JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th June, 1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, by which, he convicted the appellant of offence under section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. 2. One Bhagwan Singh lodged a report on 22nd Sept., 1985, at about 8 a.m. at PS-Unnail, alleging that Mst. Labh Kanwar had contacted Nata with him and she was residing with him as his wife ever since. She delivered a male-child just two months before. In the night, at about 3 O'clock, his (informants) Mali, Gumansingh came to his house for taking the bullocks for grazing. At that time, Mst. Labh Kanwar got up and told him that it was very early morning, so she asked him to sleep for some time more. Then, at about 5 a.m. his mother got up and found that the door of the house was open. His mother awoke him and he also saw that the door of the house was open and his wife, Mst. Labh Kanwar along with his son Toofan aged about 2 months, was not available in the house. He then made a search for both of them. After the search, he came to know that dead body of his son, Toofan was lying at the Bavri just in front of the Police Chowki-Unhail. The allegation is that his wife Mst. Labh Kanwar had murdered his son and then kept the dead body at the Bavri and had run away. In the report, it has also been alleged that the conduct of Mst. Labh Kanwar for the last 15-20 days, was not good with him she did not want to live with him, but wanted to contact further Nata with another person. The boy was a hindrance, so, she had murdered him and ran away. On this report; a case under section 302 IPC was registered, and investigation was set in motion. 3. After completing investigation, the police submitted a challan against Mst. Labh Kanwar. She denied the allegation and the charge levelled against her. The police has examined 9 witnesses and the accused has also examined witness in her defence in this case. On this report; a case under section 302 IPC was registered, and investigation was set in motion. 3. After completing investigation, the police submitted a challan against Mst. Labh Kanwar. She denied the allegation and the charge levelled against her. The police has examined 9 witnesses and the accused has also examined witness in her defence in this case. ' The learned Sessions Judge, after completing the trial, found that the case was made out against the accused-appellant under section 302, IPC, and therefore, he convicted and sentenced her as mentioned above. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire case is false and connected one. According to him, it is admitted fact that appellant Mst. Labh Kanwar had contacted Nata with Bhagwan Singh. It is alleged that Bhagwan Singh had sold away Mst. Labh Kanwar to another person for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, and because, the boy was a hindrance, so, he might have murdered the boy. 5. In the statement recorded under section 313, Cr. PC the appellant has stated that she had contacted Nata with Bhagwan Singh and had a child from him that child was not keeping well and, one day before the incident, they had taken the child for medical treatment; in the night, the boy expired. She was then thrown out of the house, by her husband, mother-in-law and the first wife of Bhagwan Singh. Thus, she has completely denied that she has murdered the child. In this connection, the statements of PW 5 Prabhulal, PW 8 Bhagwan Singh, PW 7 Krishnakant and PW 9 Narain Singh, were brought to our notice. These four witnesses only are material witnesses in this case. The Roznamcha report (Ex. P. 9) was also brought to our notice. The site-plan (Ex. P. 5) prepared by the SHO Krishnakant, is also a material document. 6. From a reading of all the important witnesses; we find that the entire case has been made out by the prosecution. All these witnesses are false witnesses and have given contradictory and different stories. 7. It is admitted fact that the dead body of the child was found on the stairs of the Bavri, and the Bavri is just in front of the Police Chowki. 8. All these witnesses are false witnesses and have given contradictory and different stories. 7. It is admitted fact that the dead body of the child was found on the stairs of the Bavri, and the Bavri is just in front of the Police Chowki. 8. PW 5 Prabhulal has stated that in the morning, at about 6 Oclock, he had gone to ease himself, and when he came to Bavri for washing his hands, he saw the dead body of a child lying on the stairs of the Bavri. He then came out of the Bavri, where the bead-constable also had come to ease himself. He told the head-constable about the dead body of the child on the stairs of the Bavri. Thereafter, he went away. 9. Narain Singh PW 9, the head-constable had stated that in the morning at about 6-30 a.m. Prabhulal had come of Police Chowki and informed that a dead body of a child was lying on the stairs of the Bavri. He got this report written in the Roznamcha, which is Ex. P 9. He has further stated that he thereafter came to the Bavri and found there the dead body of the child lying on the stairs he took out the dead body through a Harijan-boy and kept it outside he remained there. Thereafter, the SHO arrived at the spot, at about 10 a.m. 10. Thus, the statement of Prabhulal PW 5 is corroborated by Narain Singh PW 9. It is clear that for the first time, Prabhulal had come to know about the dead body of the child which was lying on the stairs of the Bavri; for the first time, Prabhulal informed the head-constable Narain Singh about the dead body; and for the first time, Narain Singh went to Bavri and took out the dead body, who has very specifically stated that he did not find Bhagwan Singh at the Bavri at that time. So, before arrival of the Thanedar, the fact of lying of the dead body was known to Prabhulal PW 5 and Narain Singh PW 9 only, and no other person was in the knowledge that a dead-body was lying on the stairs of the Bavri. 