Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This appeal by the three Appellants is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.1999 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg in Sessions Trial No.120 of 1999, whereby he convicted the accused/Appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them with imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the Appellants entered into a conspiracy to kill deceased Shankarlal and in furtherance of their common object they on 31.8.1998 attacked Shankarlal at the small culvert (Puliya) near Anganbadi in Village Jhurhatola, Police Station Dondi, District Durg. The first information with regard to this occurrence was given by Chhagan Lal (PW-1) to the police. He accompanied by Devluram (PW-2), Kacharu Ram (PW-3), Jagram (PW-5) and Sukhram (PW-8) went to police station and lodged a report (Ex.P-1) at 9:45 p.m., which was termed as Merg Intimation (information of death). All that is stated in this information given to the police is that Balaram (PW-13) came and told Chhagan Lal (PW-1) that body of Shankarlal is lying near Anganbadi culvert and he has been murdered by somebody. Then all the villagers went to the spot and saw that Shankarlal was lying dead. His throat had been cut with some sharp edged weapon. One axe, one sabbal (a sharp edged iron rod) and a bunch of rope were lying next to the body.

3. Thereafter, the police officials went to the Village Jhurhatola. It is the admitted case that the police officials reached the village soon thereafter. However, because it was dark the police did not carry investigation and inquest (Ex.P-3) was carried out next day on 1.9.1998. In the inquest report, it is mentioned that as per the statements of the relatives and the witnesses, it is revealed that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased. However, no specific eyewitness was named. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-25) was recorded on 1.9.1998 at 10:00 a.m. and in this eyewitness Kuleshwar (PW-11) was named. It is stated that he had witnessed the murder of the deceased. On the basis of this Dehati Nalishi, First Information Report (Ex.P-26) was recorded at 6:30 p.m. on the same day. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem. Further investigation was carried out and the accused were charged with offence of having committed murder of deceased Shankarlal. They have been convicted and sentenced by the Learned Trial Court basically relying upon the statement of Kuleshwar (PW-11), who is stated to be the eyewitness to the occurrence. It was held that the statement of the eyewitness is corroborated by the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused persons. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Learned Trial Court, the Appellants have filed the instant appeal.

4. Shri Adil Minhaj, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that Kuleshwar (PW-11) is a child witness and, therefore, implicit reliance cannot be placed on his testimony. He further submits that the testimony of the child witness must be scrutinized carefully and in view of the contradictions in the statement of the child witness, his testimony cannot be accepted. His further submission is that the police has been building up the case step by step. In the Merg Intimation, no person has been named. The police admittedly reached the spot at night, but the inquest was carried out next day and in that inquest first time the accused were named. He urges that even though the accused were named, no eyewitness was named. The eyewitness was named for the first time in the Dehati Nalishi. He further submits that there is unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR and this gave enough time to the police to fabricate a false case and to falsely implicate the accused in the crime. The last submission is that neither Kuleshwar (PW-11), the eyewitness nor his father Anandiram (PW-12) has given