JUDGMENT : K. SURENDER, J. 1. Both the appellants who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Questioning the said conviction, the present appeal is preferred. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2012, in the evening, accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house of the deceased and asked her to participate in sexual intercourse with them. However, when the deceased refused, there was a quarrel and accused No.2 caught hold the deceased and accused No.1 hit her with a stick on her left eye and also pierced the stick into her vagina. Due to which, she died. 3. A complaint was filed by PW1 who is the mother of the deceased on 21.11.2012 at 10:00 A.M. In the complaint, she narrated that her sister namely Sugunamma/PW2 informed about the death of the deceased and accordingly, when she went to the house at around 07:00 A.M., she found that the deceased was lying in one of the rooms with injuries and was dead. She came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house and a quarrel took place between them and accused Nos.1 and 2 killed her. The dead body was found without clothes and with injuries to the eye. 4. Having received the complaint, Police registered a case against the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and commenced investigation. They went to the scene of offence and panchanama proceedings/Ex.P3 was conducted. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were undertaken under Ex.P5. After inquest proceedings, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the body of deceased found following injuries:- 1. Laceration of Left Upper eye lid 4 x 3 cm with depression and rupture of eye brow. 2. Laceration of left lower eye lid 4 x 3 cms with tear with inner campus of eye lid. 3. Abrasion over back of left elbow in lower 1/3 rd of arm 1 x 1 cm. 4. Abrasion over front right knee about 1 x 1 cm. 5. Tearing of posterior commission of vegina 2 cms. Deep x bleeding explosing muscles. 6. Multiple small abrasions of ½ cms over front of upper part of thigh. 7. Contusion of 5 x 3 cms. 4. Abrasion over front right knee about 1 x 1 cm. 5. Tearing of posterior commission of vegina 2 cms. Deep x bleeding explosing muscles. 6. Multiple small abrasions of ½ cms over front of upper part of thigh. 7. Contusion of 5 x 3 cms. Over front of left side of neck just above clavity. Abrasions are bright red in colour 5. According to PW9/Doctor, after receiving the analysis report, he opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to multiple injuries and there was a possibility that victim was subjected to rape. 6. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested on 26.11.2012. Pursuant to their confession, stick that was used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of accused. 7. Having concluded the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the appellants. Charges under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC were framed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 by learned Sessions Judge. 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12, Exs.P1 to P12 and Material Objects i.e., MOs.1 to 5 are marked. 9. Learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the evidence of PW3, who is the daughter of the deceased to record conviction. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the evidence of PW3 corroborated with the injuries that were found by the Doctor/PW9, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased. 10. According to PW3, on the date of incident, she found accused Nos.1 and 2 consuming alcohol with her mother when she came from school at around 03:00 P.M. PW3 informed that she was having head ache and her mother asked her to go and sleep in the bed room. When PW3 was sleeping she heard accused Nos.1 and 2 shouting, she woke up and found that accused Nos.1 and 2 have broken the glass bottles and injured the right eye of the deceased. Accused saw PW3 and accused No.1 threatened that if PW3 informs to anyone about the incident, she would be killed. Further, PW3 stated that accused pushed the bottles into her mother’s vagina. Due to fear, she went into the bedroom and slept. On the next day morning, she woke up and found that her mother was not breathing and immediately, she went to the house of PW2 and informed her. Further, PW3 stated that accused pushed the bottles into her mother’s vagina. Due to fear, she went into the bedroom and slept. On the next day morning, she woke up and found that her mother was not breathing and immediately, she went to the house of PW2 and informed her. PW2 in turn informed PW1 who is the mother of the deceased. PW1 went to police station and filed complaint. Thereafter, Police went to the house and conducted scene of offence panchanama which is Ex.P3. Inquest proceedings were also concluded. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. During investigation the appellants were arrested. Having concluded investigation charge sheet was filed. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges and examined witnesses. Basing on the evidence of PW3 child witness who was the only eye witness to the incident, conviction was recorded. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the version of PW3 who is child witness cannot be believed. There is no other evidence apart from PW3 for the prosecution to prove that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who had committed the murder. The evidence of PW3 is highly doubtful since it is apparent from the record that she was tutored to depose against the accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no evidence to determine as to how accused Nos.1 and 2 were either related to the deceased and why they went to the said house for consuming alcohol with the deceased. Since the entire evidence of PW3 is an improvement and omission in the earlier Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, the same cannot be believed. 12. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Vs. State of Haryana , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777 . It was held as follows: “8. Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4, it is laid down that in case of a child witness under 12 years of age, unless satisfaction as required by the said proviso is recorded, an oath cannot be administered to the child witness. In this case, in the deposition of PW1 Ajay, it is mentioned that his age was 12 years at the time of the recording of evidence. Therefore, the proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act will not apply in this case. In this case, in the deposition of PW1 Ajay, it is mentioned that his age was 12 years at the time of the recording of evidence. Therefore, the proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act will not apply in this case. However, in view of the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him. The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth. 9. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution.” 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no reason why the child would speak false against accused Nos.1 and 2. PW3 and her brother were in the house when the incident happened which is natural. The murder was committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. In fact, narration given by PW3 corroborates with the medical evidence. The injuries caused to the eye and also on the private parts as stated by PW3 were in fact found during the course of post-mortem examination as stated by Doctor/PW9. 14. The evidence of PW3 has to be closely scrutinized, since the entire case rests on her evidence. PW3 was 8 years old child when she deposed in Court. According to the prosecution case PW3 had witnessed the assault and attack on her mother two years prior to her deposition in Court. 15. The evidence of Investigating Officer regarding the improvements made by PW3 would be relevant. PW3 was 8 years old child when she deposed in Court. According to the prosecution case PW3 had witnessed the assault and attack on her mother two years prior to her deposition in Court. 15. The evidence of Investigating Officer regarding the improvements made by PW3 would be relevant. The extract of Investigating Officer/PW’s10 evidence is as under: “PW3 did not state to me that A-1 and A-2 threatened her by showing a stick and asked her to sleep. I examined PW3 in the scene of offence. PW3 did not state to me about the source of light. PW3 stated to me that on that night due to fear she slept on the cot and what happened on that night herself and her brother do not know and on the next day morning when she woke up, she found the dead body of her mother. It is true PW3 did not state to me that the accused poked the quarter bottles into the vagina of the deceased. PW3 did not state to me when she slept in the house. PW3 did not state to me that she found her mother in naked condition. PW3 did not state to me that she found bleeding from the vagina of the deceased. PW3 stated to me that she found the missing of right eye ball of her mother.” 16. The version given by PW3 regarding accused Nos.1 and 2 threatening her with stick and asking her to go and sleep and inserting the liquor bottles in vagina of the deceased are all omissions in her earliest version when the incident took place, as extracted above. 17. It is the case of prosecution that she informed PW2 regarding incident who in turn informed PW1, who has lodged complaint/Ex.P1. There is no mention in Ex.P1 that PW3 or her brother had witnessed the incident. 18. PW1 stated in her complaint and also in the statement that she came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the house and consuming alcohol and they would have committed murder. No reasons are given as to why the alleged witnessing of PW3 is not stated either in the complaint/Ex.P1 or during inquest proceedings. Except stating that PW1 and PW2 came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the murder of deceased, PW1 and 2 did not say that PW3 narrated the incident. No reasons are given as to why the alleged witnessing of PW3 is not stated either in the complaint/Ex.P1 or during inquest proceedings. Except stating that PW1 and PW2 came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the murder of deceased, PW1 and 2 did not say that PW3 narrated the incident. The brother of PW3 was not examined. 19. The evidence of PW3 was recorded in Court, nearly after two and half years from the date of incident. PW3 narrated giving specific details as to how the assault had taken place. The said version was neither stated in the complaint at the earliest point of time or in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement given by PW3 to the Police after the incident. The very narration giving specific details would only go to show that she was tutored, when she was produced before the Court. Since the evidence of PW3 is doubtful as the version given in Court is an improvement not found in 161 Cr.P.C. statement, complaint or inquest proceedings, no other evidence is available to connect the accused in any manner. The last seen theory of the prosecution and the eye witness account is based on the evidence of PW3. As already discussed above, the evidence of PW3 cannot be considered and apparently, the witness was tutored when she had deposed before the Court. It is highly improbable that PW3 having witnessed such gruesome and bloody attack on her mother would go to sleep and only inform PW2 the next day morning. No other witnesses speak about accused visiting the house of deceased 20. MO.5/stick was recovered from the house of accused No.1. However, said recovery is doubtful since the conduct of keeping the stick in the house with which he had committed murder is improbable. Further, the said stick was not sent for forensic examination. When the Doctor/PW9 was not shown MO.5 for his opinion as to whether MO.1 could cause injuries that were found on the deceased, no credibility can be attached to the recovery and of no help to the case of prosecution. Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. 21. Criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence and conviction imposed against the appellants in judgment dated 23.11.2015 in S.C.No.769 of 2013 is hereby set aside. Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. 21. Criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence and conviction imposed against the appellants in judgment dated 23.11.2015 in S.C.No.769 of 2013 is hereby set aside. Since the appellants are in jail, they shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.