JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused-respondents in Sessions Case No. 54/1980, dated 9.11.1981. The accused-respondent Sohan Kanwar was charged for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and accused respondent Kaloo Ram for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and accused respondents Ganpat Singh and Sawai Singh were charged for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story was initiated on a report lodged by Sawai Singh S/o Sultan Singh, who was serving at Bombay. He was summoned from Bombay on a telegram which did not depict a correct reason, therefore, he arrived at his place late, due to that the incident though related to interior date, the report was lodged on 19.6.1980. It was stated in the report that the offence occurred 1 h month before. At the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. No defence has been produced by the accused-respondents, however, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they stated that they have been implicated falsely. 3. Learned trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the case, as has been set up by the prosecution is not made out. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. According to the prosecution case, Bhawari, mother of the deceased Madan, was going to her parents house. According to her, at that time, her two children, Santosh aged 6 years and Madan aged 15 years, were at their home. There was no one else at the home then these two children, therefore, for taking care of them, she requested her sister-in-law Sohan Kanwar to remain with them. Sohan Kanwar is one of the accused. 6. According to the prosecution story, on the fateful day, accused Kaloo came to see Sohan Kanwar. They had from before intimate relations Madan saw them in objectionable situation and felt offensive. On this Sohan Kanwar and Kalu liquidated Madan. 7. The most important aspect which struck us in this case is that PW-1 Bhawari in her Court statement, stated that except these two children, there was no one else at the house, therefore, Sohan Kanwar was left at the house. Thus,basic reason for Sohan Kanwar being left at the house was, children Madan and Santosh were alone. According to this witness, Kiran another daughter came subsequently. Thus,basic reason for Sohan Kanwar being left at the house was, children Madan and Santosh were alone. According to this witness, Kiran another daughter came subsequently. When we looked at the statement of the Kiran, who has been produced by the prosecution as PW-3, she stated that Laxman Singh brought her and Sohan Kanwar accused from their in-laws place to her parental house together. This very fact of Sohan Kanwar having came with Kiran shows that by the time Bhawari left Sohan Kanwar with deceased Madan and Santosh, Kiran was there in the village but this is not the case of Kiran. It also does not stand to reason that if Kiran daughter of the family was there, who is aged 18 years and married, then Sohan Kanwar was not required to be left at the house along with Madan and Santosh because age of Sohan Kanwar is also around 19 years as given by her and estimated 25 years in her Court statement. When a married daughter of the family herself was available, then, other ladies are hardly required to remain there. This discrepancy that Kiran came to the house along with Sohan Kanwar, then, reason for Sohan Kanwar being requested to live with the children is doubtful proposition. In any case Kiran would also be at her parental house and not at the house of Sohan Kanwar. 8. In this background, when we see that Laxman Singh (PW-8) was in the village on the fateful day, who was brother of Sawai Singh complainant, there is no reason why for 1 Vi months, prosecution was not lodged and everybody waited for Sawai Singh to arrive from Bombay. The only relevant evidence produced on record to implicate the accused persons is testimony of the child witness, PW-4 Santosh, who was 6 years of age. The trial Court has not cared to ask questions for judging capacity of this infant child witness. When there is basic lacuna in the prosecution case about the presence of Kiran and Sohan Kanwar, then, the prosecution story was held doubtful and in this background, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. 9. The appeal by filed the State against the acquittal of the accused persons is on the testimony of a child witness aged 6 years, there is inherent improbability about the presence of accused Sohan Kanwar at the house of the deceased. 9. The appeal by filed the State against the acquittal of the accused persons is on the testimony of a child witness aged 6 years, there is inherent improbability about the presence of accused Sohan Kanwar at the house of the deceased. In any case the case having filed after almost VA months with no convincing explanation hardly deserves credence. 10. In that background, we do not feel persuaded to allow the State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not a case where perverse findings are recorded by the prosecution and the accused persons have been acquitted without foundation. 11. In the result, the appeal fails as there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused respondents are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal dismissed. *******