These two appeals have been preferred separately by two accused Khetia and Udairam who were jointly tried on a charge of murder under Sec. 302 B. P. C. They were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner under Sec. 302 of the Bikaner Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The case for the prosecution is that the two accused had illicit connection with one Mt. Magi P.W. 2 which was resented by Kishna deceased and he had warned the appellants not to visit her and that in consequence, the appellants after consultation with Mt. Magi decided to remove the obstacle in their way by killing Kishna and that in pursuance of the said plot waylaid him while he was returning from his field on 1st October 1948. an hour after sunset. It was alleged that Kishna was riding on a camel and with him were his daughter Rewatri, aged about seven years, and two sons, aged about four and two years. While Kishna was pissing by the house of Nanda, Khetia is alleged to have hit him with the pole of a spear and felled him and thereafter, Udairam is alleged to have assaulted with an axe and Khetia with the spear. Rewatri PW-6 and her brothers also fell down from the camel and she ran to her mother Mt. Chena P. W. 4 and told her of what had happened to her father. Mt. Chena. came and found her husband Kishna lying injured on the spot. On query being made, Kishna told her that •Khetia and Udairam had assaulted him. The same statement was made by Kishna to Adu P.W.1 and Dalu P. W. to when they came later. On the next morning Adu took Kishna to the Police Station Gairsar but just as the Police Station was in sight, Kishna expired. The report was lodged by Adu at about 2 p. m. The police after investigation, challaned both the accused under Sec. 302 of the Bikaner Penal Code to the court of City Magistrate, Bikaner who committed the accused to the Court of Session. The accused denied the charge but the trial resulted in their conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Both the accused have filed separate appeals as mentioned above. 3. It is urged by Mr. Balkishen on behalf of Udairam that the First Information Report Ex. The accused denied the charge but the trial resulted in their conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Both the accused have filed separate appeals as mentioned above. 3. It is urged by Mr. Balkishen on behalf of Udairam that the First Information Report Ex. P—1 dated 2nd October 1948 lodged by Adu is spurious and unreliable as, according to the prosecution evidence itself, a report was written at the instance of Mt. Chena by one Pokardas and delivered at the police Station, Gairsar by one Moola and on receipt of that report, a police constable reached Norangdesar, where Kishna was injured, on the morning of the 2nd October. It was argued that it was after the arrival of the police constable that Adu took Kishna to Gairsar where he reached at 2 P.M. and lodged the report Ex. P—1. Ranjitsingh L.C. P.W. 9 states that he was incharge of Police Station, Gairsar in October 1948 and he did not receive any report prior to that made by Adu on the 2nd October. He also denies that any Police constable left his Thana for Norangdesar on the night between 1st and 2nd October. Bakhtawarsing P. W. 8 states that he was Sub-Inspector, Gairsar but had been out in connection with certain enquiry and received information of this incident at Lakhasar on the 3rd October 1948. He denies the receipt of any report on behalf of Mt. Chena prior to that lodged by Adu. 4. Mt. Chem P. W. 4 has however deposed that soon after the incident on the evening of 1st October, Chowdaries of the village of Noreng-desar had collected at the site and she and the Chowdries asked one Pokardas to write a report which he did and it was sent with Moola and Dhana to the Police Station on the same night and that on the morning of the next day, a Police constable arrived, whereafter, Adu and others started for the Police Station with Kishna in a cart. Adu P. W. 1 admits that a report was written on the night between 1st and 2nd Oct. and that a constable reached next morning in, whose company he and Kishna and others started for the Police Station. Adu P. W. 1 admits that a report was written on the night between 1st and 2nd Oct. and that a constable reached next morning in, whose company he and Kishna and others started for the Police Station. Laloo P.W. 10 who is a Chowdari of the village Norangdesar also states that soon after the incident on the 1st October, he got a report written by Pokardas and sent it with Moola to the Thana. Pokardas and Moola have been produced in defence. Pokardas D. W. I states that he wrote a report on the night of the 1st October at the instance of Mt. Chena and the Chowdaries of the village including Laloo and Adu that be handed it over to Laloo to be sent to the Thana. Moolchand D.W. 2 states that on the night of 1st October just after the incident, a report writ-ten by Pokardas at the instance of Mt Chena and the Chowdaries was given to him and Dhana to be carried to the Police Station and that both of them reached the Police Station on the same night at 2 A. M. and handed it over to the clerk in the Thana who was a Sikh. The latter sent a Police constable with them and they returned at day-break to their village. The above evidence proves that a report written by Pokardas at the instance of Mt. Chena and the Chowdaries of the village was sent soon after the incident to the Police Station, Gairsar and it was on the receipt of that report that a Police constable was sent from Gairsar to Norangdesar where the incident took place. The statement of Ranjitsing L. C. that no