JUDGMENT : SAROJ YADAV, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant/convict Prakash Pasi against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short I.P.C.) Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli, convicting the appellant with life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are: An F.I.R. was registered at case crime no. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli on the basis of written report presented by Km. Khushboo. It was described in the written report that the father of the complainant had gone to Etawah for doing work as labourer on brick-kiln. She was in the house along with her mother and younger brother Mukesh. On 22.05.2006 at about 11 A.M. her mother was chopping vegetables sitting on a Cot in the Court-yard under the thatch. Her neighbour Prakash Pasi, who left the village along with his family since the festival of Holi, came there and started chatting with her mother sitting on the same cot. Her mother asked her to bring the chilies and her younger brother went to play in the field. When she came back after taking chilies from the shop of Ravi, she found that her mother was lying soaked in blood by the side of the cot and Prakash was not there. She raised cry, then some people of the neighbourhood came there and found her mother dead. Her throat was slit. Prakash had killed her mother due to old enmity. 3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted in the Court against the appellant/convict under Section 302 IPC. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance on the charge sheet committed the case to the Court of Sessions, for trial. 4. The Sessions Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the crime and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined six witnesses in toto to prove its story and also proved the relevant documents Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-14. The witnesses produced include: (a) PW-1 Km. Khushboo, the complainant and daughter of the deceased. (b) PW-2 Dinesh Singh, a witness of extra judicial confession made by the appellant/convict. The accused denied the crime and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined six witnesses in toto to prove its story and also proved the relevant documents Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-14. The witnesses produced include: (a) PW-1 Km. Khushboo, the complainant and daughter of the deceased. (b) PW-2 Dinesh Singh, a witness of extra judicial confession made by the appellant/convict. (c) PW-3 Kunjan, the husband of the deceased. (d) PW-4 Dr. Sayyad Altaf Hussain, who conducted post-mortem on the cadaver of the deceased. (e) PW-5 Constable Amar Pal, who prove the registration of FIR. (f) PW-6 Anirudh Kumar Singh, S.H.O, who investigated the crime. The Exhibits include: (I) Ext. Ka-1 written report. (II) Ext. Ka-2 post-mortem report. (III) Ext. Ka-3 Chik FIR. (IV) Ext. Ka-4 concerned G.D. (V) Ext. Ka-5 Site-plan. (VI) Ext. Ka-6 memo of collection of blood stained and plain soil from the spot of crime. (VII) Ext. Ka-7 inquest-report. (VIII) Ext. Ka-8 report of Investigating Officer for conducting post-mortem. (IX) Ext. Ka-9 Photo Nash. (X) Ext. Ka-10 Police Form No. 13. (XI) Ext. Ka-11 letter to Chief-Medical-Officer for post-mortem. (XII) Ext. Ka-12 recovery memo of weapon of offence. (XIII) Ext. Ka-13 charge-sheet. (XIV) Ext. Ka-14 site-plan of the place from where the weapon of offence was recovered. 5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant/convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) was recorded, wherein he denied the crime and stated that witnesses have deposed falsely. He had also stated that he was implicated in the crime falsely at the behest of one Shiv Sagar, the resident of the same village, who has terror in the village and his brother was I.G. in police. Shiv Sagar had murdered his (convicts) brother, thereafter the appellant/convict along with his family members left the village. The complainant and his family implicated him in the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar. He examined Vinod Kumar, as defence witness, who is also scribed the written report. 6. After completion of evidence, hearing the arguments of both the sides and analyzing the evidence learned Trial Court reached at conclusion that on the day of incident the appellant/convict Prakash Pasi reached the house of the deceased. Before incident, they both (appellant and deceased) were chatting sitting on the same cot in the Court-yard of the deceased, where she was chopping vegetables. Before incident, they both (appellant and deceased) were chatting sitting on the same cot in the Court-yard of the deceased, where she was chopping vegetables. The daughter of the deceased has proved this fact that when Prakash was in the house, her mother sent her to bring chilies and when she came back after taking chilies she found, her mother was lying dead soaked in the blood. The time-gap between the incident and presence of Prakash at the spot was so short that to presume that somebody else might have committed the crime, is not possible. Km. Khushboo proved that when she left the house for purchasing chilies, both the deceased and Prakash were alive and present in her house and when she came after half an hour, she found her mother dead and Prakash was not there. Hence, the circumstances are indicating that in all probabilities the crime was committed by the appellant/convict. 7. Learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and punished accordingly with life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Being aggrieved of this conviction, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 8. Heard Sri Jaikaran, learned counsel for the appellant/convict, Ms. Smiti Sahai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent and perused the material brought on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict argued that there is no direct evidence of the crime and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. PW-1 Km. Khushboo (the complainant and daughter of the deceased) was a child of only nine years at the time of incident and she did not even witness the crime. She has stated only that she saw Prakash Pasi (appellant/convict) in the house along with her mother and she went to purchase chilies upon asking of her mother and when she came back, she found her mother lying besides the cot soaked in the blood and her throat was slit and Prakash (appellant/convict) was absent. He further argued that no other witness has corroborated the presence of Prakash in the house of the deceased before the incident. The recovery of weapon was not made at the pointing out of the appellant/convict rather it has been made on the basis of the statement given by the appellant to the Investigating Officer while he was confined in jail. The recovery of weapon was not made at the pointing out of the appellant/convict rather it has been made on the basis of the statement given by the appellant to the Investigating Officer while he was confined in jail. The appellant/convict has stated in his statement that he has been implicated in the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar, who is a strong man of the village and has terror in the minds of people of village. The appellant/convict has already left the village along with his entire family due to his fear after the murder of his brother by Shiv Sagar. He further argued that the appellant/convict has no concern with the crime, as such, he should be acquitted. 