Short Note : In this appeal, the two appellants Onkar and Ramesh have challenged their convictions under section 126 of the Indian Railways Act read with section 34 of the IPC and under section 324/34 of the IPC for which each of them was sentenced to undergo three years' and six months' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Held : Shivprasad (P.W.13) testified to the extra judicial confession made by the appellant Ramesh. In answer to question No. 13, he stated that the police had recorded his statement on 21st, but the Government Pleader intimated that there was no such statement. 2. Kalaram (PW13) who was on duty along with Shriram (PW2), stated that at a distance of 100 yards, he saw two persons near the railway tract. In answer to question No. 12, he stated that Shriram told him that two persons had assaulted him with Lathi and knife. It is surprising that immediately after the assault, he did not name the two appellants. In answer to question No. 30, he stated that Shriram was excited and, therefore, he disclosed nothing. In his case diary statement (Ex.D-4), he had not mentioned that two persons were seen at the railway tract. Thus the evidence of Kalaram (PW13) does not implicate the two appellants. 3. If Shriram (PW2) and Kalaram (PW13) had recognised the assailants, they would have disclosed their names before the Guard, the Driver and their names would have found place in the immediate communication Ex.P-6. The extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant is not convincing. The recovery of the knife or Lathi from the appellant Onkar cannot implicate him in fixing up the dog spikes. On the whole, the prosecution evidence is not conclusive to connect the two appellants either with the fixing of the dog spikes. On the rails or in the assault on Shriram (PW2) I am, therefore, of the view that the two appellants were wrongly convicted. Appeal allowed.