report was received prior to one lodged by Adu on 2nd October at 2 P.M. is, therefore, unreliable. The arrival of the Police Constable from the Thana to Norangdesar on the morning of 2nd October is undisputed and the statement of Ranjitsingh on this point also that no Police Constable was sent from the Thana is false and only cooked up in order to give support to the report made by Adu on the next day. The making of the report written by Pokardas having been established, its suppression and non-production raises a strong presumption against the prosecution in this case that if produced, it would not support the prosecution. The making of the report written by Pokardas having been established, its suppression and non-production raises a strong presumption against the prosecution in this case that if produced, it would not support the prosecution. The report by Adu cannot for the same reason, be looked upon as First Information Report; but only as a statement during the course of the Police investigation. 3. According to Pokardas, Udairams name was not mentioned in the report as an assailant of Kishni and the evidence against Udairam will, therefore, have to be looked with great caution. 4. As stated above, the motive for the crime has been said to be the desire of the accused appellants to remove Kishna out of their way in carrying on with Mt. Magi. There is, however no reliable evidence to show that the accused or any of them had illicit connection with Mt. Magi or that Kishna was interested more than her husband Dhana in preventing such a course of action. Reliance is placed by the prosecution on the evidence of P. W. 10 Laloo, P.W. 4 Mt. Chena and P.W. 2 Mt. Magi, P.W. 10 Laloo admits in cross examination that he did not see the accused or any of them visiting Dhanas wife but that he heard it talked about in the village. Mt. Chena also is unable to say how she came to know of this fact. Mt. Magi P.W. 2 did not admit that any of the accused was on visiting terms with her. There is thus no evidence that the accused or any of them had illicit connection with Mt. Magi. It is also not explained by the prosecution why Dhana, husband of Mt. Magi should not have been the first person to object to such a course of conduct and how Kishna was interested in interfering in the matter. Dhana although a Jat had become a Sadh and the relationship, if any, with Kishna Was a distant one. 5. A feeble attempt was made by Mt. Chena P.W. 4 to prove that the two accused were instigated by Mt. Magi to commit the crime but the evidence in this behalf is entirely unworthy of credit. It is stated by Mt. Chena that on one occasion when she was passing by the house of Mt. Magi to fetch water, she saw the two accused in Mt. Magis house and Mt. Magi to commit the crime but the evidence in this behalf is entirely unworthy of credit. It is stated by Mt. Chena that on one occasion when she was passing by the house of Mt. Magi to fetch water, she saw the two accused in Mt. Magis house and Mt. Magi had asked them to kill Kishna so that she may thereafter remain with them. It is highly improbable that such a conspiracy should be hatched in an open place in broad day light in a manner easily capable of being heard and discovered by any passer by. If the accused had really access to Mt. Magi unknown to her husband or any one else, she could easily have discussed such matters with the accused secretly on such occasions rather than at a time and place alleged by Mt. Chena. This statement of Mt. Chena has not come in the examination-in-chief bur it appears in the cross-examination on questions being put to test her source of knowledge as to her statement about there being illicit connection between Mt. Magi and the accused. If Mt. Chena really purported to be a witness to the conspiracy between the accused and Mt. Magi, she would have made that statement in her examination-in-chief. It is also not in evidence that she took any steps to warn her husband of the alleged intentions of the appellants if it was a fact that she beard the talk between Mt. Magi and the accused. 6. The motive alleged has, therefore, not at all been proved in this case and the evidence has to be judged whether the offence has otherwise been brought home to the accused. The remaining evidence inculpating the accused consists of the statement of Mt. Rewatri P.W. 6 who purports to be an eye-witness to the occurrence and the statements of Mt. Chena P.W. 4, Adu P. W. 1 and Laloo P.W. 10 who purport to prove the statement of Kishna after the incident in which he named Khetia and Udairam as his assailants. One more witness Mt. Tulsi P.W. 5 made certain statement against the accused in the Court of the Committing Magistrate but completely repudiated that Statement and expressed her inability to identify the assailants as it was dark at the time. It may be stated that the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that Mt. One more witness Mt. Tulsi P.W. 5 made certain statement against the accused in the Court of the Committing Magistrate but completely repudiated that Statement and expressed her inability to identify the assailants as it was dark at the time. It may be stated that the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that Mt. Tulsi had gone back upon her statement before the Committing Magistrate owing to her having been won over by the accused and that her version that she had been led into making the particular statement against the accused before the committing Magistrate owing to pressure by Police was not worthy of belief. It has been observed by him that she did not make any complaint of having been assaulted by the Police to the City Magistrate. 