JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J. - This is an appeal by Nand Lal and Mohammad Riaz against their sentence and conviction to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Both these accused-Appellants were admittedly posted as Constables at Police Station Dhamaur, district Sultanpur. It is alleged that on 25th of September, 1979, at about 6-00 A. M., both these accused along with their respective rifles went to the house of Jageshar, resident of village Rasoolpur hamlet of Lauhar, police Station Dhamaur. Reaching there, they found Karia, Jageshar's son, on his cot. Both these accused are said to have apprehended Karia and took him towards the canal. They had given a beating to Karia and reaching the canal, they, with the butt end of their rifles, pushed Karia in the canal on account of which he drowned. Ultimately Jageshar, the father of Karia, moved the Superintendent of Police by means of an application, dated September 25, 1979 (Exhibit Ka-7), in this connection praying that action may be taken. Lateron, per order of the S. D. M. and after enquiry, the case was registered on September 25, 1979 at 7.05 P. M., at police station Kotwali. We may note here that the S. D. M. Shri Girish Chandra Chaturvedi (P. W. I) got the dead body of Karia extracted from the canal on September 26, 1979, and he got inquest report and other relevant papers prepared under his supervision. The dead body was sealed and sent for autopsy. Autopsy on the dead body was done by Dr. S.P. Srivastava on September 27, 1979. He found the body in an advanced stage of decomposition. No fracture of skull bones was found. No injuries were found either external or internal. The death, according to the doctor, was caused as a result of asphyxia due to drowning. 3. The investigation was done in the usual manner, and ultimately the accused-Appellants were asked to stand their trial u/s 302/34 IPC. 4. The defence of the accused was that they were returning from petrol duty. They found a person, who, seeing them, tried to run. On suspicion being aroused they chased him and ultimately that person jumped in the canal; and thereafter they came away and lodged a report in the G. D. of the police station. 5. 4. The defence of the accused was that they were returning from petrol duty. They found a person, who, seeing them, tried to run. On suspicion being aroused they chased him and ultimately that person jumped in the canal; and thereafter they came away and lodged a report in the G. D. of the police station. 5. The trial court came to the conclusion that the accused-Appellants had arrested Karia from his house but when he was being taken, he managed to set himself free. He was chased by the accused-Appellants and since the deceased had no option but to run towards the canal, he ran in that direction and ultimately in order to save himself from the clutches of police he jumped in the canal on account of which he drowned. On The basis of this finding the trial court found that the charge u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused-Appellants and as such it sentenced and convicted them as above. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants. In my view this appeal should be allowed. 7. There is no difference in the prosecution case or the defence version that Karia was drowned in the canal on September 25, 1979 at about 6.00 A. M. The difference in the two stories was that according to the prosecution, Karia was arrested by these two accused-Appellants from his house; he was given a beating and then the accused-Appellants with the help of the butt-end of their rifles, pushed Karia in the canal on account of which he drowned. The defence case was that Karia was found by the accused-Appellants in suspicious circumstances near-about the canal and when they tried to chase him, he on his own jumped in the canal and he, thereafter, had drowned. The trial court, for reasons best known to it, pictured a third case; and according to the inference of the trial court, although Karia was apprehended by the accused from his house but while he was being taken, he got himself freed and when he was chased by the accused-Appellants, he ran towards the canal and ultimately in order to save himself, he on his own jumped in the canal and was drowned. It should be remembered by the Sessions Judges that it is not proper on their part to imagine a third case. It should be remembered by the Sessions Judges that it is not proper on their part to imagine a third case. They should either accept the prosecution version or if the prosecution story is not reliable and defence version becomes probable or it is able to create doubt in the prosecution story, then a clean acquittal should follow. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and no third inference should be drawn by the trial court by taking a piece from the prosecution witnesses and tying it to a piece of the defence version. In this case the Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version to this extent that the accused-Appellants had apprehended Karia at his house and were taking him away. He then accepted the defence version that Karia on his own jumped in the canal and was not pushed in the canal by the accused-Appellants with the help of the butt-end of their rifles. He imagined a story as if Karia got himself freed and in that process when he was chased by the accused he seeing no option to save himself, jumped in the canal. Now in this case there is positive evidence that Karia was wanted on a warrant which had been issued much earlier in the month of July 1979 but it was not executed. The G. D. entry shows that these two accused-Appellants had gone out of the Police Station on September 24, 1979 at 6.15 P. M. along with their guns to do partrolling in villages Ardhi, Baijapur and Dikhauli. They were not given any warrant to execute against Karia as Exhibit Kha-I would go to show. It is impossible to conceive how they would have gone to village Lauhar with the object of apprehending Karia. Being Police Constables they should have known that without warrant they would not have been able to arrest Karia if he was inside his house. The prosecution story that the deceased Karia was given a beating by these two accused-Appellants is belied from the post-mortem report as no injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The body was recovered on the next day and the post mortem was conducted on September 27, 1979. Marks of injury in such a short period could not have disappered from the body. The body was recovered on the next day and the post mortem was conducted on September 27, 1979. Marks of injury in such a short period could not have disappered from the body. That shows that the report lodged by the Constables on their return vide Exhibit Kha-2 is probably a correct version. They might have tried to suppress the name of the deceased but from that factor alone it cannot be inferred that they were responsible for the drowning of the deceased. Indeed, the trial Court also came to this conclusion that Karia himself had jumped in the canal and thereby had drowned. Assuming for a moment that the accused-Appellants were chasing Karia, that would not make them responsible for the act of Karia in jumping himself in the canal for the simple reason that Karia was wanted and if he ran on seeing the Police Constables the suspicion of the Constables was bound to arouse and if they knew Karia they also had knowledge that warrant had been issued against Karia for his arrest and in that situation they would have been justified in trying to apprehend Karia. Merely because of that act of the accused-Appellants namely chasing Karia they cannot be saddled u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code if Karia himself jumped in the canal by taking the risk of probably crossing the same but owing to depth of water or the current being fast or Karia being not able to swim he was drowned in the canal. For this act of drowning, I am afraid, the accused-Appellants cannot be held responsible inasmuch as they could never be guilty of any such accident, if at all jumping into the canal by a person on his own could be termed as an accidental death. Actually it would be committing suicide and for the same the accused-Appellants cannot be held guilty. 8. As a result I would acquit the accused of the charge punishable u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is allowed. The sentence and conviction awarded to the accused-Appellant by the trial court is set aside. They are acquitted of the same. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and their sureties are discharged.