B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life by Mr. K. M. Subudhi, Sessions Judge, Sundergarh, by accepting the case of the prosecution that in the afternoon of the 12th of April, 1980, the appellant committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Sabina to be referred to hereinafter as the deceased) by assaulting her by means of a Budia which resulted in her instantaneous death. ( 2 ) TO bring home the charge, reliance has been placed by the prosecution on eight witnesses of whom Banadik and Chaitu (P. Ws. 2 and 3) have figured as the witnesses to the occurrence. P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 had testified about an extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant in a meeting of the Pachayat after night fall, P. W. 6 was the doctor who had conducted the autopsy and his evidence was that the death was homicidal in nature. This aspect has not been disputed at the Bar. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the charge had been esta blished TI ( 3 ) MR. A. K. Nayak, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 was not worthy of acceptance and that of P. Ws. t, 3 and 4 with regard to the extrajudicial confession bristled with discrepancies and there was no reason as to why the appellant would blurt out an extrajudicial confession before them. Mr. Sahu, the learned Standing Counsel, bas very fairly submitted that he would not press into service the extrajudicial confession in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 as to how and in what circumstances, the appellant made a confession and in what precise words and in particular, taking into consideration the fact that the two persons, namely, Sukru and Juakin, who, as alleged, had brought out M. O. I. from the house of the appellant under his direction, has not been examined. The evidence in this behalf could not safely be accepted specially in view of the complete absence of evidence to show as to why the appellant would repose confidence in P. Ws. The evidence in this behalf could not safely be accepted specially in view of the complete absence of evidence to show as to why the appellant would repose confidence in P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and what was the reason or motive for the appellant to make an extrajudicial confession. For these reasons, we would exclude the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 with regard to the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant. ( 4 ) THERE remains for consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 both of whom had claimed to have seen the appellant dealing successive blows on the person of deceased by means of M. O. I. near the house of the appellant. In the first place, these two witnesses had not disclosed the occurrence to anyone immediately after it. The evidence of P. W. 3 was that at the meeting of the Panchayat, he disclosed the occurrence to the co-villagers. But it is important to keep in mind that neither P. W. 1 nor P. W. 4 had stated about such disclosure by P. W. 3 at the meeting for the Panchayat. ( 5 ) APART from these suspicious features in the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, we notice another serious infirmity in that their evidence could not stand a scientific test. P. W. 2 had stated in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased from a distance of 200 yards. In his cross-examination, he increased the distance by saying that he had seen it from a distance of 500 yards. At the stage of cross-examination, the trial court got an experiment done and found that this witness could see a person at the distance of about 400 to 500 yards with his hands kept at the waist. This was beside the point because from a distance, one could see whether a person was standing or sitting. But the main question for consideration is whether one can identify a person, P. W. 3 had given evidence that he was at a distance of about 150 yards from the place of occurrence. We would quote an extract from Gross Criminal Investigation; 5th Edition, at page 159 :- It is appropriate here to call attention to what has been said about the distance at which we can recognise persons. We would quote an extract from Gross Criminal Investigation; 5th Edition, at page 159 :- It is appropriate here to call attention to what has been said about the distance at which we can recognise persons. Presuming the eyesight to be normal and the light good, one is able in broad daylight to recognise (a) Persons whom one knows very well, at a distance of from fifty to ninety yards; when there are particular and very characteristic signs, 110 yards; in exceptional cases upto 165 yards. (b) Persons one does not know very well and has not often seen, from twenty-eight to thirty-three yards. (c) People one has only seen once, sixteen yards. ' These are approximate indications dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there may be variations. ( 6 ) ASSUMING that in the instant ca8e, the appellant was very well known to P. Ws. 2 and 3, in the absence of any evidence that there were any particular or characteristic features of the appellant, P. Ws. 2 and 3 could have identified him within a distance from 50-to 90 yards. Even if a long margin is given with regard to the distance, it would not be possible to accept the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 that they could have identified the appellant from the distance where they were. The evidence of a witness to the occurrence which does not satisfy a scientific test must be rejected on that ground. In the instant case, we have already indicated the other suspicious features in their evidence. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it would not be safe, reasonable and proper to accept the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 that they had identified the appellant as the assailant of the deceased. When the attention of Mr. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel, was drawn to this scientific opinion, he very candidly submitted that it would not be very safe to accept the evidence at P. Ws. 2 and 3. We appreciate the fair stand taken by Mr. Sahoo. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has not properly examined as to whether P. Ws. 2 and 3, in the circumstances in which they had been placed, could have identified the assailant and without proper application of mind, has recorded an order of conviction which cannot be sustained. We appreciate the fair stand taken by Mr. Sahoo. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has not properly examined as to whether P. Ws. 2 and 3, in the circumstances in which they had been placed, could have identified the assailant and without proper application of mind, has recorded an order of conviction which cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) THE appeal is allowed and the order of, conviction passed against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him thereunder are set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed .