R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Daba Munda alias Jaga stands convicted under section 302, I. P. C for having intentionally caused the death of the Forest Guard named Gadadhar Naik. He has also been convicted under Section 201, I. P. C for having burnt the dead body with the intention to screen himself from legal punishment. For the first count he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life but no separate sentence has been awarded for his conviction on the second count. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that Gadadhar Naik (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was working as a Forest Guardt at Bhutuda Forest Beat under Dengula forest section in the Koida Range. He has staying with his son and wife in the Government quarters at Dengula. On 20. 1. 1990 at 8 a. m. he went to Coupe No. 15 with hammer and a tiffin carrier but did not return home till the next day evening. As his whereabouts were not known, the Forester Purushottam Brahma (P. W. 1) with other members of his staff went in search of the deceased Forest Guard inside the forest. On 24. 1. 1990 it was found that a hammer was lying under a tree. On 11. 2. 1990 it was known from Bakuli Mahakul (P. W. 2) that on 20. 1. 1990 at about 9 a. m. the appellant gave an axe blow on the left side head of the deceased when he (deceased) wanted to hammer-mark on the wood taken by the appellant from the forest. It was revealed from P. W. 2 that on account of the axe blow, the Forest Guard expired and the appellant dragged the dead body towards a hillock. After having come to know about the incident, P. W. 1 lodged F. I. R. at the local police station on 12. 2. 1990. Investigation commenced. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined and some pieces of bone, half burnt canvas shoe etc. were seized. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was put up for trial which has ended in his conviction as aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant was one of denial. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant by accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses namely, P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4. were seized. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was put up for trial which has ended in his conviction as aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant was one of denial. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant by accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses namely, P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the corpus delicti was not found. Shri Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the testimony of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 suffers from infirmities destroying their credibility. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 as well as other evidence available on record. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 stated that on the pate of occurrence at about 8 a. m. he had gone to the river side to take bath and while attending call of nature, he saw the appellant coming with wood. When the deceased put hammer mark on the wood, the appellant dealt one blow by means of an axe on the left side of the head of the deceased on account of which he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant dealt 4 to 5 blows on the deceased. The appellant thereafter, dragged the deceased towards a Nala. P. W. 2 disclosed this incident for the first time to P. W. 1 the Forester, 27 days after the occurrence. P. W. 2 sought to explain the delay by stating that when he saw the assault on the deceased, he started running away but the appellant chased him and threatened with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident to anyone. Such an explanation for the delayed disclosure is not acceptable. There is no reason as to why P. W. 2 should entertain danger from the appellant particularly when he himself has stated that immediately after the occurrence, the Forest Guards and police were moving around in the forest area in search of the deceased. P. W. 2 stated that he told about the incident to his wife and other members of the family but not to anyone else in the basti which consisted of 300 to 400 families. P. W. 2 stated that he told about the incident to his wife and other members of the family but not to anyone else in the basti which consisted of 300 to 400 families. P. W. 2 having claimed to be a witness to a serious crime like murder and there being no plausible explanation for his non-disclosure for about 27 days, he cannot be taken to be a reliable witness. P. W. 3 stated that while he was tending goats with P. W. 4, he saw the incident. This witness like P. W. 2 made disclosure to P. W. 2 about 27 days after the occurrence. This witness (P. W. 3) even had not divulged about the incident to his parents. It is in his evidence that police officers and Forest Guards were coming to his village. Even then he did not choose to speak about the incident to them. This witness has not spoken about any threat given by the appellant. In absence of any such fear or apprehension from the appellant, there is no explanation as to why P. W. 3 kept mum for about 27 days. He has further admitted that he was detained in the police station for two to three days. In view of the nature of his evidence and in absence of his explanation for his delayed disclosure like P. W. 2, he also cannot be said to be a trustworthy witness. P. W. 4 was a child witness. He stated that he saw the appellant giving axe blows on the deceased when the latter put hammer mark on the wood. He even had not disclosed about the incident to his parents. According to him, because of the threat given by the appellant, he did not disclose the incident to anyone. This explanation can hardly be accepted. If at all the appellant had given any such threat P. W. 4 could have taken his parents into confidence and disclosed about the incident. Like P. Ws. 2 and 3 he also disclosed about the incident after 27 days. The explanation given by P. Ws. 2 and 4 for such non-disclosure appears to be fanciful and in the circumstances, the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 cannot be accepted on face value. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in law. The explanation given by P. Ws. 2 and 4 for such non-disclosure appears to be fanciful and in the circumstances, the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 cannot be accepted on face value. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in law. We may note here that there in no evidence with regard to the charge under section 201, I. P. C against the appellant. ( 7 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside. He is acquired of the charges. We may be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed. F