JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.261 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “I.P.C.”] for causing the death of his wife by name Devi after taking her near Seven Lakes on Narasimkonda Divine Centre, Nellore. 2. Vide judgment dated 01.07.2016, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. He was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. The substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts, as disclosed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under: (i) P.W.12 is the son of the deceased, while P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. Initially the deceased married one Koteswara rao, when she was aged about 11 years and they blessed with four children. Later on, the deceased is said to have eloped with the accused, when she was carrying third month pregnancy. It is also said that she begot two children through the accused. About five or six months prior to the incident, the deceased is said to have met her mother-P.W.5, while she was working as a maid servant. On enquiry, P.W.5 furnished the phone number of P.W.4. P.W.6 is said to be the owner of the house in which the accused was also living as tenant along with his wife. P.W.12, who is the son of the deceased, was admitted in an orphan hostel by the accused. (ii) On the fateful day, during morning time, P.W.12, his sister accompanied their parents to a temple, where a quarrel ensued between their parents. During the said quarrel, the accused picked out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased. P.W.12 claims to have raised cries as ‘stop stop’. After the attack of the accused, the injured mother fell into a pit. During the said quarrel, the accused picked out a knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased. P.W.12 claims to have raised cries as ‘stop stop’. After the attack of the accused, the injured mother fell into a pit. At that point of time, the accused picked up a big stone and threw it on the face of the deceased, leading to instantaneous death. (iii) Law was set into motion basing on the report given by one Survepally Mohan rao, Panchayat Secretary of Devarapalem village on 28.06.2006 at 4.00 P.M. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.40 of 2006 was registered under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Ex.P7 is the First Information Report. (iv) One J.Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police, is said to have took up investigation in this matter, recorded the statement of P.W.1, visited the scene of offence situated nearby seven sacred ponds at Narasimhakonda in the presence of P.W.18 and others, prepared an observation report of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P8. He seized one pair of chappals, two empty polythin covers, shirt buttons, one empty cigarette packet, two empty liquor bottles, hilt of knife, five paper slips, two blood stained bangle pieces, blood stained earth apart from controlled earth. He also took photographs of the scene which is marked as Ex.P14. On 01.03.2006, inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Ex.P15 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest, body was sent for Post Mortem examination. (v) P.W.16, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Guntur, conducted autopsy over the dead body and found sixteen external injuries on the body of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death was due to head injury possible by hitting a person with a big stone (boulder). Ex.P21 is the Post Mortem Certificate. (vi) J.Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police continued the investigation by examining the witnesses and recording their statements. On 08.03.2006, he arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the accused in the presence of P.W.17 and others. Ex.P18 is the relevant admissible portion in the statement of the accused. The confession of the accused lead the police party to seven sacred lakes of Narasimha Konda, from where a knife was said to have been discovered from the bushes apart from the boulder used in the commission of offence. Ex.P18 is the relevant admissible portion in the statement of the accused. The confession of the accused lead the police party to seven sacred lakes of Narasimha Konda, from where a knife was said to have been discovered from the bushes apart from the boulder used in the commission of offence. Ex.P19 is the relevant admissible portion for recovery mahazar of accused. He sent the accused for judicial remand. (vii) P.W.13 Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, verified the investigation done by J.Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police and after completing the entire investigation, filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.71 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. As the offence is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 5. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and M.Os.1 to 7. Out of the 18 prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 did not support the case of prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 7. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied. However, he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. 8. Believing the evidence of P.W.12, which gets corroboration from the evidence of Post Mortem doctor, with regard to nature of injuries and also from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. Smt.Ammaji Nettem, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that the entire case is based on the evidence of P.W.5, which cannot be believed. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. Smt.Ammaji Nettem, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that the entire case is based on the evidence of P.W.5, which cannot be believed. According to her, at the time of incident, P.W.12 was aged about five or six years and as such, he could not have been in a position to visualize what was happening at the scene. She took us through the evidence of this witness to contend that his version is an outcome of tutoring. Apart from that, learned counsel also submits that recovery made pursuant to the confession of the accused cannot be believed, as there is no evidence to prove that the blood stains on those articles belong to the deceased. Relying upon a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Om @ Hero v. Sate of Utter Pradesh, 2021 (1)ALD (Crl.) 886 (SC) she would contend that unless the evidence of the child witness gets corroboration from other sources in all material particulars, the same cannot be relied upon. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed the same contending that the answers elicited in the cross examination of P.W.12 is sufficient to base a conviction. According to him, though the witness was aged five years at the time of incident, but the age of five years is not too less for a witness of that age to comprehend the incident, more particularly when his mother was killed by none other than his own father. To this, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that since the conduct of P.W.12 in not reporting about the incident to others demonstrates that he has not witnessed the incident in question. 11. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 12. As seen from the record, the entire case rests on the solitary evidence of P.W.12, who is none other than the son of the deceased and the accused. It is well established principle of law that the evidence of child witness can be relied upon, if it inspires confidence in the Court or if the version spoken to by the child witness gets support from other independent sources. It is well established principle of law that the evidence of child witness can be relied upon, if it inspires confidence in the Court or if the version spoken to by the child witness gets support from other independent sources. Keeping this principle in the background, we shall now proceed to deal with the case on hand. 13. As stated earlier, P.Ws.6 to 10 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. P.W.5, who is the mother of the deceased, in her evidence deposed that the marriage of the deceased took place with one Koteswara rao, when she was aged about 11 years and subsequently, she eloped with one Immanueal (accused) and begot children through him. She further deposed that her daughter came to her and asked about the phone number of P.W.4 and accordingly, she furnished the phone number of P.W.4. She further states that she identified the photo as of that her daughter and that she cannot identify the person with whom her daughter lived prior to her death. This witness was neither cross examined by the defence counsel nor by the Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring the witness hostile. