39 about the appellants at the first instance before PW 1 Badridas.” Similarly, in Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan19, the evidence of a child witness was not found to be inspiring confidence because of inconsistencies in the version of the witness, as well as because of the absence of corroboration from the other prosecution witnesses. 26. In the circumstances, we do not find it safe to rely on the version given by the child witness in the instant case, who was about five years of age when the incident had occurred. 27. There are other features from the evidence touching upon the involvement of accused Hari Om such as:- (I) A chhuri or knife was said to have been recovered upon being pointed by accused Hari Om. In the absence of any memorandum, the trial court rejected the theory that such recovery would be admissible under Section 27 of the Act. It was however observed that such recovery would be admissible under Section 8 of the Act. Though the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is not inconsistent with some of the decisions rendered by this Court, 19 (2014) 5 SCC 389