Judgment 1. The two appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. According to the prosecution, on 7.5.1977 at about 11 a.m. Girja Kumari was murdered by the appellants two brothers. The deceased had pone to the jungle along with P. Ws 12 and others to pluck kendu leaves. While they were returning, deceased Girja Kumari was taken away by the appellants and murdered. The information with the police was lodged by P.W. 8. The court below relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 11 found the appellants guilty. 3. Mr. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that so far P.W. 11 was concerned he was neither a charge-sheet witness nor the Investigating Officer recorded his evidence during investigation. That being the position, we discard the evidence of P.W. 11. 4. According to P.W. 2, who was one of the girls who had accompanied the deceased to the jungle, she did not inform about the occurrence to P.W. 8 P.W. 2 only stated in her evidence that the appellants took away the deceased. The did not say anything about the murder. Further, according to P.W. 8 in the F.I.R., she was informed about the occurrence by the wife of Dhuja. During trial, P.W. 8 stated that she was informed by P.W. 2, Sudhni whom she thought to be the wife of Dhuja. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by P.W. 8 in her evidence In the F.I.R. neither she named P.W. 2 nor she described correctly the name of her husband. The name of her husband was Burja Bhogta. 5. So far P.W. 1 is concerned, she in her evidence stated that she did not see the appellants assaulting the deceased. There was, therefore, no eye-witness who had seen the actual assault. 6. The only circumstance, therefore, which was against the appellant was that they had taken away the deceased from the jungle. That alone, in our opinion, was not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of the charge. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. 6. The only circumstance, therefore, which was against the appellant was that they had taken away the deceased from the jungle. That alone, in our opinion, was not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of the charge. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside and the appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of the bonds executed by them.