JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. The convictions of the appellants, Sri Ram and Musammat Choti, on a charge of the murder of one Goli Batta, cannot be supported. The facts which have been disclosed in evidence are very few and simple, It appears from that evidence that Baldeo Ram, who is the father of the appellant, Sri Ram, lives in an enclosure which is also occupied by several members of his family, namely, Sri Ram, Sri Ram's wife, the appellant, Musammat Choti, and her husband Sobha Ram, and also a younger brother of Sri Ram, called Mata Pershad. On the date of the murder, Sobha Ram was admittedly absent from the village. Musammat Choti, and her husband Sobha Ram lived in a house in the enclosure, separate and apart from the other members of the family. On the 11th of August last Goli Batta, the murdered youth, was last seen alive near the enclosure of Baldeo, He was missed in the afternoon of that day and search was made for him by his father and other villagers. One Kalka Pershad, who was a near neighbour of Baldeo, stated that about noon he saw Goli Batta going towards the house of Sri Ram, which adjoins his own house, and he appears to have been the last person who saw Goli Batta alive. The information which he gaveled the villagers to make inquiry at the house of Baldeo, but no information was elicited, unless it be the case, as is alleged on behalf of the prosecution, that Sita Ram was questioned upon the subject and stated that the boy would be found in a well which was on land closely adjoining. This well, it is said, was searched, but the boy was not found to be in it. Then it is said that the false information given by Sita Ram led the villagers to suspect that he had something to do with the disappearance of the lad, and consequently a watch was kept upon the house in which he resided. Information was given to the Police on the following day, the 12th, by Piare Lal, who is the elder brother of the father of the unfortunate lad Goli Batta, It is important to see what the information was which he gave to the Police. Information was given to the Police on the following day, the 12th, by Piare Lal, who is the elder brother of the father of the unfortunate lad Goli Batta, It is important to see what the information was which he gave to the Police. In his statement to them he said that on the day in question he was at a village called Dholpura and came back to his house in the evening; that on his arrival his brother informed him that Goli Batta had been missing since 4 O'clock that day and that they had been in search of the boy. He said that subsequently he too searched in the village and the grazing ground for the whole night but no trace of the lad could be found anywhere. Then he says, “Kalka Parshad of the village saw Goli Batta going as far as the door of house of Baldeo, but that no information as to the boy having proceeded further, was forthcoming.” This is the meager information which was laid before the Police on this occasion. It appears that the villagers expressed their suspicion that Sri Ram was connected with the disappearance of the lad, for it is In evidence that Baldeo made a statement to the effect that Sri Ram had nothing to do with his disappearance, but that the appellant Musammat Choti had murdered the boy. Musammat Choti was taxed with the murder and she appears to have alleged that Sri Ram murdered the boy and that she herself had nothing to do with the murder. She then appears to have given information to the Police as to the ornaments which the boy was wearing on the afternoon in question, and she subsequently pointed out the place in one of the rooms of her house in which the dead body was found. She also gave up the ornaments which the unfortunate lad was wearing, Sri Ram disappeared from the village and was not arrested until the 24th of August last, In the meantime, Musammat Choti was examined as a witness under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and reliance was placed in the Court below upon the allegation contained in her statement so made. She says in it that the boy on the afternoon in question went into the chaupal with Sri Ram to play a game of tauri, that she looked in and saw Sri Ram catch hold of the boy and as she says twist his throat. She asked Sri Ram what he had done and Sri Ram told her to keep quiet. She then says that she came into the house and told Sri Ram's wife that her husband had murdered Bhuri's son. Then she says that in the evening Sri Ram took the dead body of the boy inside the house and disposed of it in some chaff, but that on the following day he brought a spade from his house, dug a pit in her house and buried the corpse in that pit and placed earth over it, and afterwards Sri Ram disappeared from the village. She further in her statement said that the boy was wearing a pair of churis and three baits, and that these were taken off by Sri Ram and concealed by him in the wall of her house. She further says that she pointed out the place where the corpse was buried and also the ornaments. Beyond this statement made by Musammat Choti when she was under examination as a witness, the evidence which was adduced on behalf of the prosecution is most meager. Bhure, the father of the unfortunate lad, knows little or nothing. He says that at 8 p.m. of the evening of the murder, Sri Ram went to a well and shouted that Coli Batta was inside the well and that this aroused the suspicion of the villagers. He is supported in this statement by his elder brother Piare, who says that Kalka Parshad informed him that he had seen the boy at the door of Sri Ram's house at noon and that after 7 p.m. Sri Ram went to a dry well and called out Goli Batta's name and actually told the witness that Goli Batta answered him from below. Now it is a remarkable fact that in the report which was made on the subsequent morning by Piare to the police not a word is said of this remarkable fact, namely that Sri Ram had stated that the boy was in the well. Now it is