10. On the other hand learned A.G.A. submitted that the presence of the appellant/convict in the house of the deceased, just half an hour before the incident has been proved by PW-1 Km. Khshboo, the daughter of the deceased. The time gap between when PW-1 went to purchase chilies leaving the appellant Prakash in her house and came back from there and found her mother dead, was very short, so there was no possibility of being committed the murder by someone else, except the appellant/convict. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that knife used in the crime was recovered by the Investigating-Officer on the basis of the statement of appellant/convict from a pond and that knife was recognized by the son of the deceased as the knife used for chopping the vegetables in his house. It has been further submitted that circumstantial evidence is strong enough to hold the appellant guilty of the crime and convict accordingly, as such, the appeal should be dismissed. 11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the original record as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 12. The case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence of the crime. The principles governing the appreciation of evidence in such cases have been summarized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626 , has laid down as under: “12. The principles governing the appreciation of evidence in such cases have been summarized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626 , has laid down as under: “12. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the judgment of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra: (SCC p.185, Paras 153-154) “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: “19.........Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 14. In the present matter, FIR was lodged by nine years old daughter of the deceased, Km. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 14. In the present matter, FIR was lodged by nine years old daughter of the deceased, Km. Khushboo, wherein she has mentioned that Prakash (appellant/convict) came to her house on the day of incident at about 11 A.M. Her mother was chopping vegetables. Prakash and her mother were sitting on the same cot and started chatting. Her mother asked her to bring chilies from the market. When she came back her mother was found lying dead and her throat was slit and Prakash (appellant/convict) was absent. She has also mentioned that Prakash killed her mother due to old enmity. Km. Khusbhoo has been examined as PW-1 in the Trial Court on 11.01.2007 i.e. about eight months after the incident. She has stated in the Court that Prakash (appellant/convict) came to her house, her mother and Prakash were sitting on the same cot and chatting. Her mother asked about the well-being of her father as the father of Km. Khushboo and Prakash used to work together at brick-kiln in Etawah as a labourer. Thereafter, her mother asked her to bring chilies from the market and when she came back, found her mother dead, her throat was slit and Prakash (appellant/convict) was not there. She has further stated in the Trial Court that she did not see Prakash cutting the throat of her mother, hence it is very clear that she is not an eye witness of the crime. She is witness only of the fact that Prakash (appellant/convict) was there with her mother in the house just half an hour before the incident. She has also stated that her father was not on talking terms with Prakash. PW-2 Dinesh Singh before whom the appellant allegedly made an extra judicial confession about killing of the deceased by him has turned hostile and he has not supported the story of prosecution. 15. Now comes another important witness Kunjan (husband of the deceased), who has been examined as PW-3. He has stated before the Trial Court that he received an information about the incident telephonically. When he came to the village, her daughter told about the incident. 15. Now comes another important witness Kunjan (husband of the deceased), who has been examined as PW-3. He has stated before the Trial Court that he received an information about the incident telephonically. When he came to the village, her daughter told about the incident. He has stated in his cross-examination that he received information of the incident on the next-day of incident and he came to the village next-day. He has further stated that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Police Station when he reached there, upon information received. He was called by the Investigating Officer after 10-12 days of the incident and upon being asked by the Investigating Officer he told to the Investigating officer the reason of murder of her wife but he nowhere has stated that Prakash killed her wife due to enmity, though in his examination-in-chief he has stated that Prakash (appellant/convict) had killed his wife because Prakash deemed that one Shiv Sagar killed his (appellant’s) brother upon his (PW-3) behest. In cross-examination PW-3 has further stated that Prakash was friendly with him when they were working at brick-klin in Etawah. At the time of incident he or his family members had no enmity with Prakash. He has clearly stated that Shiv Sagar was annoyed with Prakash. 16. Alleged recovery of weapon of crime i.e. knife was admittedly not made at the pointing out of the accused rather had been made on the basis of the statement given by the appellant/convict to the Investigating Officer while he was confined in jail. The statement of appellant/convict was recorded by the Investigating Officer after taking permission of the Magistrate concerned, as is evident from the statement of the Investigating Officer recorded as PW-6. The alleged recovery was made about two months after the incident and that too on the basis of statement of the Investigating Officer while the appellant was confined in jail. This recovery has no value in the eyes of law and rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. 