Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant named above being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31. 10. 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 48/2000, by Additional sessions Judge, Dindori convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to undergo RI for life, has filed this appeal. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 11. 12. 1999 when deceased Kapiabai was sitting at home, the accused came to her house with a belief that deceased was practicing witchcraft and was creating problems to him. The accused hit on the head the deceased by means of pestle which had some iron fitted on the other side, as a result of injury, Kapiabai died. The matter was reported to Kotwar and his son and thereafter it was reported to police. Police Munshi came to the village, removed the body and thereafter prepared certain Panchnamas and after collecting the postmortem report and recording the statements of the witnesses, the accused was put for trial. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above, therefore, the appellant is before us. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant after taking us through the evidence, submitted that the learned Court below erred firstly in not discussing the evidence available on the record and recording findings in a slipshod manner and erred in holding in paragraph 13 and 14 that the accused made confession before the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case. ( 4. ) SHRI S. K. Rai, learned counsel for the Respondent/ State on the other hand submitted that the learned Court below was not unjustified in convicting the appellant. ( 5. ) P. W. 1 Sarmandas is son of village Kotwar. In the examination in chief, supporting the prosecution case, he stated that the accused made the confession before him but gave a serious dent to the case of the prosecution when in paragraph 7, he stated before the Court that the confession was made by the accused to the police Munshi at the police station. If that be so, the said confession made before the police officer in presence of P. W. 1 would not be admissible in evidence and same cant form basis of conviction. ( 6. ) P. W. 2 Sawant, on whom learned Court below had placed reliance had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. If that be so, the said confession made before the police officer in presence of P. W. 1 would not be admissible in evidence and same cant form basis of conviction. ( 6. ) P. W. 2 Sawant, on whom learned Court below had placed reliance had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. P. W. 3 keharsingh had also stated before the Court that the fact that accused had made confession before him, does not find place in his case diary statement. ( 7. ) P. W. 4 Bhagwatia, on whom further reliance has been placed by the learned Court below, nowhere says that she is an eyewitness or any confession was made before her. In paragraph 3 she had stated that when she came from the field, she was informed by somebody that Fagua had murdered the deceased. ( 8. ) THIS is the sum total of the evidence against the accused. ( 9. ) IN our opinion the Court below was unjustified in convicting the appellant on basis of inadmissible evidence and the statements of the witnesses who clearly stated that the fact that confession was made before him was not to find place in his case diary statement. In our considered opinion, the learned Court below erred in recording the findings into the guilt of the accused. Said findings are hereby set aside and it is held that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused. ( 10. ) THE accused is acquitted of all the charges. The accused is in jail, a release warrant immediately be issued with the direction that if the accused is not required in any other case he be immediately set free.