ORDER : IA No. 4981 o 2014 Having been satisfied with the ground taken for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, I.A. bearing no. 4981 of 2014 is disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 646 of 2014 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 84 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the trial court having come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. acquitted the accused respondent no. 2 & 3. 4. The case of the prosecution as has been made out in the FIR is that on the date of occurrence i.e. 30.11.2011, Ledu @ Ladu Munda (the deceased), the Bhagina of the informant had gone to graze cattle along with PW-5 Baldeo Pingua, aged about 12 years and Tune Pingua, aged about 15-16 years. In the evening, both of them i.e. Baldeo Pingua and Tune Pingua returned home but when the informant (PW6), did not find Ledu @ Ladu Munda in the house, he asked them about the whereabouts of Ledu @ Ladu Munda, upon which both of them immediately replied that Ledu has been sitting on the ridge of the pond and would be returning home later on. However, the informant went out in search of Ledu. During that course, the dead body of Ledu was found hanging by tree near the pond. 5. Thereupon, the informant lodged the case, suspecting hands of these two persons namely Singa Pingua and Nandu @ Nando Pingua, respondents no. 2 and 3 as well as Mantu Pingua and Sonia Pingua as they had earlier threatened the informant of dire consequences. On such allegation, the case was registered against the aforesaid four persons under sections 302/34 IPC. 6. Upon submission of the charge sheet when cognizance of the offence was taken, these two persons, (respondent no. 2 and 3) were put on trial whereas the case of other accused namely Mantu Pingua and Sonia Pingua was separated as they were found to be juvenile. 7. During trial, the prosecution adduced altogether nine eye witnesses. 6. Upon submission of the charge sheet when cognizance of the offence was taken, these two persons, (respondent no. 2 and 3) were put on trial whereas the case of other accused namely Mantu Pingua and Sonia Pingua was separated as they were found to be juvenile. 7. During trial, the prosecution adduced altogether nine eye witnesses. Of them, two eye witnesses, Praful Pingua and Baldeo Pingua were examined as PW-3 and PW-5 who did testify that while they were grazing cattle along with the deceased these two respondents 2 & 3 along with the other two accused persons came and caught hold of Ledu and then they pressed his neck and then got him hanged through the tree. The Doctor was examined as PW-7. According to him, death of the deceased was due to throttling. However, the trial court having found these two witnesses PWs 3 & 4 untrustworthy, recorded the order of the acquittal which is under challenge in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial court has discarded the evidence of both the eyewitnesses simply on the ground that they had made their statements under section 16r Cr.P. C after seven days of the occurrence which could not have been ground for discarding their testimonies as the witnesses aged about 12 and 15 years after seeing the occurrence of commission of murder of the deceased, must have been terrorized and thereby they would not have dared to speak earlier to other persons. 9. The submission, on the facts and circumstances appearing in the case is not acceptable for the reason, which we do find from the case of prosecution itself that as soon as PWs 3 and 5 returned home after grazing cattle, the informant did ask them about the whereabouts of Ledu (deceased) who had also gone along with those two witnesses. Upon it, both the witnesses immediately replied that Ledu had been sitting on the ridge of the pond and would come later on. This information immediately given to the informant would never be said to be a concocted one or the statement which is outcome of fearfulness; rather, the said information divulged to be informant seems to be a voluntary one. After a week, statements of those two eye-witnesses were recorded under section 164 of the Cr. This information immediately given to the informant would never be said to be a concocted one or the statement which is outcome of fearfulness; rather, the said information divulged to be informant seems to be a voluntary one. After a week, statements of those two eye-witnesses were recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P.C. wherein they had disclosed that these two respondents ( Singa Pingua and Nandu @ Nando Pingua, ) along with the other accused Mantu Pingua and Sonia Pingua had killed the deceased. During their evidences also, they testified the same thing. But at the same time, they did speak it out that they had made statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. at the instances of the Police. However, PW 3 has not deposed like that. But the facts remains that immediately when they had returned home after getting the cattle grazed, they had informed the informant that Ledu is still there sitting on the ridge of the pond. This statement, in no circumstance, can be disbelieved. Under that situation, statement made either before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or even before the trial court would certainly be taken to be an afterthought and, therefore, the trail court has rightly rejected the evidences of these witnesses and recorded the order of acquittal of respondent’s no. 2 and 3. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which, accordingly, stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed