JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties and the Judgment is as follows: 2. Order of acquittal of the Respondent recorded by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No. 19/6/147 of 1995-94 is under challenge. 3. The Respondent was charged for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. on the ground that she threw the child, aged about 1 1/2 years being her stepson (husband's second wife's son) into a tank (Chua) and caused his homicidal death due to drowning. Prosecution relied on direct evidence of P.W. 1 as the eye-witness to the occurrence so also the extra-judicial confession stated by P.Ws. 1 to 6, besides the report of the Doctor, P.W. 8, who stated that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to drowning. 4. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are two child witnesses. Amongst them, P.W. 1 was examined as eye witness to the occurrence of throwing of the child by the Respondent to the tank and intimated that fact to the other child witness i.e. P.W. 2. In course of examining u/s 118 of the Evidence Act to test the capacity to depose and give rational evidence, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge entertained a doubt on her capacity to depose. However, he recorded depositions of that witness and ultimately in course of analysis of the same, he opined that P.W. 1 was not credible and reliable. P.Ws. 2 to 6 deposed that after the dead body was recovered by P.W. 3 from the 'Chua' accused was brought to the place where the dead body was kept and there she voluntarily confessed. In course of cross-examination of all these witnesses, it was brought on record that such witnesses are not consistent about the manner in which such extra judicial confession was obtained from the Respondent. Above all, P.W. 4, the school teacher, who on being put the question deposed in course of cross-examination that on seeing the dead body, the villagers were agitated and the accused Respondent was trembling out of fear and she was forced to make confession. Under such circumstance, notwithstanding the death of the deceased due to drowning, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not find sufficient evidence to connect the Respondent with the alleged crime and accordingly acquitted her. 5. Under such circumstance, notwithstanding the death of the deceased due to drowning, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not find sufficient evidence to connect the Respondent with the alleged crime and accordingly acquitted her. 5. In course of his submission, Learned Standing Counsel unsuccessfully canvasses the case of acceptance of evidence of P.W. 1 but for the reasons recorded by the Trial Court correctly, we are unable to accept that argument of the Government or to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 as an eye witnesses to the occurrence. For the reasons recorded by the Trial Court, we also do not agree to the argument of the State to accept the extra-judicial confession of the Respondent as a voluntary one, so as to hold that the charge was proved. No other argument is advanced challenging to the order of acquittal. 6. On perusal of the entire evidence on record and the impugned Judgment, we find that the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonable and probable one. Therefore, while considering the merit of the order of acguittal, we find no fault with the same so as to interfere with that. 7. Thus, the Government Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Final Result : Dismissed