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 is no way helpful to the prosecution for establishing the relationship between the accused and deceased, more so, she could not identify the accused in the Court hall. 14. In so far as the fact of the accused and the deceased living together in a house, P.W.6 in his evidence speaks about the accused living along with the deceased as a tenant in his house. Establishing the fact of both of them living together in a house, in our view, is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 15. The prosecution pressed into service the evidence of P.W.12- son of the deceased, who was aged about five years at the time of commission of offence and about 15 years at the time of giving evidence to prove the same. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that the evidence of P.W.12 cannot be believed, more so, when he has not disclosed about the incident to any one of the witnesses and further, there is no evidence on record to show as to when he was examined by the police. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that the evidence of P.W.12 cannot be believed, more so, when he has not disclosed about the incident to any one of the witnesses and further, there is no evidence on record to show as to when he was examined by the police. 16. In so far as the evidence of P.W.12 is concerned, he in his evidence deposed that about five years ago, (it has to be presumed that this period of five years is five years prior to giving evidence in Court which is incorrect, it should have been about nine years) in morning hours, himself, his sister and parents went to the temple and at the temple, his parents quarrelled with each other. Meanwhile, his father picked up a knife from his pocket and stabbed his mother. P.W.12 raised cries as ‘stop stop’. His mother fell in a ditch. Thereafter, his father is said to have picked up a big stone and threw it on the face of her mother, leading to her death. He further deposed that police came to his hostel and examined him. But he categorically admits that he does not remember the date when the incident took place. He was also cross examined, wherein he admits that he was aged about five years at the time of incident and as he was aged five years, he cannot say anything. The warden and police asked him to give evidence as to killing of his mother by his father, hence, he stated that he saw his father killing his mother. It will be appropriate to extract this portion of his evidence in the cross examination. “I was aged give years as on the date of incident. As I was aged five years, I cannot say anything. The warden and police asked to give evidence as to killing of my mother by my father. I saw my father killing my mother.” In so far as other suggestions given, viz., that he was not present at the scene of offence and that his father did not accompany them at that time were denied by him. The warden and police asked to give evidence as to killing of my mother by my father. I saw my father killing my mother.” In so far as other suggestions given, viz., that he was not present at the scene of offence and that his father did not accompany them at that time were denied by him. From the answers elicited in the cross examination of this witness, it is clear that he was aged five years as on the date of incident and as he was aged five years, he cannot say anything and that warden and police asked him to give evidence as to killing of his mother by his father. Therefore, it appears that because of the request made by warden and the police, he is deposing about the involvement of his father in commission of offence. 17. Be that as it may, one crucial fact which requires to be noted is one J.Murali Krishna, who investigated into the offence, was not examined as he died in the year 2012. P.W.13, who can identify the signatures of the Inspector of Police-J.Murali Krishna, was examined to speak to the investigation done. Though this witness speaks about all the proceedings conducted by the investigating officer including examination of this witness, but strangely, he does not say as to when P.W.12 was examined and also as to how the prosecution came to know about the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. Even the person who lodged the First Information Report was not examined as his whereabouts are not known, as spoken to by P.W.1. Hence, we perused the record to find out the truth. Since the evidence of P.W.12 is not corroborated in material particulars, more so, in view of the admissions in his cross examination, it may not be safe to rely on his evidence. 18. Further, a perusal of the material on record would show that charge sheet was filed in the month of November, 2006 and the statement of P.W.12 was alleged to have been recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C on 08.03.2006. Meaning thereby, that, for a period of nearly 10 days, this witness has not disclosed to anyone about the involvement of his father in the commission of offence. There is also no evidence on record as to where this boy was after the incident. Meaning thereby, that, for a period of nearly 10 days, this witness has not disclosed to anyone about the involvement of his father in the commission of offence. There is also no evidence on record as to where this boy was after the incident. Though in his 161 Cr.P.C statement, which cannot be looked into, he states that his father has admitted him in a hostel, but no material is placed on record as to when his father admitted him in hostel. Apart from that, if really he has seen the incident, it is difficult to believe that he would have kept quite without informing anybody about the incident, more so to the owner of the house, where he was living or to the warden, if he is in hostel. This circumstance assumes significance for the reason that it is not the case of P.W.12 that his father has threatened him not to disclose about the incident to the others. Had it been so, definitely much credence could have been attached for delay in not informing about the incident. Apart from all these things, there is absolutely no material on record to show as to how the police were able to trace the presence of this boy at the scene at the time of incident. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to contend that since the investigating officer died, crucial facts could not be brought on record. If that is so, conviction cannot be based by presuming that the accused must have committed the offence having regard to his suspicion over the fidelity of his wife. 19. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, but in argument, their evidence may not be helpful to the prosecution, as they only noticed the dead body lying within the vicinity of the temple and thereafter, informed about the same to others. The evidence of these three witnesses does not inculcate in any manner as to involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. 20. In so far as recovery of weapons is concerned, police recovered the knife and the boulder pursuant to confession made by the accused, but the blood stains does not establish the group of the blood. Mere recovery of weapon, in our view, is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 21. 20. In so far as recovery of weapons is concerned, police recovered the knife and the boulder pursuant to confession made by the accused, but the blood stains does not establish the group of the blood. Mere recovery of weapon, in our view, is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 21. Having regard to the above, we hold that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and as such, the findings and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment dated 01.07.2016 in Sessions Case No.261 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, are set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.