JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by Ghasia Lohra against the judgment of his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Somri Devi and under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Putki Devi and the order of sentence for the aforesaid offences, all dated 07.09.2010, passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 273 of 2009. 2. On 20.11.2008, at about 5:48 AM, Putki Devi gave her fardbeyan to the officer-in-charge of Bundu police station and on that basis Bundu P.S. Case No. 110 of 2008 was registered against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against him and charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 19.11.2008 Ghasia Lohra sneaked in the house of his in-laws, broke open the window, entered the room in which Somri Devi was sleeping with her minor son and assaulted her with Bhujali. When Putki Devi on her cry came inside her room she was also assaulted by the appellant. Several villagers had arrived there and the informant narrated them the incident. According to the prosecution, the reason why the appellant has committed murder of Somri Devi, his mother-in-law, is that accusing him that he was not getting his wife treated Somri Devi had brought Putki Devi home from her sasural. 4. During the trial, prosecution has examined ten witnesses out of whom as many as four are neighbours of the informant. 5. Somri Devi has died a homicidal death is not in dispute. Dr. Sabrina Kamal, PW-9, who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Somri Devi has found as many as eight incised wounds of different dimensions on her head and facial portion involving mastoid, temporal, parietal and occipital bones. Due to these assaults, the soft tissues inside the head involving dura mater of the brain were chopped. According to PW-9, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries caused by heavy sharp-cutting instrument. 6. The prosecution has projected Putki Devi PW-2 and Peeyub Lohra PW-5 as the eye-witnesses. PW-2 is the daughter and PW-5 is the son of Somri Devi, the deceased. According to PW-9, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries caused by heavy sharp-cutting instrument. 6. The prosecution has projected Putki Devi PW-2 and Peeyub Lohra PW-5 as the eye-witnesses. PW-2 is the daughter and PW-5 is the son of Somri Devi, the deceased. At the time of the incident he was about seven years old and when his evidence was recorded in the Court he has stated that he was studying in class-III. 7. Miss Apoorva Singh, the learned counsel, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, has challenged his testimony on the ground of his tender age and inconsistencies in his evidence. 8. There is no universal rule that conviction of an accused cannot be recorded on the basis of testimony of a child witness, however, as indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Panchhi and others versus State of U.P” reported in (1998) 7 SCC 177 , as a rule of prudence the Court should seek corroboration to the evidence of a child witness. 9. Putki Devi is wife of the appellant. She has deposed in the Court that her mother had brought her back from Kopibaru for her treatment and when the incident had happened she was at her parents’ place. In the house there are only two rooms. In the night of 19.11.2008 she was sleeping alone in a room and her mother was sleeping with Peeyub Lohra, her minor brother, in a separate room. At about 10:00 PM in the night when she heard cries of her mother she woke up and went inside the room of her mother. She has seen her husband Ghasia Lohra assaulting her mother with Bhujali and when she tried to intervene her husband assaulted her. On her raising hulla, her father and neighbours came there, however, by that time her husband had fled away. PW-5 has deposed in the Court that it was around 10:00 PM-10:30 PM in the night when the incident had occurred. He was sleeping on a cot with his mother. He has stated that the appellant came in the room and killed his mother and caused injury on the hand of his sister. PW-5 has deposed in the Court that it was around 10:00 PM-10:30 PM in the night when the incident had occurred. He was sleeping on a cot with his mother. He has stated that the appellant came in the room and killed his mother and caused injury on the hand of his sister. He has asserted that he has seen all this with his own eyes and he had told the police all these facts, but then, that is all he has stated in his examination-in-chief which contains just four sentences in one paragraph. 10. We would now turn to other evidences laid by the prosecution in this case because PW-2 and PW-5 do not appear to be wholly reliable witnesses. PW-4, Feku Lohra is the husband of the deceased. At the time of the incident he was not at home but as he had stated in the Court he was present in the village and on getting the news about the incident within half an hour he came back home. He has seen the dead body of his wife drenched in blood. He has admitted that the incident was narrated to him by his daughter. PW-1, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are his neighbours. PW-1 has stated that on hearing hulla he came to the house of Feku Lohra and Putki Devi told him that her husband had killed her mother. He has admitted in his cross-examination that what he has stated in the Court was told to him by Putki Devi. PW-6 has stated that in the night of 19.11.2008 he was at home. His house is adjacent to the house of Feku Lohra. At about 10:00 PM in the night when he had heard some hulla he went to the house of Feku Lohra where he has seen the dead body of Somri Devi on a cot. He has further stated that PW-2 had told him that her husband has killed her mother with a sharp-cutting weapon. She has shown her injured hand also which according to her was caused by her husband. PW-7 was not at home when the incident had happened and the next day morning when he came to the village he got information and went to the house of Feku Lohra. She has shown her injured hand also which according to her was caused by her husband. PW-7 was not at home when the incident had happened and the next day morning when he came to the village he got information and went to the house of Feku Lohra. There he had seen the dead body of Somri Devi, however, at that time PW-2 was already sent for her treatment to the hospital. He had stated that PW-2 had told him that her husband had killed her mother. PW-8 had also gone to the house of Feku Lohra on hearing hulla and he has seen the dead body of Somri Devi in the house. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are the seizure witnesses. PW-6 has stated that he has seen the blood spilled on the ground and one 18 inch long Farsa there. At his instance seizure memo of Farsa was marked as Ext.2. He has also proved the seizure of one bag and the blood-stained earth which were marked as exhibits during the trial. He has stated that seizure memo was prepared at about 7:00 AM on 20.11.2008. PW-7 and PW-8 have also seen blood spilled on the ground and proved seizure of one rexine bag and the blood-stained soil. PW-8 has spoken about seizure of 18 inch long Khargi. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence at about 7:45 AM police had not reached there and in fact police had arrived at 8:00 AM. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-10. But he is not the person who has recorded the fardbeyan of Putki Devi. He has stated that there were two rooms in the house and the room in which dead body of Somri Devi was found lying there was a window at a height of 6 ft. above the ground, however, it was an open window and there was no grill in the window. 11. In the background of the aforesaid facts, now we shall examine whether the prosecution has produced cogent and convincing evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. 12. The fardbeyan was recorded at about 5:48 AM on 20.11.2008 in the village Baghadih. above the ground, however, it was an open window and there was no grill in the window. 11. In the background of the aforesaid facts, now we shall examine whether the prosecution has produced cogent and convincing evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. 12. The fardbeyan was recorded at about 5:48 AM on 20.11.2008 in the village Baghadih. However, in her cross-examination PW-2 has stated that she had gone to the police station and lodged the information about the incident and the police had arrived in the village at about 7:30 AM -8:00 AM the next day. The other witnesses have also deposed in the Court that the police had arrived at the place of occurrence at around 8:00 AM on 20.11.2008. What was the information given by her at the police station has not been brought on record and there is no explanation by the prosecution why a First Information Report was not lodged when the informant had gone to the police station. 13. In a criminal case prompt registration of the First Information Report is likely to give correct picture of the incident and reveal name of the real culprit. In a criminal trial why prompt lodging of the First Information Report is so important has been discussed by the Supreme Court in “Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu” reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 , as under: “12. ........First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.....” 14. From the testimony of PW-2, who has though stated in her cross-examination that her relation with her husband was quite good, we find that the appellant had serious dispute with his wife and mother-in-law. She has stated in the Court that on a previous occasion her husband had attacked her and injured her nose with a sickle. Her father has stated that her husband was not getting her treated properly and, therefore, she was brought back from village Kopibaru and after she came to her parents’ place her husband came there and quarreled with them. In defence, the appellant has set up a case that he is limp and the informant did not want to live with him and that is the reason she has falsely implicated him in this case. Most importantly, the recovery of incriminating articles from her room goes against the prosecution story that the incident has happened in another room and the crime article was left by the appellant in the room in which her mother was attacked. The seizure memo which was marked as Ext.9/3 is about the seizure of the blood-stained soil from beneath the cot in the room in which the informant was sleeping and iron Khatgo, the crime weapon, was also seized from the room adjacent to the room in which dead body of Somri Devi was found lying in the pool of blood; this was the room of Putki Devi, the informant. Another important aspect of this case is that the evidence of PW-5 has almost wiped out the prosecution case. PW-5 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no window in the room in which he was sleeping with his mother and the room was closed from inside, however, in his examination-in-chief he has claimed that he has seen the appellant assaulting his mother and the sister. PW-5 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no window in the room in which he was sleeping with his mother and the room was closed from inside, however, in his examination-in-chief he has claimed that he has seen the appellant assaulting his mother and the sister. On such evidence, it can be reasonably inferred that either he was not sleeping with his mother in the room in which her dead body was found; according to the prosecution this room has an open window, or, if he was sleeping with his mother in a room which was bolted from inside how his mother has been murdered has not been revealed by him. Evidently, he has not spoken the truth and definitely suppressed the real manner of occurrence. PW-2 and PW-5 both are children of Somri Devi but at the same time the appellant is the husband of PW-2 and therefore in normal course he could not have been falsely implicated and, that too, by his wife for causing death of his mother-in-law, however, what had transpired within the house of Feku Lohra was seen by PW-2 and PW-5 only. On this aspect the other witnesses could not have said anything and they have admitted in the Court that their testimony is based on the version of the occurrence given by the informant. And, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-5 is seriously impaired by inconsistencies in their evidence and not corroborated by other independent evidence. The seizure of the crime weapon and blood-stained soil from the room of the informant, controversy on registration of the First Information Report and, above all, the evidence of PW-5, have seriously clouded the prosecution story that the appellant sneaked inside the house and committed murder of his mother-in-law. 15. In the end, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled for the benefits of doubt. 16. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the appellant under section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence of R.I. for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5,000/- both dated 07.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 273 of 2009 are set-aside. 17. Mr. 5,000/- both dated 07.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 273 of 2009 are set-aside. 17. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned APP states that the appellant has remained in jail custody. 18. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Ghasia Lohra shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 714 of 2012 is allowed. 20. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Miss Apoorva Singh, the learned Amicus. 21. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). 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'.