a remarkable fact that in the report which was made on the subsequent morning by Piare to the police not a word is said of this remarkable fact, namely that Sri Ram had stated that the boy was in the well. If such a thing had happened, it would have so impressed itself upon the mind of Piare, the child's uncle, that he would undoubtedly have mentioned it to the Police. Nothing whatever is mentioned in regard to it in the first report. It also Seems hard to understand how Sri Ram, if he had been guilty and Was aware that the body of the boy had been disposed of in the house of Musammat Choti, would have told such a bare-faced falsehood to the persons who were In search of the boy, namely, that the boy was in the well and that he had answered him when called. The falsity of the assertion would at once have been discovered by an examination of the well. There is no other evidence upon the record which is of any value in helping us to come to a conclusion as to the truth of the charge against the appellants. Now, undoubtedly the unfortunate lad was murdered and was no doubt murdered for the sake of his ornaments, which were of the value of Rs. 25. It is clearly established that the body of the boy was found in one of the rooms of the house in which Musammat Choti resided, and it is also clearly established that Musammat Choti pointed out, where the dead boy was deposited and also gave up, or at least pointed out, where the ornaments were placed, which the boy wore on the afternoon of his death. The question is whether these circumstances are such as to justify the Court in coming to the conclusion that either Sri Ram or Musammat Choti took part in the murder or themselves committed the murder. 2. We shall first take the case of Sri Ram. The only evidence against him is the evidence of the two witnesses, Bhure, father of the boy, and Piare, and also of Kalka. That evidence, if true, only proves that Sri Ram told the villagers that the boy was in the well. 2. We shall first take the case of Sri Ram. The only evidence against him is the evidence of the two witnesses, Bhure, father of the boy, and Piare, and also of Kalka. That evidence, if true, only proves that Sri Ram told the villagers that the boy was in the well. There is also the fact, upon which a Court is always entitled to lay some stress, namely that Sri Ram disappeared the day after the murder. There is no other legal evidence to connect Sri Ram with the murder. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have used the deposition, which was made by Musammat Choti under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as evidence against Sri Ram. But Musammat Choti who made this deposition, though a witness at the time when she made it, was not a witness at the trial, but a co-accused, and consequently Sri Ram had no opportunity of cross-examining her. In no way could her statement made under section 164 be used in evidence against Sri Ram. It may be used as evidence against herself, but certainly not as against Sri Ram. 3. It appears to us that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have admitted that statement as evidence against Sri Ram. And if that evidence is left out of consideration there is really no evidence worth the name upon which a Court, would be justified in finding that Sri Ram was guilty of the murder. The learned Government Advocate has seen the weakness of evidence which has been given against Sri Ram and has really not been able to press the case as against him. The evidence is such as to create a case of the strongest suspicion against the members of the household of Baldeo, and no doubt, the disappearance of Sri Ram is a fact which is not at all in his favour, but at the same time it is not to be overlooked that when a charge is brought by neighbours against a villager, frequently we find that the villager disappears from the village out of fear of the consequences of the suspicion aroused against him. We do not think, therefore, that we could safely rely upon this evidence as establishing the guilt of Sri Ram. We do not think, therefore, that we could safely rely upon this evidence as establishing the guilt of Sri Ram. There is not merely a doubt, but a strong doubt in his favour, and he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, We must, therefore, set aside the conviction in his case and order his release. 4. As regards Musammat Choti, the case seems to be still weaker, The evidence for the prosecution is equally weak. With the exception of the statement contained in her deposition taken under section 164 and to the fact that she pointed out where the dead body was to be found and also handed over the ornaments, there is nothing to connect her with murder of this lad. Her statement is not a confession of guilt, but, on the contrary, as she asserts of entire innocence. She says in it that Sri Ram, her brother-in-law, was the murderer of the boy, that Sri Ram told her to be quiet, and he buried the body of the boy in the room of her house and concealed the ornaments, which he was wearing, in that room. She nowhere in her evidence implicates herself as a participator in the murder. Though it may be that her statement would be sufficient upon which to base a conviction under section 411 of being in possession of stolen property, and perhaps also under section 201 of causing the disappearance of evidence, the evidence is altogether meager and unsatisfactory on which to justify a conviction of murder, and in her case also we must set aside the conviction and direct her release. If the Magisterial authorities think that there is sufficient ground against her for a charge under the two sections to which we have referred or one of them, it will be open to them to take action, notwithstanding her acquittal on the charge of murder. 5. We, therefore, for the foregoing reasons, set aside the convictions and acquitting both the appellants of the offence of which they have been convicted, we direct that the appellants be forthwith released.