JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal has assailed the order dated 21.11.1994-passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1992 convicting the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as unravelled during the trial is as follows: The Appellant is the husband of the one Baina Dei. Their marriage was consummated a few years back i.e. 12 years preceding the date of occurrence. Out of their wedlock, a daughter, namely, Rukuni, and a son Sankaru of two years of age were born. It is the unfortunate case that the Appellant is alleged to have killed his two-year son Sankaru. The Appellant was addicted to liquor and used to quarrel with his wife frequently under the influence of such liquor. On the date of incident, it is alleged that the Appellant inflicted some injury on his son Sankaru, as a result of which he instantaneously died. P.W.1. the wife of the Appellant took the dead child, approached the villagers and reported about the incident. A Panchayati was held where the Appellant denied to have killed the child. But on the report of P.W.2, a case was registered against the Appellant u/s 302, IPC. 3. Six witnesses have been examined for the prosecution in order to substantiate its case. Learned Sessions Judge believing the statement of P.W.1 recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure convicted the Appellant u/s 302. IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 4. 'Learned State Defence Counsel advanced an argument that the trial Court should not have relied on the evidence recorded during investigation u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure particularly when such recording was mostly resiled by P.W.1 in course of evidence. On careful examination of the evidence, we found that the said P.W.1 did not support the prosecution. If her statement is left out from consideration, there has been no credible evidence placed by the prosecution to connect the Appellant with the crime. The prosecution has not established that the garments which were seized from the house of the Appellant belong to the Appellant. The circumstances under which those were seized is not known. If her statement is left out from consideration, there has been no credible evidence placed by the prosecution to connect the Appellant with the crime. The prosecution has not established that the garments which were seized from the house of the Appellant belong to the Appellant. The circumstances under which those were seized is not known. It is not understood as to how the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to being home the charge to the Appellant. 5. We are constrained to observe that the learned' Bessions Judge should not have treated the statement of P.W.1 recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure as evidence, Since there is no evidence on record to connect the Appellant with the offence, we upset the conviction and sentence passed against him.-Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith. P.K. Misra, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed