witness P.W.2 also identified the accused-petitioner. Accused was arrested on 5.11.1997 at 9.00 P.M. One Gamuchha was seized from the accused which was alleged to have puton at the time of incident by the accused. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken under Sections 302/379 of the I.P.C. After commitment to the Court of Session, accused-petitioner faced trial for the above offences. Accused abjured his guilty in defence. 3. Prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses whereas defence examined none. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken under Sections 302/379 of the I.P.C. After commitment to the Court of Session, accused-petitioner faced trial for the above offences. Accused abjured his guilty in defence. 3. Prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses whereas defence examined none. P.W.4 is a witness, who had seen the accused in and around the spot prior to the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 and 2, two child witnesses, had seen the occurrence of accused putting the deceased into the Nala. P.W.5 informant is the husband’s brother of the deceased. P.W.6 is the daughter of deceased but has not implicated the accused. P.W.8 is the husband of deceased, who was not present in the village on the date of occurrence. P.W.9 is the scribe of F.I.R. P.W.7 is the co-villager, who accompanied the informant and had recovered the dead body. P.W.3 is the constable who took the dead body for postmortem. P.W.10 is the witness to seizure and zimanama. P.W.11 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem. P.W.12 is the I.O. P.W.13 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as “T.I. Parade” in short) in respect of the accused on 12.12.1997. Fifteen documents were exhibited including the F.I.R., P.M. report, spot map, seizure list, T.I.Parade report and statements of three witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court relying upon the evidence of child witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 convicted the accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C., while acquitting him of offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. According to the trial court, the child witnesses had not seen the accused committing theft of gold ornaments and nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, he found accused guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and passed sentence as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that:- (i) The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, child witnesses are not acceptable and reliable being inconsistent with the informant. Those two child witnesses have consistently stated without knowing the identity of the accused that after seeing the occurrence they returned to the village and disclosed to the villagers. The said fact contradicts the informant and F.I.R. that when deceased did not return, the informant went along with others to trace out the deceased and brought out the dead body from the Nala. The said fact contradicts the informant and F.I.R. that when deceased did not return, the informant went along with others to trace out the deceased and brought out the dead body from the Nala. (ii) The evidence of P.W.4 is not trustworthy because being a co-villager of the deceased, he did not disclose that he had seen the accused prior to the occurrence for about ten days. (iii) The T.I. Parade was conducted on 12.12.1997 after arrest of the accused on 5.11.1997.The evidentiary value of said T.I. Parade is no way incriminating because police had taken P.W.1 to show the accused in his village and P.W.2 had admitted that she had seen the accused at police station before T.I. Parade. (iv) Learned trial court contradicted him-self by disbelieving the child witnesses for recording acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C., while for convicting accused of the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., the theft was stated to be the motive. (v) If the totality of the circumstances is considered, the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt as the appreciation by the learned trial court is perverse. He relied upon the decisions reported in (2003) 3 SCC 21 , Bhagwan Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and (2012) 8 SCC 73 , K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate refuted the above submission stating that both the child witnesses were found competent to testify as they understood the questions put to them. The minor discrepancy and in-consistency are to be ignored. The witness who identified the accused in the T.I. Parade is P.W.2, while the witness who was taken by the police to the village of the accused for identification is P.W.1. He further submits that P.W.4 has himself explained that out of fear he did not disclose the fact earlier for which his delayed examination after ten days of the occurrence cannot be taken to discredit his testimony. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supports the conviction on the grounds stated therein. 6. There is no dispute that deceased Dhobuni Khatua was found dead on 25.10.1997 at 5.00 P.M. and her dead body was found floating in the Nala (Water Canal). Doctor (P.W.11) conducted postmortem on 26.10.1997. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supports the conviction on the grounds stated therein. 6. There is no dispute that deceased Dhobuni Khatua was found dead on 25.10.1997 at 5.00 P.M. and her dead body was found floating in the Nala (Water Canal). Doctor (P.W.11) conducted postmortem on 26.10.1997. He found one lacerated wound each on the left ear pina and right ear pina, which were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was due to asphyxia, which might be due to ante-mortem drowning. In cross- examination doctor has stated the drowning may be or may not be accidental. The postmortem report is Exhibit-5. So the death of deceased was found to be due to drowning and it was homicidal in nature. Broader aspect in and around the incident should be kept in view to assess the oral testimonies, particularly where child witnesses have testified in a murder case. While appreciating the testimonies in such cases, the relationship of all concerned, the location and time of examination are considered to be factors to rule out the adverse situation impinging the credibility of the witnesses. Proceeding in the above direction, we found that informant P.W.5 went to search his Bhauja (deceased) when she did not return by 5.00P.M. His wife had asked him to go for search. He saw the dead body floating and with the help of the villagers brought the dead body and laid on the ridge and then lodged F.I.R. at 9.30 P.M. at Beguniapada Out post. On that night P.Ws 1 and 2, two child witnesses were examined by the I.O. The co-villager P.W.4 was examined after 10 days. The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of these three witnesses were recorded on 13.11.1997, while accused was arrested on 5.11.1997. Police took P.W.1 to the village of accused and got the accused identified by her. P.Ws 6, 7 and 8, who are relations of the deceased have not stated that their nieces P.Ws. 1 and 2 disclosed the incident before the villagers. It is already stated that no ornament was seized from the accused and only one Gamuchha was seized, which is commonly used as wearing apparel. Another important feature of prosecution evidence is that the accused belongs to a different village while witnesses belong to the village of the deceased. Spot is at a little distance from the village. 7. It is already stated that no ornament was seized from the accused and only one Gamuchha was seized, which is commonly used as wearing apparel. Another important feature of prosecution evidence is that the accused belongs to a different village while witnesses belong to the village of the deceased. Spot is at a little distance from the village. 7. In the backdrop of above, the oral testimonies need to be given a look to find the core of the reliability. P.W.4 stated that deceased was his Bhauja (Sister-in-law) and while he had been to agricultural field, he saw near Gandia Ghai Nala the accused was present looking downwards and when he asked as to what he was doing, he did not respond. Thinking that he was inebriated state, he returned to his field. From there he saw that the accused came out and ran away towards Beguniapada. Thereafter the villagers came and detected the dead body. He has stated that out of fear he did not disclose the matter earlier and only after ten days, he disclosed before police. He further stated that he saw while the accused was standing inside the water up to waist. He stated that while accused was going towards Beguniapada, he had puton white pant and shirt. The striking feature of this witness that he was related to the deceased and had seen the dead body brought out by the relatives of the deceased and the villagers from Nala and had also marked injury on the ears of the deceased. It is not understood as to why he maintained silence for ten days, to disclose that he had seen relevant to the death of a woman. A co-villager having seen a person dead and recovered with injuries from Nala by the villagers, in normal course could not have been maintained silence for ten days. His explanation that out of fear he did not disclose, does not appear reasonable because the source of his fear is not disclosed. Delay strikes at the root of the testimony of P.W.4. He is not a reliable witness. 8. Both the child witnesses stated that they along with others, namely, Geeta, Bhanu and Sumitra had been to village Nala to fetch fire wood. P.W. 1 stated that accused came out of the bush and when her deceased-Badama was coming, he stood near Tini Chakia Nala. He is not a reliable witness. 