Short Note : 1. Appellant along with two other accused persons was convicted under section 302 IPC. 2. Meghu's dead body was found on the morning of 16th August 1971 in front of the house of Premdulaiya (PW-5). The first information report (Ex.P-1) was lodged on 16th at about 10:30 A.M. The appellants are not named in this report. The evidence against the appellants essentially consists of Premdulaiya (PW-5) and Gayabai (PW-6). These two witnesses according to their depositions, heard talk of the appellants when they were assaulting Meghu. These witnesses identified the appellants from their voices. Apart from the fact that identification from voice is a weak type of evidence, these witnesses did not disclose this fact in their case diary statement which was recorded by the police on 18th. This Court does not find any reasonable explanation far this omission. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view, that no reliance can be placed on the statements of Premdulaiya (PW-5) and Gayabai (PW-6). 3. The other evidence against the appellants consists of extra-judicial confession, which it is alleged, he made to Bahadursingh (PW-1), Phoolsingh (PW-2) and Bhaosingh (PW-3). Bahadursingh (PW-1) and Phoolsingh (PW-2) turned hostile. All these witnesses stated that they did not disclose the fact of the appellants having confessed to them for 2 or 3 days to any one though the police was enquiring in the village about the identity of the assailants. These witnesses further deposed that it was, when the police called them separately after 2 or 3 days that they disclosed the fact that the appellants had confessed to them. The omission of these witnesses to say anything about the extra-judicial confession for 2 or 3 days after the murder, makes their evidence about the extra-judicial confession wholly unworthy of reliance. 4. Another evidence against the appellants is of Mansingh (PW-12) that 15 or 20 days before the murder appellant Jalamsingh had gone to him and stated that he would murder Meghu. Mansingh did not state about it in his case diary statement. The omission of this fact in the case diary statement makes the statement of Mansingh unworthy of reliance. Appeal allowed.