JUDGMENT B.C. Jauhri, J. - This appeal has been filed by Smt. Shanti against her conviction by V. Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in S.T. No. 250 of 1981 under Section 201, IPC and sentence of 3 years' R.I. 2. The case against the appellant was that on May 30, 1981 at about 2.30 P.M. Jagannath (P.W.1) lodged a report at the Police Station Ajgain, Unnao alleging that the appellants Smt. Shanti used to reside in the village along with one Ram Asrey of village Dhunpur for some time past after Shanti Devi had let her earlier husband Ram Narain. For some time past the relation between Ram Asrey and Smt. Shanti Devi the appellant got strained and there were quarrels between them. About 20 days prior to the lodging of the report Ram Asrey disappeared from the village and on inquiry made by the Pradhan at first Smt. Shanti did not give any reply and later on said that Ram Asrey had gone to his village. The first-informant thereafter got suspicious and thereafter sent Ram Kumar Singh Ram Jas and Ram Bharosey to village Dhunpur and learnt from the brother of Ram Asrey that Ram Asrey had not reached village Dhunpur. It was further alleged in the report that the appellant Smt. Shanti, her son Ramesh and daughter also disappeared from the village and left behind her another son Rakesh. On an inquiry being made from Rakesh about the whereabout of Smt. Shanti and Ramesh and the daughter, Rakesh did not communicate any reply. The first-informant therefore, reported his suspicion that Ram Asrey has been murdered and the corpse has been dissipated. 3. After lodging of this report Sri R.R. Pandey, Sub-Inspector (P. W.7) reached the village in the company of the first-informant and found the house of the appellant locked. Her son Rakesh who was at his field at that time was called and upon the key of the house being given by Rakesh, entry was effected in the room. After the Sub-Inspector and the witnesses entered the house, they found that there was another lock in the Kothari of the house situate in the north, the key of which was not with Rakesh. After the Sub-Inspector and the witnesses entered the house, they found that there was another lock in the Kothari of the house situate in the north, the key of which was not with Rakesh. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector called some one from the village to break open the lock of the door and on the lock of the door being broken open it was found that in the northern Kothari there was a heap of Bhusa. The Bhusa was removed and then it was found that there were signs of having been dug out and replaced. The Sub-Inspector then got the earth dug out from the pit to about 2 feet. deep and then the dead-body of Ram Asrey was recovered. Ram Asrey's dead-body was sealed after preparing the Panchayatnama and the other necessary papers and was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Khanna (P.W.5). According to the post-mortem report there was an incised wound 5"X 1" in size on the lower half of abdomen. The wound was horizontally placed. The margins were sharp and the ends acute angle sharp. According to the opinion of the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury. The duration of the death as given by the doctor was more than 7 days. After completing investigation Sri R.R. Pandey submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and her son Ramesh under Sections 302/201, IPC. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Ramesh and Smt. Shanti under Section 302, IPC Ramesh was also acquitted under Section 201, IPC. But Smt. Shanti was convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. 5. I have heard the Learned counsel for the appellant and the State counsel at great length and feel that the conviction cannot be sustained and the appeal must be allowed. It is mentioned in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that it was urged on behalf of the appellant that she was not the sole occupant of the house and that here was a joint Hindu family consisting of herself, her two sons and one daughter. It was also urged that there was no direct evidence in the case against the appellant. Then it was said that there was not even evidence of the appellant having been last seen with the deceased. It was also urged that there was no direct evidence in the case against the appellant. Then it was said that there was not even evidence of the appellant having been last seen with the deceased. As regards the recovery of the body from the room, it was urged that as head of the family she alone could not be fastened with the liability of this offence. The learned Sessions Judge after considering all these arguments, came to the conclusion that since the room from which the dead body was recovered was locked and since the appellant admitted in her statement that she had the keys of the room, this coupled with the fact that she gave evasive reply to the Pradhan prompted the learned Sessions Judge to form an inference regarding the guilt of the accused. I have given my anxious consideration to this matter and feel that the circumstantial evidence referred to by the learned Sessions Judge in this case is not complete so as to be conclusive and fasten the liability on the appellant. Under Section 201, IPC it is bounden duty of the prosecution to establish firstly that an offence has been committed to the knowledge of the appellant and secondly that the appellant caused disappearance of evidence. The recovery of the dead-body from the room locked by her might have furnished some evidence regarding her complicity in this offence but the geographical situation of the room shows that this room situated on the northern side of the courtyard as the eastern wall of which does not go upto the roof. That means that despite putting the lock on the room, the room can still be reached through the opening in the eastern wall. Thus the possibility of some one entering the room while it is well locked from outside cannot be ruled out. It is common law that circumstantial evidence must be so complete and conclusive that howsoever the accused wants to wriggle out, he may not be able to do so and the circumstances must point to the guilt of the accused and not explained on any other hypothesis. It is common law that circumstantial evidence must be so complete and conclusive that howsoever the accused wants to wriggle out, he may not be able to do so and the circumstances must point to the guilt of the accused and not explained on any other hypothesis. In the instant case as admitted by the appellant the room was locked and she possessed the key, but despite the room being locked, she cannot be said to be responsible for every thing found inside the room when it could be reached through the opening on the eastern side even when it is locked. The necessary result is that the circumstantial evidence in this case does not point conclusively to the guilt of the appellant. Since there is no evidence direct or circumstantial to establish the ingredients of Section 201,IPC against the appellant, it must result in her acquittal. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Session Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 201, IPC is set aside. The appellant is on bail. She need not surrender and her bail be a discharged.