JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:— We have heard Mr. B. D. Sharma, counsel for the appellant State and Shri O. P. Rana, amicus curiae for the respondent, and examined the evidence on record carefully. The prosecution demanded conviction of the respondent or two types of evidence. First, the ocular account of the sole eye-witness, Kumari Kamla, aged about 9 or 10 years. Second, the oral extra-judicial confession of the accused before P. Ws. Om Prakash and Ghanshyam Das. The High Court found that the evidence of the extra judicial confession was wholly untrustworthy. As regards of P. W. Kamla Kumari, the High Court has found it highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the uncorroborated testimony of this child witness. The High Court has pointed out infirmities in her evidence and given cogent reasons why they think it unsafe to act upon her uncorroborated evidence. We do not think it necessary to reiterate all those reasons. It will suffice to reproduce one of them in the words of the learned Judges of the High Court, as this reason more than any other, shows that by the morning of June 9, 1970, even after Kamlas return home, the complaintant mother of the ill-fated deceased, was not sure as