38 accept that accused Hari Om was a known face to PW5 Ujjwal, and the fact that the incident occurred inside the house where PW5 Ujjwal would naturally be available, but on the issue whether he had witnessed the incident, the glaring inconsistencies on record cannot be discarded. In Suryanarayana9 after setting out the guiding principles for appreciation and consideration of the evidence of a child witness, this Court had found in paragraph 9, that there were no doubts at all with regard to the veracity to the testimony of the child witness, nor were there any inherent defects. The name of the child witness figured in that case in the FIR and Inquest; and right from the initial stages, her presence was adverted to, which is why no doubts could be entertained. However, such doubts and defects are quite evident in the present matter. 25. In Digamber Vaishnav and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh18, a bench of three Judges of this Court, while considering the matter in the light of the fact that the child witness had not disclosed about the accused in the first instance, observed:“…..None of the other witnesses have identified the appellants. Therefore, heavy reliance was placed on the testimony of PW 8. She did not tell PW 1, Badridas about the appellants while disclosing about the incident for the first time. This is reflected from the FIR which has been registered against unknown persons. In such circumstances, it is risky to rely on the uncorroborated identification of the appellants at the instance of PW 8, who has not disclosed 18 (2019) 4 SCC 522