Judgment N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS, appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 3 1. 8. 1978 whereby he has acquitted the accused respondents of the offence under sees. 302, 302 134 IPC. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY sated the facts of the case are that one Keshra Ram P. W. 2 lodged an FIR as P. S. Ghamoorwali against his three brothers Balu, Dungar and Ramu alleging that on 12. 1. 1977 his another brother Uma was going with daughter Manohari P. W. 4 for taking tea at his house but as he was not there Uma returned back and at that time Ramu gave him a Danda blow on the head of Keshra. lt is alleged that on receiving the injury Uma fell down on the earth and the accused persons picked him up to their house. It is also alleged that Manohari the daughter of the deceased Uma followed them but she was threatened by the accused persons not to follow. It is alleged that Manohari narrated the story to her mother Sarbati and Kalia P. W. 3. Thereupon, Kalia was sent to intimate the Pradhan Gangram, thereafter Pradhan Ganga ram sent Vdaram for getting the knowledge of the occurrence. It is further alleged that Vdaram, found that Balu was formenting the deceased and on making enquiry from Balu informed that he inflicted a injury on Keshar ram with Lakri. Thereupon the case was registered and the police started investigation. The police prepared necessary exhibits and post-mortem of the dead body was got conducted after recovered the dead body from a well. The articles recovered were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratroy. The accused-respondents were arrested. After completion of usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused respondents. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused-respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 26 witnesses and produced 48 documents. In defence, the accused-respondent did not produce any witness. However, the accused persons stated that they neither inflicted any injury, on the head of the deceased nor kept the deceased in their house nor thrown the dead body in the well. The accused persons also stated that they neither got recovered watch of the deceased nor bunch of keys nor his shoes. However, the accused persons stated that they neither inflicted any injury, on the head of the deceased nor kept the deceased in their house nor thrown the dead body in the well. The accused persons also stated that they neither got recovered watch of the deceased nor bunch of keys nor his shoes. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after completion of the trial acquitted the accused persons of the offence. Hence, the State had filed this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. V. R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court has erred in not accepting the statement of the eye witness P. W. 4 Manohari and the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 11 Gangaram. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court may be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted for the offence under secs. 302, 302/34 IPC. Mr. M. L. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the material on record carefully. It is not in dispute that the death of Urn a was homicidal in nature. Now, it is to be seen whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused-respondents and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted them or not. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has mainly relied on the statement of the alleged eye witness P. W. 4 Manohari. The learned trial Judge asked several questions from this witness and was not satisfied with her answers looking to capability of understanding and came to the conclusion that her statement is not reliable. That apart P. W. 4 Manohari has admitted that she did not see with her own eyes any of the accused inflicting injury on her father with a Danda. She has categorically stated that she came out of her Taits house after hearing the shriek of her father. This part of the statement of the alleged eye witness does not support the prosecution story that P. W. 4 Manohari was accompanying with the deceased Uma at the time of incident. She has categorically stated that she came out of her Taits house after hearing the shriek of her father. This part of the statement of the alleged eye witness does not support the prosecution story that P. W. 4 Manohari was accompanying with the deceased Uma at the time of incident. More so, the learned trial Judge has observed that she is only 11-12 years old and children of this age group can be easily produced as a witness falsely. The evidence of P. W. 3 Kaliya was also not found to be credible as he was 10-11 years old at the relevant time. The prosecution story that Udaram saw the accused Balu fermenting the decteased but he did not try to rescue the deceased Uma nor narrated the position of the deceased Uma to the family members of Keshara or any other person. Under these circumstances the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the direct evidence produced by the prosecution is not satisfactory and reliable. ( 6 ) SO far as the other circumstances viz, last seen, recovery of some of the articles of the deceased are concerned they also do not connect the accused respondents with the commission of offence. The statement of Udaram who is allegedly witness of last seen is not satisnictory and reliable particularly when the place of murder is also not certain. Recovery of watch of the deceased and bunch of keys etc is not of any avail in view of the fact that these articles were not got identified by the police during investigation from P. W. 4 Manohari. The circumstance of extra judicial confession can be made a ground for conviction but the same must be proved. In the instant case prosecution has mainly relied on the statement of P. W. 11 Gangaram to prove the circumstance of extra judicial confession but the statement of P. W. 11 Gangaram does not take the prosecution story any-where. According to P. W. 11 Gangaram the accused persons informed him about the murder on 13. 1. 1977 and in his turn he informed the same to Keshara but Keshara does not support his version. In the F. I. R. Ex. P/i there is no mention of any such knowledge about the incident. According to P. W. 11 Gangaram the accused persons informed him about the murder on 13. 1. 1977 and in his turn he informed the same to Keshara but Keshara does not support his version. In the F. I. R. Ex. P/i there is no mention of any such knowledge about the incident. On the contrary the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the FIR was lodged after the dead body of the deceased Umaram was recovered as the prosecution has not furnished any satisfactory explanation of three days in reaching the FIR to the concerned Magistrate. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the prosecution tile incident took place on 12. 1. 1977 whereas the FIR was lodged on 15. 1. 1977 at 8 a. m. and it has reached the concerning Magistrate on 18. 1. 1977. As already stated there is no mention of extra judicial confession in the FIR and this omission is material and goes to the root of the case. According 1. 0 the prosecution the alleged extra judicial confession was made before the FIR was recorded but the same does not find place in the FIR and non-mentioning of it creates suspicion on the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly not relied the circumstance of extra judicial confession. Apart from that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive which also creates doubt on the prosecution story. ( 7 ) IN view of what we have discussed above, we are satisfied with the finding arrived at by the trial court and we see no reason to take a different view as the prosecution as not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence under sees. 302, 302/34 IPC. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The bailable warrants issued but this Court are discharged. Appeal dismissed.