R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Bhima Dehuri (Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1993) and appellants Mahia Maheswar Pradhan, Bana Banamali Dehuri, Brajabandhu Pradhan and Rahas Dehuri along with six others stood charged under sections 148,302/149,302/34,201/34 and 342, I. P. C. in the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. While acquitting the six associates of the appellants, the learned Trial Judge convicted appellant Bhima Dehuri (Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1993) under sections 201 and 342, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 201, I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 342, I. P. C. The sentences are to run concurrently. The other four appellants referred to above in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1993 have been convicted under section 302/34, I. P. C. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. As the two appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that the aforesaid five appellants along with six others (who have been acquitted) belong to Maniabhandha Sahara Sahi, Dinabandhu Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was also staying with his wife and three children in the same village. The villagers suspected the deceased to have practising witchcraft for which he and his family members were ex-communicated. Due to this, the deceased was staying in village Dimiria along with his three children and his wife was staying in her fathers house at Kuanrpala. On 13. 2. 1992 the deceased along with his three children visited Maniabandha Sahara Sahi. On the next day, i. e. , 14. 2. 1992 at about 2 p. m. wife of the deceased came to Maniabandha Sahara Sahi and found her husband and her children absent in their own house. On enquiry from the neighbours in the village, she could not get any information about their whereabouts the allegation of the prosecution is that the appellants along with their associates by forming an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly caused the death of the deceased in the night of 13. 2. 1992 and also wrongfully confined his three children. 2. 1992 and also wrongfully confined his three children. On the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by the wife of the deceased, investigation commenced in course of which appellant Bhima Dehuri while in police custody confessed to have concealed the dead body of the deceased in Kainiathali hill and led the police to give discovery of the dead body. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellants was one of denial. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. The conviction of appellant Bhima Dehuri under section 201, I. P. C. is based on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4and 15. His guilt under section 342, I. P. C. has been found on the evidence of P. W. 3. The conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1993 under section 302/34, I. P. C. is based on the eye-witness account of P. W. 3, minor son of the deceased. ( 5 ) LET us first discuss the case of the four appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1993 who have been found guilty for the offence under section 302/34, I. P. C. As already noted, on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 3 they have been found guilty for the aforesaid offence. P. W. 3 is the son of the deceased and was a minor at the time of occurrence. P. W. 14 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 17. 2. 1992 and found the following injuries: One holow depressed area 7. 4 c. m. x 6. 3 c. m. in size involving the right ear and the adjacent parts of right face, right parietal area of scalp, mastoid process, tempero mandibular joint. Right ear was absent. Soft tissue of the affected part turned into a black mass. Maggots crawling into the interior of the wound. Bones in the affected part i. e. parietal bone, zygomatic process, Mastoid process part of right ramus of mandible were broken into multiple pieces. (2) A shallow grove obliquely placed on the back of right chest below the right scapuls, 9. 2 c. m. x 2. 3 c. m. x 0. 8 c. m. in size. (3) A shallow groove obliquely placed on the left buttock 7. 6 c. m. x 2. 3 c. m. x 0. 7 c. m. in size. (2) A shallow grove obliquely placed on the back of right chest below the right scapuls, 9. 2 c. m. x 2. 3 c. m. x 0. 8 c. m. in size. (3) A shallow groove obliquely placed on the left buttock 7. 6 c. m. x 2. 3 c. m. x 0. 7 c. m. in size. (4)A shallow groove obliquely placed on the left cheek, 4. 6 c. m. x 1. 8 c. m. x 0. 7 c. m. in size. TIHe could not give the exact nature of the aforesaid injuries as the features of the wounds were destroyed by maggots. He even could not opine whether those injuries were ante-mortem or postmortem. According to him, the cause of death was due to severe laceration of the brain due to assault by hard, blunt heavy weapon on the right side of the head. P. W. 3 being a child witness, we have noticed that before examining him, the learned Trial Judge put him two questions, obviously to test his intellectual capacity. The boy stated that the occurrence took place in their house at Maniabandha Sahara Sahi at night. He deposed that accused Bala (since acquitted) sat on the chest of his father, appellant Braja inserted a bottle in the mouth of his father, appellant Maheshar caught hold of the legs of his father, appellant Bana assaulted his father by means of a thenga and accused Padia (since acquitted) assaulted his father by means of a thenga. While he was running away out of fear, he was dragged by appellant Bhima and appellant Rahas and was kept inside the house which was locked from outside. According to him, the remaining accused persons also assaulted his father. In the cross-examination, he stated that the house where they were staying was dark. It was brought out in the cross-examination of the investigation Officer (P. W. 15) that P. W. 3 had not disclosed before him any specific part played by each of the accused persons. This is clearly an omission which cannot be lightly brushed aside. The occurrence having taken place in the house which was dark, the vivid description made by P. W. 3 with regard to the specific part played by the accused persons in assaulting his father cannot be easily accepted. This is clearly an omission which cannot be lightly brushed aside. The occurrence having taken place in the house which was dark, the vivid description made by P. W. 3 with regard to the specific part played by the accused persons in assaulting his father cannot be easily accepted. We also do not find any support from the evidence of the doctor P. W. 14 to corroborate the statement ofp. W. 3 with regard to injuries. P. W. 3 being a child witness and his evidence being shaky in absence of any other evidence, it is not safe to convict the appellants on his sole testimony. The appellants are their fore entitled to be acquitted. Re: Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1993 ( 6 ) AS already indicated, the conviction of appellant Bhima Dehuri under section 201, I. P. C. is based on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 4 and the Investigating Officer-P. W. 15. The Investigating Officer has stated that in course of interrogation, the appellant Bhima Dehuri disclosed to him that he and other accused persons concealed the dead body of the deceased at Kainiathali hill and appellant Bhima Dehuri led him to the said hill and gave recovery of the dead body. P. W. I claimed to be a witness to the discovery of the dead body. This witness was of village Matiapada and it is not clear as to how he could be a witness to the discovery of the dead body near the hill. P. W. 4 the widow stated that on the statement given by appellant Bhima Dehuri the dead body was recovered. Mere discovery of the dead body at the instance of appellant Bhima Dehuri cannot fasten him with the offence of concealment of the dead body with the intention of screening himself from an offence. Some other evidence was necessary and in absence of such evidence, merely on the basis of recovery of the dead body, the appellant cannot be held guilty under section 201, I. P. C. For the offence of wrongful confinement, this appellant (Bhima Dehuri) has been found guilty solely on the basis of P. W. 3. He stated that appellant Bhima Dehuri took him and his two sisters to his house and police recovered them from the house. He stated that appellant Bhima Dehuri took him and his two sisters to his house and police recovered them from the house. We do not find any cogent reason as to why P. W. 3 and his sisters would be confined by this appellant when the prosecution case is that he along with others assaulted the deceased to death. We have already indicated the reasons of unreliability of P. W. 3. There being no other evidence to connect appellant Bhima Dehuri with the offence punishable under section 342, I. P. C. , he is entitled to be acquitted. ( 7 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Bhima Dehuri in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1993 under sections 201 and 342 I. P. C. are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. We also set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under section 302/34 I. P. C. on appellants Mahia Maheswar Pradhan, Bana Banamali Dehuri, Brajabandhu Pradhan and Rahas Dehuri in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1993. They are acquitted of the charges. If any of the appellants are still in custody in connection with this case, they may be set at liberty forthwith. The Criminal Appeals are allowed. Appeal allowed. V. A. Mohta, CJ. I agree.