8. Both the child witnesses stated that they along with others, namely, Geeta, Bhanu and Sumitra had been to village Nala to fetch fire wood. P.W. 1 stated that accused came out of the bush and when her deceased-Badama was coming, he stood near Tini Chakia Nala. Badama came and enquired from them as to what they were doing and then returned to her original place. Thereafter, accused came near the deacead and attacked her. When Badama gave a push, accused pushed Badama inside the water and jumped over her. She stated that she saw accused coming out from the water, but Badama was not traced out. Thereafter accused went near the bush, wore his clothing and went towards Beguniapada. She further stated out of fear they went and told the matter to the villagers. She identified the Gamuchha seized from the accused (M.O.I), as the accused wore the same prior to wearing his pant and shirt. In cross-examination she has admitted that two to three days after the occurrence she accompanied the police to the village of the accused and saw him. She stated that they had been to the spot at about 2.00 P.M. when no villager was present and some were present at a distance of 2 to 3 Kiaries (Plots) apart. She was contradicted with her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that she saw accused giving push and put to the deceased in the water and that accused was attired in one Sambalpuri Gamuchha and that she disclosed the fact before the villagers. The above material contradictions are proved by I.O. 9. P.W.2 stating the above facts, added that accused came out of the water by wearing the Gamuchha, went near the bush and changed his clothing. In cross-examination she has admitted that after the incident she saw the accused first at police station then before the Magistrate obviously at the T.I. Parade. She has also admitted in the cross-examination that no villager was present in the nearby place and no one was either going or coming on the road by then. She has admitted to have not stated that accused pushed the deceased to Nala and jumped over her and had worn one Gamuchha. 10. It is illuminating clear from the evidence of above two child witnesses, P.Ws. She has admitted to have not stated that accused pushed the deceased to Nala and jumped over her and had worn one Gamuchha. 10. It is illuminating clear from the evidence of above two child witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2, that soon after the occurrence out of fear they returned and disclosed the fact before the villagers. Informant P.W.5, while lodging F.I.R. at 9.00 P.M. did not state that he heard anything from these two child witnesses. The other co-villager P.W.4, who claimed to have seen the accused in the Nala did not disclose the said fact for about ten days even though he participated in the recovery of the dead body. Thus the evidence of two children does not inspire confidence. They also do not corroboration from any source. Their credibility is affected by the informant, and co-villagers who searched the deceased. Prosecution has not shown any situation to infer any prevalence of trust deficit environment amongst relatives and co-villagers who searched and recovered the dead body of the deceased during relevant period so that the varied versions could be confirmed to that peculiar situation. In absence of that, this inconsistency makes the prosecution case hazy and the complicity of the accused appears to have been shrouded by mystery. 11. Added to above both the child witnesses claimed that accused was shown to them by the police. If that is so, the T.I. Parade has lost its value. So also statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.11.1997. P.W.1 was a student of Standard-IV, aged about 14 years, while P.W.2 was a student of Standard-3, aged about 10 years. In the aforesaid Bhagaban Singh decision (supra), it is stated that the evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring and always court looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony. In K. Venkateshwarlu case (supra), it is stated in para-9 that:- “9. xxx xxx xxx. 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. On the facts at hand, on careful scrutiny of the evidence of the child witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2, we find no corroboration and they having contradicted themselves on material points, are not reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 suffers from inherent infirmity and is unable to overcome the adverse situation found against them. Suspicion, however, grave may be cannot take the place of truth. Learned trial court’s appreciation of the testimony of child witness does not appear in correct perspective. 13. Learned trial court has acquitted the accused of charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C., i.e., theft of gold ornaments. Once this is accepted as correct, it cannot be said that the theft was the motive of accused for committing murder. Hence, the irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the murder. In case as unfolded by the prosecution evidence, when child witnesses are found unreliable and the motive is found absent. On such doubtful evidence, no conviction can be allowed to sustain because prosecution is required to prove the case to the hilt. The learned trial court is found to have committed error in not appreciating the evidence on proper prospective. Conviction is not sustainable on such miss appreciation of evidence. 14. Hence, we allow this appeal by setting aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence passed vide judgment dated 31.08.1999 in S.C.No.22 of 1998/S.C.153 of 1998-GDC. The appellant-convict is acquitted of charge under section 302 IPC. He be set at liberty from jail forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. 15. The Appeal is allowed. 16. Return the L.C.R. immediately to the lower court. S.K. Mishra, J. - I agree.