B. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have been convicted for causing the murder of one Shanti Bai, the mother-in-law of appellant Mohan Kumar, at night between 9th and 10th November 1979 and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted for offence under section 328, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month on that count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Mohan Kumar is married to deceased's Shanta Bai daughter Shyamabai (P. W. 17 ). She had come back to her parents house. Appellant Mohan Kumar wanted her to go to him, but she declined. It is also said by the prosecution that the appellant Mohan Kumar demanded Rs. 400/- from his mother-in law deceased. Shanta Bai, who is said to have refused to give any amount to Mohan Kumar. It is further said that in the evening of the fateful night, the appellant went to the house of Shanta Bai where they offered peda (a kind of sweet) to Shanta Bai, her daughter Shyama Bai (P. W. 17) and Rama. Bai (P. W. 18) and son Rewaram (P. W. 19 ). Mohan Kumar is further said to have mixed something in the Kari which was being cooked then. The daughters and the son of Shanta Bai became unconscious after eating the Peda and Kari. In the morning Shanta Bai was found dead, lying naked, but the ornaments which she were. found in tact on her body. She was taken to the hospital where autopsy was held on her body by Dr. M. M. Nanda (P. W. 11) who found as many as 10 abrasions on her person. Her meet was found swollen. The post mortem report is Ex. P-17. According to Dr. Nanda (P. W. 11), Shanta Bai died as a result of throttling. At the trial Shyama Bai (P. W. 17) was produced as an eye-witness and the prosecution also relied upon the circumstantial evidence in. the presence of the appellants in the house of the deceased at meal time. ( 3 ) THE two daughters viz. P-17. According to Dr. Nanda (P. W. 11), Shanta Bai died as a result of throttling. At the trial Shyama Bai (P. W. 17) was produced as an eye-witness and the prosecution also relied upon the circumstantial evidence in. the presence of the appellants in the house of the deceased at meal time. ( 3 ) THE two daughters viz. Shyama Bai and Rama Bai, the son Rewaram (P. W. 19) and also P. W. 20 Madhu Bai have been examined to show the presence of the appellants at the house of the deceased that evening. Finding these circumstances proved and on relying upon the testimony of P. W. 17 Shyama Bai, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we are of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed. The prosecution itself has put a very hazy picture of the whole incident It is not even certain about the motive which, according to the prosecution, led the appellants to commit the crime. At one stage it was alleged that appellant Mohan Kumar was annoyed because his wife had not been sent back and yet at another stage, it was said that the deceased refused to give him Rs. 400/- None of the motives appears to have been proved. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the deceased was found with all the ornaments on her body. If the appellant Mohan Kumar really wanted some money in all probability, he should have taken away the ornaments which the deceased wore at that time. That, however, was not done. We are not satisfied, therefore, that the prosecution has been able to attribute any motive for the crime to the appellants. Again, although, p. W. 17 Shyama Bai has been produced as an eyewitness, her testimony does not appear to be trustworthy on that count. What she deposed is that the appellants came to her place in the evening, gave peda to eat and also put some intoxicant in the food. She and her sister and brother, on taking that Kari and Peda became unconscious. According to Dr. G. N. (P. W. 7 ). it was a case of dhatura poisoning. What she deposed is that the appellants came to her place in the evening, gave peda to eat and also put some intoxicant in the food. She and her sister and brother, on taking that Kari and Peda became unconscious. According to Dr. G. N. (P. W. 7 ). it was a case of dhatura poisoning. P. W. 18 Ramabai, her brother, have deposed that they fell unconscious and regained consciousness only in hospital where they were told by others that their mother Shanta Bai was dead. They do not state that they were told of any assault by appellant, Mohan Kumar on Shanta Bai. Therefore, it would be very difficult to believe the uncorroborated statement of Shyama Bai (P. W. 17) when she deposed that after becoming unconscious on taking peda and kari, who regained some consciousness before she fully regained her senses in the hospital. She wants us to believe that she saw appellant Mohan Kumar strangulating her mother. Her version in this behalf has remained uncorroborated. If it were really so, she would have told that story to all, including her brother and sister after they regained complete consciousness in the hospital. Ramabai (P. W. 18) and Rewaram (P. W. 19) do not say that Shyama Bai (P. W. 17) told them anything about Moban Kumar strangulating their mother Shanti Bai. It appears that Shyama Bai had made this false statement in her deposition to some how fasten the guilt upon the appellants. Her version in that behalf does not inspite confidence and disagreeing with the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, We discard her testimony in that behalf. ( 5 ) THE only evidence that remains to be considered is the circumstance that the appellants were found in the house of the deceased in the evening preceding the night when Shanti Bai is said to have been murdered. It is true that Shyama Bai (P. W. 17), Ramabai (P. W. 18) and Rewaram (P. W. 19) have deposed that the appellants had come to their house in the evening of 9th November, 1979, gave them peda and also administered some poison in the food, yet on close scrutiny of their testimony we find that this part of the prosecution story is also doubtful. On this point, the prosecution has examined only one independent eyewitness viz. Madhubai (P. W. 20 ). On this point, the prosecution has examined only one independent eyewitness viz. Madhubai (P. W. 20 ). According to her, she was then residing in the house adjoining that of Shanta Bai. She deposed that she saw the two appellants near a culvert where she was working. She said that she left the two appellants near that culvert and then went away. She therefore, has not been able to state if the appellants were seen in the house of the deceased Shanta Bai. According to Shyama Bai (P. W. 17) when the appellants had gone to her house, her mother Shanta Bai was also present and she even asked Shyamabai and her sister and brother, not to take that prasad (peda ). She is unable to say if her mother viz. Shanta Bai (deceased) also took prasad. As against this, P. W. 19 Rewaram has deposed that their mother was not in the house then and had gone in the village. All these witnesses want us to believe that inspite of the fact that they saw the appellant Mohan Kumar putting something in the Kari, they ate it. Shyamabai (P. W. 17) could not assign any reason as to why the fact of distribution of peda by Mohan Kumar has not been mentioned by her in her case diary statement (Ex. D-3 ). She, however, stated what her statement in the case diary (Ex. D-3) that Raju distributed the peda, was not correct and she never told that to the police. We have earlier discarded Shyamabais statement when she posed to be an eye-witness to the incident of the murder of Shanta Bai. P. W. 8 Ramabai, the sister of P. W. 17 Shyama Bai, does not speak of anything being mixed in the Kari. She only deposed about the distribution of prasad (peda) by appellant Mohan Kumar. In her cross-examination she has stated that Nathi Bai and Shard a Bai told her that Mohan Kumar was found sitting near the culvert completely drunk. Rewaram (P. W. 19) has completely contradicted himself with his earlier case diary statement (Ex. D-2 ). His crossexamination shows that he left the dock thoroughly discarded. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of these three witnesses does not prove beyond doubt that the appellants had gone to their house, gave them peda to eat and administered some poison in the kari. D-2 ). His crossexamination shows that he left the dock thoroughly discarded. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of these three witnesses does not prove beyond doubt that the appellants had gone to their house, gave them peda to eat and administered some poison in the kari. It may be that appellant Mohan Kumar was found near the culvert, but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that he had gone to Shanta Bais house and administered poison in the food and gave peda to P. W. 17 Shyama Bai, P. W. 18 Ramabai and P. W. 19 Rewaram. We are of opinion that the charge under Section 328 Indian Penal Code could also not be proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. We do not agree with the assessment of the evidence made by the lower court in this behalf also. ( 6 ) THE result is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants, as aforesaid, are set aside and they are acquitted. Fine, if paid shall be refunded to the appellants. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. .