JUDGMENT : S.S. Sharma, J. ( 1. ) In Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1982, n AddI. Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur by his Judgment dated 22.1.1983 convicted the appellants for offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. This appeal is against that conviction and sentence. ( 2. ) One Bhogami Payaku was also tried along with the appellants for the same offence, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge found him to be not guilty and thus acquitted him. ( 3. ) Appellants Bhogami Buttu, Bhogaml Kamalu and acquitted accused Bhogami Payaku are brothers. They are the sons of Masa. Deceased Phagu was also One of the sons of Masa. Appellant Bhogami Podiya is the only son of Bajbal. Bajbal and Masa are brothers. Appellant Uji Mahangu is the son-in-law of Masa. Bhogami Bhime (P.W. 1) is the widow of the deceased Phagu. Tulsi (P.W.2), then aged about ten years, is the daughter of the deceased. ( 4. ) Prosecution story briefly stated is that Masa, during his life time, had purchased some land at Bhairamgarh. He bad given that land to appellants Bhogami Buttu and Bhogami Kamalu, who were living there for last ten years. Deceased Phagu and acquitted accused Bhogami Paiku lived at village Samloor and cultivated the agricultural lands, which in the revenue record were recorded in the name of deceased Phagu. However, the deceased and acquitted accused Bhogami Paiku were cultivating the lands separately. Acquitted accused Bhogami Paiku is alleged to have encroached upon a part of the land, which was under the cultivation of deceased Phagu and sowed it. A Panchayat was also convened on 27-6-1982 by deceased Phagu. He even made a report (Ex. P-16) on 28-6-1982 in Police Station Dantewara. He is alleged to have been accompanied by his wife, daughter and Kotwar Kumaran (P.W. 4). Acquitted accused Bhogami Paiku having known about it, made a plan along with other appellants to commit the murder of Phagu. When the deceased was returning back from Police Station Dantewara with his wife, daughter and the Kotwar, Phagu was way led by the accused and was fatally assaulted by them. Bhogami Bhime (P. W. 1) is said to have informed the village people, who came to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. ( 5. When the deceased was returning back from Police Station Dantewara with his wife, daughter and the Kotwar, Phagu was way led by the accused and was fatally assaulted by them. Bhogami Bhime (P. W. 1) is said to have informed the village people, who came to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. ( 5. ) First Information Report (Ex. P-i) was lodged by Bhime (P.W. 1) at Police Station Dantewara on 29.6.1982 at about 6.30 P. M., which was recorded by Head Constable Janardhan Pandey (P.W. 1) Shri Pandey registered a morgue (Ex. P-15) and then left for the spot. An inquest (Ex. P-b) over the dead-body was conducted and thereafter the dead-body was sent to the Hospital for postmortem examination. ( 6. ) Dr. R.S. Mandavi (P. W. 10) on 1-7-82 performed the post-mortem examination and he found lacerated wounds of different dimensions on different parts of the body including the parietal and occipital regions of the head. There were fractures also. In his opinion, these injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 7. ) The appellants in their examination pleaded false implication and did not examine any witness in defence. ( 8. ) At the trial Bhogami Bhime did not turn-over to be an eye-witness. Her version was that while she along with the deceased and her daughter were returning from the Police Station, the deceased went away to the rivulet for taking bath and she with her daughter returned back to the house. When the deceased did not return back for quite some time, she told her daughter that she was going to find out Phagu. At that time, she found Phagu lying dead with injuries on his body near the rivulet. She denied that her husband was assaulted by anyone in her presence. The Pugu Prosecutor cross-examined her. When she was contradicted with her report (Ex. P.1), she denied to have made that report. The learned trial Judge has also not accepted her statement. ( 9. ) The other witness examined by the prosecution is Tulsi (P.W. 2), who admittedly is a child witness. According to her, her mother was also present when her father was assaulted by the appellants. In cross-examination, she stated that she was informed by her mother that Phagu was lying dead near the rivulet. ( 9. ) The other witness examined by the prosecution is Tulsi (P.W. 2), who admittedly is a child witness. According to her, her mother was also present when her father was assaulted by the appellants. In cross-examination, she stated that she was informed by her mother that Phagu was lying dead near the rivulet. Thereafter, she, her mother and kotwar went near the dead-body and stayed there over night. Learned trial Judge in paragraph 12 of his Judgment has referred to the version of Tulsi in her cross-examination. Oil a consideration of that version, he was of the opinion that from that version it cannot be inferred that Tulsi was not present at the alleged time of the incident. As it is, Tulsis testimony required corroboration which is wholly lacking in the instant case. The statement given by her in cross examination clearly demolishes her claim in the examination-in-chief about having seen the appellants assaulting her father. No re-examination was done by the Public Prosecutor about what Tulsi had stated in her cross-examination which apparently was contrary to her deposition in the examination-in-chief. In our opinion, no reliance could have been placed on her sole testimony for holding that the appellants had assaulted the deceased. ( 10. ) Yet another witness examined by the prosecution, who claimed to be an eye-witness is Nilam Singh (P W 3) then a child aged about ten years. The learned trial Judge has found Nilam Singh to be an unreliable witness, who also even otherwise required corroboration which is lacking even in his case. A perusal of the evidence of Nilam Singh also goes to show that his testimony bas rightly been rejected and does not at all inspire any confidence. This conclusion further finds support from the evidence of Beerbhalan (P.W. 1), the father of Nilam Singh before whom, in spite of his asking Nilam Singh did not give out the names of the assailants. ( 11. ) Kumaran, Kotwar (P.W. 4) has deposed only about the extra judicial confession having made by appellant Buttu about Phagu having been assaulted. Jhamuram (P.W. 6) is another witness to whom appellant Kamalu is said to have made an extra judicial confession. The Court below has totally rejected the evidence of extra judicial confession and we find no reason to take a contrary view. ( 12. Jhamuram (P.W. 6) is another witness to whom appellant Kamalu is said to have made an extra judicial confession. The Court below has totally rejected the evidence of extra judicial confession and we find no reason to take a contrary view. ( 12. ) Apart from the evidence that we have referred to above, no other evidence or circumstances were pointed out by the Additional Government Advocate to support the conviction of these appellants. In our opinion, the conviction of the appellants does not deserve to be upheld and has to be set-aside. ( 13. ) Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants are setaside. They be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other case.