7. It, however, appears from the perusal of her statement before the Committing Magistrate Ex. P. 3 that she did state before the Magistrate not only that she was threatened with injury at the time of making a statement under sec. 164 of the Code but that she was also assaulted just before giving her statement before the committing Magistrate. We also find that a petition was submitted by Mt. Tulsi to the committing Magistrate prior to her deposition that she had been assaulted by the Sub-Inspector who should be warned not to do so. The statement of Mt. Tulsi before the Committing Magistrate cannot, therefore, be read as evidence against the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor very rightly declined to rely before us on that statement of Mt. Tulsi. 8. Mt. Rewatri states that she was with her father Kishna on the camel and she saw the two accused suddenly come forward from a place where they were hiding near Nandas house and Khetia struck Kishna with a pole and he fell down. Whereupon Udairam gave several blows with a pole and he fell down. She herself fell down along with her two brothers who were also on the camel and she ran to inform her mother Mt. Chena of what had happened to her father. This witness has been strongly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the accused but we are unable to place any reliance on this witness for the reason which follow immediately. Mt. Chena of what had happened to her father. This witness has been strongly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the accused but we are unable to place any reliance on this witness for the reason which follow immediately. Mt. Rewatri is a girl of seven years of age and naturally does not understand the significance of an oath and none was administered to her. Young children are dangerous witnesses. Children have good memories and live in a world of make belief so that they often become convinced that they have really seen the imaginary incident which they have been taught to relate. They repeat glibly as of their own know ledge what they have heard from others and are greatly influenced by fear, Reference may be made to it in 1933 Lah. 667(1. Abbas Ali Shah v. Emperor.) and 1934 Pat. 651 (2. Mt. Ram Sukhia vs. Emperor.) She was also examined before the committing Magistrate and substantially gave the same statement in respect to the complicity of the nc:used in the crime. She, however, made certain admissions which detracted from the value of her evidence and she was questioned in the court of Session in respect of her previous statement. She admitted before the committing Magistrate that she had been asked by the Sub-Inspector to incriminate Khetia and Udairam in the offence of murder of her father. She also admitted that her mother also asked her to make a statement in court in a certain way and she had complied with it. It appears, therefore that both the Sub-Inspector and Mt. Chena had been tutoring the witness and her statement was not one as coming from an innocent untutored child. That she can indulge in imagination is apparent from her statement in cross-examination that her fathers hands and feet had been cut away by the injuries which he received at the hands of the accused and that her father had received numerous penetrating wounds by a spear. As lit happens, the medical examination of the deceased does not show any injury by any sharp-edged or pointed instrument and there was no reverence of the arms or the legs from the body. As lit happens, the medical examination of the deceased does not show any injury by any sharp-edged or pointed instrument and there was no reverence of the arms or the legs from the body. There was one contused wound on the left parietal region 2-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" , one contused wound on the right forearm 2-3/4" x 3/8" x 1/3; and ecchymosis of left eye and contusion of left temporal region 4" x 3". There was fracture of the right and left Tibia as well. She herself is alleged to have received injury on account of the fall from the camel but she was not medically examined and the Court is left without a corroborative fact supporting her presence with Kishna at the time. Mt. Rewatri has thus exaggerated facts and had been tutored and her evidence is therefore entirely unreliable. The learned Sessions Judge has also relied on the dying declaration as proved by Mt. Chena P. W. 4, Adu P.W. 1 and Lalloo P.W. 10. The injuries received by Kishna have already been described above. Dr. Mohammad Sultan, the Medical Officer at Bikaner who conducted the post-mortem examination, was a witness before the Committing Magistrate but was not available at the time of trial before the court of Session as he had left for Pakistan. His evidence before the Committing Magistrate was brought on record and in cross-examination, he says that "as a result of these injuries, he was of opinion that it must have been very difficult for the deceased to speak." The evidence 0. the dying declaration is not that the deceased on enquiry made a statement about his assailants on a single occasion before all the witnesses but the evidence is that each one asked the injured on a different occasion when others were not present and every time, the injured named his assailants. According to Mt. Chena, she reached the place of occurrence immediately on being informed by Rewatri about what had happened to Kishna. According to her, Rewatri had already informed her that Kishna had been attacked by Khetia and Udairam. The two accus-ed were also residents of the village and must have been well known to Rewatri also. There was therefore, no point