JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under sec. 211, I. P. C., the case against him being that he laid a false information before the Police charging his mother-in-law Mussamut Langri with stealing properties belonging to him from his house and that the false information was maliciously laid with intent to cause injury to the persons implicated in the case. The relations between the parties may be shortly stated here. Mussamut Mahbuban, daughter of Mussamut Ghafuran, who died some time before this alleged occurrence, was the widow of one Wajid Hossain. On the death of her husband, she married the Petitioner, Mirza Hossain Mirza. Mussamut Ghafuran, her son named Ashgar by her former husband, her sister-in-law, that is a brother's wife, Mussamut Langri and Mussamut Mahbuban, all these people seem to have been living with the Petitioner in a house in Patna city, the house being the property of Ghafuran. On the death of Ghafuran, her heirs, according to the Mahomedan Law, were entitled to their respective shares in the inheritance, the Petitioner as husband being one of them. 2. The case propounded by Mussamut Mahbuban was that the Petitioner was not the husband of Ghafuran but had an improper intimacy with her and was only her lover. This statement of Mahbuban has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal and the status of the Petitioner as husband has been accepted by him. We thus have it that the prosecution in attempting to prove their case against the Petitioner started by denying his status in relation to Mussamut Ghafuran and so, on a very important and material part of the case, the prosecution have set up a false allegation. 3. The case against the Petitioner being that no theft took place, the obligation of of proving it rests on the prosecution. We are not satisfied that they have succeeded in establishing by evidence that there was no such theft. 3. The case against the Petitioner being that no theft took place, the obligation of of proving it rests on the prosecution. We are not satisfied that they have succeeded in establishing by evidence that there was no such theft. The motive alleged for the institution of a false case against Mahbuban and Langri is said to be that the Petitioner claiming the house left by Ghafuran as his own under a purchase made by him from her attempted to propound two sale-deeds, and finding his difficulty in respect of propounding genuine title-deeds wanted to have evidence of their disappearance and thus falsely alleged against Mahbuban and Langri that they had removed the sale-deed, along with other properties belonging to the Petitioner. 4. We are not satisfied that the motive alleged against the Petitioner is quite sound. According to the evidence in this case, the value of the house does not seem to be much more than Rs. 95. In the absence of a sale-deed, the Petitioner would yet be entitled to a one-fourth share in the house as husband of Ghafuran. It seems to us that by laying this information against Mahbuban and Langri and stating therein that the sale-deeds had disappeared, the Petitioner, instead of establishing any evidence of the existence of the deeds, was as a matter of fact weakening his position by urging that they had been lost or stolen. No doubt, that would have left him an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence as to their contents ; but it is also to be borne in mind that they were never alleged to have been registered and, that being so, more than ordinary evidence would be required to prove their contents. In the circumstances, we are not impressed by the motive alleged by the prosecution for the institution of a false case. 5. The Petitioner's case in the First Information was that on a certain Eid day, he had been out visiting friends. When he came back to his house, he found his wife whom he had married on the death of Ghafuran crying, and he learnt from her that Mahbuban, Langri and Asgar had disappeared from the house, that the box containing G. C. notes, jewelleries and the sale-deed had been broken open and the contents thereof were missing. He then examined the box and found that the valuables contained therein were not there. He then examined the box and found that the valuables contained therein were not there. Thereupon he informed some of his neighbours and started on a search to find out the three absconding persons but in vain. He at last reported the incident to the Police at the thana in Patna city. From the prosecution case, it seems that Mahbuban, Langri and Asgar had been living in the same house with the Petitioner and did, as a matter of fact, disappear on the day in question. 6. The only point that remains to be considered is whether on that day there was a theft or not. It is quite possible that there was no theft; but we require good evidence to satisfy us on the point. The duty of the prosecution in a case under sec. 211 is to prove by satisfactory evidence that the charge was wilfully false to the knowledge of the maker of the charge. That has not been done in this case. The prosecution have not established that there was as a matter of fact no theft ; nor have they established that the Petitioner knew that there was no theft. His case has been from the beginning that he heard from his wife that the three persons had disappeared and that the money, G. C. Notes and ornaments in the box were missing. The prosecution have done nothing whatever to prove that there was no such statement by the wife to the Petitioner. Had there been such proof, the Petitioner would undoubtedly have been guilty of laying a false charge against the persons whom he intended to injure ; but that important evidence is wanting in this case. 7. On behalf of the Crown, it has been contended that the Petitioner having entered on his defence and examined the witnesses to prove his case was bound to examine his wife in order to prove his innocence. We may say here that it is for the prosecution to establish their case and if they fail to supply that proof which is required to secure the conviction of the accused, the failure on the part of the latter to examine any particular witness or witnesses will not imply the guilt as having been proved. We, therefore, make this Rule absolute and set aside the conviction of the Petitioner. He will be discharged from his bail.