17. The appellant/convict has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was falsely implicated in the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar, whose brother was I.G. in police and Shiv Sagar has terror in the village. Shiv Sagar earlier killed his brother, so due to his fear he left the village along with his entire family. The appellant/convict has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was falsely implicated in the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar, whose brother was I.G. in police and Shiv Sagar has terror in the village. Shiv Sagar earlier killed his brother, so due to his fear he left the village along with his entire family. This fact, that Shiv Sagar is the person who had terror in the village has been proved even by PW-3 Kunjan (husband of the deceased). He has stated in his cross-examination that village people fear very much to Shiv Sagar. Whatever is asked by Shiv Sagar to any person that person has to comply that. He has also stated that three other families of the village belonging to scheduled castes community had left the village due to terror of Shiv Sagar. Prakash (appellant/convict) and his family also had left the village due to fear of Shiv Sagar. He has further stated that he had friendly terms with Prakash (appellant/convict). In such circumstances, the possibility can not be ruled out that Prakash (appellant/ convict) was implicated falsely in the crime. No motive has been established, though it is not always necessary that motive should be proved but in the case of circumstantial evidence the motive gives strength to the case of prosecution to connect the links of the chain of circumstantial evidence. 18. The complainant was nine years old child at the time of incident. On the day of incident, when her mother was killed, she lodged the FIR, her father was in Etawah where he was working as a labourer in brick-kiln. About the acceptability and appreciation of evidence Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena of decisions that the evidence of a child witness should be appreciated with caution because a child is easily be swayed or tutored. Though the conviction can be based on the sole evidence of a child witness but the evidence of such child witness should be trustworthy and able to inspire the confidence of the Court. 19. In Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “It is well-settled that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration, before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law. 19. In Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “It is well-settled that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration, before it is relied upon as the rule of corroboration is of practical wisdom than of law. [See: Prakash vs. State of M.P. (1992) 4 SCC 225 , Baby Kandayanathi vs. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 667, Raja Ram Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 287 , Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 , State of U.P. vs. Ashok Dixit and Another, (2000) 3 SCC 70 and Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 ]. However, it is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is a found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. [Vide: Panchhi vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177 ].” 20. In Ranjeet Kumar Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar Das vs. State of Bihar 2015 SCC Online SC 500, it has been held as under: “Evidence of the child witness and its credibility would depend upon the circumstances of each case. Only precaution which the Court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one.” 21. Thus, it is discernible from the above cited case laws that though a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a child witness, if the Court finds it trustworthy and that inspires the confidence of the Court yet, It is a rule of practical wisdom than law that testimony of a child witness must be relied upon when it is corroborated by other evidence because the child can easily be swayed or tutored by others, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter, Km. Khushboo is a witness of fact that she saw her mother alive lastly in the company of Prakash (appellant/convict). No other person has been examined to corroborate the fact that Prakash (appellant/convict) was present there on the day of incident. In the present matter, Km. Khushboo is a witness of fact that she saw her mother alive lastly in the company of Prakash (appellant/convict). No other person has been examined to corroborate the fact that Prakash (appellant/convict) was present there on the day of incident. In her written report, she stated that Prakash (appellant/convict) killed her mother due to enmity. Her father (husband of the deceased) has stated as PW-3 that he and Prakash Pasi was on friendly terms while working in Etawah as a labourer and he has no enmity with him, while Km. Khushboo-PW-1 has stated that her father was not on friendly terms with Prakash (appellant/convict). Further more, PW-3 has corroborated the fact what has been stated by Prakash (appellant/convict) in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Shiv Sagar was annoyed with the appellant. 22. After analyzing the evidence on record in the circumstances described above, a strong possibility was there to get the appellant/convict implicated falsely in the crime. No other witness except PW-1 Km. Khushboo has stated that Prakash (appellant/convict) was seen with the deceased or around or near the place of the incident or in the village before or after the incident, on the day of incident. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 Km Khushboo that Prakash (appellant/convict) has already left the village and he was not residing in the village since the festival of Holi. The factum of presence of appellant on the day of incident in the house of the deceased has not been corroborated by any other evidence. 23. Thus, in such situation, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable on the basis of evidence available on record. The circumstantial evidence brought on record is not strong enough to point out towards the culpability of the appellant and appellant alone, in committing the murder of the deceased, hence he deserves acquittal. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli, is hereby set aside. 24. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli, is hereby set aside. 24. Let the appellant-Prakash Pasi convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District Raebareli, be released from the concerned jail, if not required in any other case. 25. Appellant Prakash Pasi is directed to file personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 26. Let a copy of this order alongwith original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and follow up action.