in Mt. Chena again trying to ask Kishna what she had been told already by Rawatri. Mt. According to her, Rewatri had already informed her that Kishna had been attacked by Khetia and Udairam. The two accus-ed were also residents of the village and must have been well known to Rewatri also. There was therefore, no point in Mt. Chena again trying to ask Kishna what she had been told already by Rawatri. Mt. Chena was no doubt the first to have reached the place and she could have easily informed Adu or Laloo who came thereafter as to what had happened without troubling the victim who, as they say, was in a state of unconsciousness and could only speak after he was roused to senses by loudly speaking to him. Adu in his statement does not name Mt. Chena as being present at the time when he reached the spot which must have been at a much later stage, since he says that in the course of his reaching the place, he has already heard in the Gawar of the village that Khetia and Udairam had assaulted Kishna. He seems to have avoided admitting the presence of Mt. Chena since in that case Mt. Chena could have easily informed him of the dying declaration already alleged to have been made to Mt. Chena. Adu also tries to prove the First Information Report but in doing so, he has completely exposed himself. In the report which he made at Gairsar at 2 p.m. on 2nd October, instead of stating simple fact of injury to Kishna and the dying declaration of Kishni implicating the two accused he has narrated events as if he was an eye-witness to the entire occurrence. For instance stated that while Kishna was returning to the village on a camel, Khetia assaulted with the spear and felled Kishna below the left knee with the spear and Udairam struck with an axe on the head of Kishna and again on the right forearm and on the back and that he had brought Kishna to the Thana in that condition and that just outside the Thana, Kishna had expired. While be gave all the details of assault on Kishna, which he did not see himself, it is curious that he has omitted to mention that Kishna named his assailants when questioned by the witness after the fight. While be gave all the details of assault on Kishna, which he did not see himself, it is curious that he has omitted to mention that Kishna named his assailants when questioned by the witness after the fight. The omission of the declaration from the report, which as stated above, is not of more value than a statement under Sec. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is indicative of the fact that the dying declaration to the witness cannot be relied upon implicitly. The same observations hold good in the case of Laloo P. W. 10 as he alleges to have reached the scene of occurrence even after Adu and was with Adu at the time of making the report Ex.P-1. 9. If the suppression of the report by Pokardas be deemed to raise an adverse presumption against the prosecution, as it should; it may be that the report has been withheld as it may not only exculpate Udairam but demolish the theory of dying declaration, since there is no reliable evidence, apart from the dying declaration itself, that Kishna was in a condition even to speak after the injuries received by him. It is stated that Kishna died just as he reached the Police Station at 2 P. M. on the 2nd of October but an important witness to show whether he was or was not alive when taken from the village was the Police constable who reached Norangdesar on the morning of 2nd October. He has not been produced. Rather his presence, which has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, has been denied by the prosecution. A dying declaration is ordinarily a weak evidence and before it can be acted upon, a court must be satisfied that the dying declaration bears all the marks of truth. In the present case, the fact of any dying declaration having been made is also not free from doubt. It is in evidence that near about the place of incident, there are a large number of houses and none of the occupants of these houses has been produced on the ground that they were friendly with the accused. In the present case, the fact of any dying declaration having been made is also not free from doubt. It is in evidence that near about the place of incident, there are a large number of houses and none of the occupants of these houses has been produced on the ground that they were friendly with the accused. Whether they were friendly or otherwise with the accused, it required some explanation to show whether these persons were or were not present at the scene of occurrence and whether the investigating officer at all tried to find out what they had to say in the matter. According to Bakhtawarsing, the investigating Officer, he did not examine any of these neighbours. It is difficult to see how the prosecution came to the conclusion that they were friendly with the accused. The incident took place on the 1st October and according to the prosecution, the accused had been named on the very day. The main prosecution witnesses were or could be examined in a few days. The Challan, however, was not presented till the nth December. In the interval, several, petitions had been presented by the accused to compel the police to produce the challan. In our opinion, there is no reliable evidence to connect any of the two accused with the crime and they are entitled to acquittal. The appeals are therefore, accepted, the conviction and the sentence on the both the accused are set aside and they are hereby acquitted of the charge for the murder of Kishna with which they were convicted. They will be set at liberty at once, if not wanted in any other case.