JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. 1. Santosh Kumar, convict-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri M. N. Asthana, Additional Sessions Judge, Banda dated 5-10-1977 passed in Sessions Trial No. 231-A of 1976 convicting and setencing him under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Sahodra deceased, daughter of Laxman Lohar, PW 2, and grand-daughter of Matholey, PW 1, resident of village Bariapur, police station Ajaigarh, district Panna was married to the appellant, the son of Sewka, PW 5 of village Gureh, Police station Kotwali, District Banda, about 2 3/4 years ago. However, her gauna was performed only about 7 or 8 days prior to the date of the occurrence, i. e.28-2-1975. It was further alleged that a message of the appellant was received by Matholey, PW 1, through one Parmeshwari Deen, PW 3, resident of village Pista within police station Ajaigarh, that a sum of Rs. 1500/- was urgently required by the appellant and it should be sent to him otherwise they would not come for the gauna (second marriage). At any rate, the gauna was performed when Rs. 900/- were paid and the balance of Rs. 600/- was promised to be paid at the time when they would come for the Bidai of the deceased. In the morning of 28th February, 1975 Sewka, PW 5, the father of the appellant, was awakened by the alarm of his wife and when they went to the room where Smt. Sahodra, the deceased, used to sleep after her gauna, she was found dead. A portion of the wall in the level of the belt of the door in the room was found to be dug in and a hole was found there. Sewka, PW 5, lodged a report of these facts at police station Kotwali, district Banda, five miles away at 10 a. m. It was expressed by him in the FIR that it appeared that some one had managed to open the belt of the door after having access to the room through the wall and thereafter Smt. Sahodra was strangulated and done to death and her ornaments described in the FIR were removed and taken away. The post-mortem examination report of the dead-body of Smt. Sahodra was prepared by Sri K. L. Pillay on 1-3-1975 at 2.35 p. m. The age of the deceased was about 14 years and the probable time since death was about 1 3/4 days. This duration goes back to the night of the occurrence between 27th and 28th February, 1975. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person : 1. Crescentic abraded contusion 2 cm. x 0.4 cm. on the middle of the right side front of neck to the right of the body of Thyroid Cartilage. 2. Abraded contusion 1 cm. x 0.3 cm. on the middle of left side wall of neck. 3. Contusion 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the lower half of the margin of the vaginal inlet. 3. The result of the internal examination cannot be fully described here as in many places the paper on which the post-mortem examination report has been written has been torn down. At any rate, in the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to Asphyxia resulting from strangulation. The same fact is also mentioned in the FIR. So the matter rests at this that she was done to death by strangulation. 4. There is no direct evidence connecting the appellant with the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has only circumstantial evidence to offer. The motive alleged is that she was murdered by the appellant as his demand for the balance of Rs. 600/- was not met with. The prosecution has examined Matholey, PW 1 and Parmeshwari Din, PW 3, regarding the demand made by the appellant for Rs. 1500/- which was conveyed by Parmeshwari Deen, PW 3, to Matholey and that before the incident at the time of gauna Rs. 900/- were paid promising the payment of balance of Rs. 600/- at the time of Bidai. Laxman, PW 2 stated that since he had not paid full money, he got suspicious about the welfare of her daughter, the deceased, so he had sent Jayaram, PW 4 to the village of the appellant to find out the welfare of the deceased. He further stated that on his return, Jayaram told him that he had met Smt. Shahodra, the deceased, who had told him that her life was in danger. Jayaram has also corroborated all these facts. 5. He further stated that on his return, Jayaram told him that he had met Smt. Shahodra, the deceased, who had told him that her life was in danger. Jayaram has also corroborated all these facts. 5. Matholey, PW 1, the grand-father of the deceased has stated after receiving the information from Jayaram, he arranged for the money and a day after that went to the village Gureh to meet the appellant and the deceased ; but on the out skirts of the village he came to know that his grand-daughter, the deceased, had been murdered. He stated that at once he had come to doubt that she was murdered as their demand of the money had not been met with. Laxman, PW 2, has stated that report in this connection, based on the suspicion, was lodged at police station, Kotwali, district Banda. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the deceased met with an unnatural death by strangulation within 7 or 8 days of gauna and as such it would be reasonable to draw a conclusion that she was done to death by her husband, the appellant. But we are afraid if such a conclusion can reasonably and legally be drawn. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that on the night of the incident, the appellant was with the deceased. Sewka, PW 5, the father of the appellant, has, at one stage in his examination-in-chief, stated that on the day of occurrence, appellant had gone away to the Har (fields), but he could not say whether he had returned home that night or not. Of course, it is admitted that the appellant used to live in the same house. But then this piece of evidence falls two short of proving that the appellant had slept in the room of the deceased that night. At another stage of his examination-in-chief he of course stated in an unambiguous term that in the night of the occurrence, the appellant had slept in the room of his wife, the deceased. However, in the cross-examination he stated that at times his son, the appellant, who was studying in the D. A. V. College, Banda, used to go to see pictures. However, in the cross-examination he stated that at times his son, the appellant, who was studying in the D. A. V. College, Banda, used to go to see pictures. However, he re-affirmed his earlier statement in his examination-in-chief that he could not say whether in the night of the incident, the appellant had returned to the house or not. The overall assessment of the evidence of this witness is that it cannot be said with all certainty that the appellant had slept with his wife, that is, the deceassd, in the night when she was murdered. So there is no evidence that the appellant was last seen with the deceased prior to her death. The Investigating Officer had found the wall to be dug into a hole near the place of the belt of the door. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it appears that some unknown persons had opened the door from inside through the said hole and had strangulated the deceased to death and ran away with the ornaments which she was wearing. 7. The prosecution has led evidence of the extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Basanta before Hafiz Khan, PW 6 but that was not accepted by the court below. We were also taken through the statement of Hafiz Khan, PW 6 we feel satisfied that the learned court below had reasonably and justifiably ignored and discarded that piece of evidence. 8. The above mentioned circumstances are the only circumstances on the basis of which the learned DGA for the prosecution wants us to conclude that the appellant was the person who had committed the murder of the deceased. However, we find the above circumstances too short to knit the hypothesis and that too the only hypothesis? consistent with the guilt of the appellant. To our mind, the above circumstances cannot be regarded sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. Therefore, the appellant's appeal is bound to succeed. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to the appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. His sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed.