FAIZAN UDDIN, J, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1990. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, one Sukka is alleged to have been murdered by these two appellants on 8. 10. 1989 at Village Pipst, tahsil Bijawar, district Chhatarpur between 4-5 p. m. A report (Ex. P. 12) of this incident was made by Lalti (P. W. 6) in Police Chowki, Pipat at 8. 00 p. m. The post mortem report (Ex. P. 10) by Dr. Surendra Kumar (P. W. 5) revealed that right hand and right leg were chopped off. In his opinion, the Cause of death was due to excessive haemorrhage and heart failure due to excessive bleeding. ( 3 ) AT the trial, both the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication because they were prosecution witnesses against the son of deceased Sukka and Lalti (P. W. 6 ). Learned trial Judge relying on the evidence of Lalti (P. W. 6) convicted and sentenced the appellants as said above. ( 4 ) THE conviction of the appellants as said above is based entirely on the evidence of Lalti (P. W. 6) wife of the deceased. It is no doubt true that in her examination-in-chief, she gave an impression that she is an eye-witness of the incident having stated that she was present at the time when these two appellants assaulted her husband by an axe. But, in cross-examination, she admitted that she had made the report (Ex. P. 12) and gave out the names of these two appellants as assailants of her husband on account of suspicion. She also deposed that these appellants were prosecution witnesses in the criminal case pending against her son Raju and, therefore, she had suspicion on these two appellants. This statement of the so-called eye-witness Laltibai (P. W. 6) cannot be accepted in order to maintain the conviction of the two appellants. That being the only evidence, in our opinion, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt against the appellants or any of them. ( 5 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. This statement of the so-called eye-witness Laltibai (P. W. 6) cannot be accepted in order to maintain the conviction of the two appellants. That being the only evidence, in our opinion, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt against the appellants or any of them. ( 5 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellants namely, Komal and Santosh under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with sentence thereunder is set aside and they are acquitted of the offence charged with. The appellants shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. .