11. Now, we see the statement of Bhagwan Singh PW 8. He has stated that when he got up in the morning at about 5 a.m. he did not find his wife Mst. 11. Now, we see the statement of Bhagwan Singh PW 8. He has stated that when he got up in the morning at about 5 a.m. he did not find his wife Mst. Labh Kanwar and the child in the house. He, therefore, made a search for them in the village. Then, when in the morning, he went to Bavri, he saw a large crowd collected there. There he saw the dead body of his child lying on the stairs of Bavri; and the head-constable of the Police-Chowki was also there. He, thereafter, went to police station and lodged the report (Ex. P. 3). Thus, we find that the statement of Bhagwan Singh is contradictory to that of Narain Singh PW 9. Narain Singh has specifically stated that he did not see Bhagwan Singh at the Bavri when the dead body of the child was lifted from the stairs, did not see Bhagwan Singh near the Bavri even. But, Bhagwan Singh says that he had seen the dead-body at the Bavri-persons had collected there and head constable Narain Singh was also there. Then, in his cross-examination, Bhagwan Singh PW 8 has said that the Thana is about 14 kms. away from his village, and he had gone to Thana in a special bus. According to him, the scheduled time of the bus was 11 AM, but he had taken that bus specially for lodging the report at the police station. This is also another false story. Nobody of that bus, was examined by the police to say that Bhagwan Singh had taken the bus specially for lodging the report. No witness has been examined by the prosecution to support the story narrated by Bhagwan Singh that near the Bavri, a large crowd had collected. The SHO too has not stated that he recorded statements of other persons who had collected therefore, the story given by Bhagwan Singh is a false story. He did not go to Bavri in the morning, nor did he see there the head-constable for the first time, he arrived at Bavri when the SHO came there around 10 Oclock, as has been stated by Narain Singh head constable. He did not go to Bavri in the morning, nor did he see there the head-constable for the first time, he arrived at Bavri when the SHO came there around 10 Oclock, as has been stated by Narain Singh head constable. The statement of Bhagwan Singh that after seeing the dead body of his child from outside the Bavri he immediately left for the police station, is a unbelievable statement a father after seeing the dead-body of his child, knowing that he has been murdered, would not leave the spot leaving the dead-body there, specially when the head-constable was there. It was not necessary for him to have rushed to police station and lodged the report. He was expected to have remained at the spot for looking after the dead-body of his child. The head constable was there, who would have gone to police station, or who would have sent the report to police station. But, in any way, it. was not for Bhagwan Singh to have rushed to police station. Therefore, the story narrated by Bhagwan Singh PW 8 as a whole, is a false and concocted one. 12. Krishnakant PW 7, the SHO has stated that Bhagwan Singh had come to police station and lodged the report (Ex. P. 3). He came to the spot prepared the site-plan (Ex.P. 5) and got the post-mortem examination of the dead-body done. In his cross-examination, he has said that where the dead-body of the child was lying in the Bavri, there was no water. It means that the dead-body was not in the water. From the record, it has come that the dead-body was lying on the stairs of the Bavri which portion were under the water. The post-mortem report also indicates that the child died on account of Asphyxia due to drowning. It means that the dead body was in water when the child died. The Bavri had 7-8 water. The portion of the stairs of the Bavri where the dead-body lying, was in water, was 3-4" high on the stairs. The child was only 2 months old. So, if the dead-body was in water, it could not remain on the stairs, but the water would have taken the dead-body into the Bavri. The Bavri had 7-8 water. The portion of the stairs of the Bavri where the dead-body lying, was in water, was 3-4" high on the stairs. The child was only 2 months old. So, if the dead-body was in water, it could not remain on the stairs, but the water would have taken the dead-body into the Bavri. Therefore, the whole story that the dead-body was lying on the stairs under water, and the child had died on account of asphyxia due to drowning, is completely a false story. We do not agree with the report of the doctor that the child had died on account of drowning. Then, neither the SHO nor any other witness has stated that the clothes of the child were wet. If the dead-body was in water, all the clothes of the child must have been wet and it must have come on record also while preparing the Panchanama of the dead-body. But there is nothing on the record to indicate that the clothes worn by the child, were wet because of the dead body being in water. So, all these circumstances create doubt in the correctness and fairness of the investigation. 13. Narain Singh head-constable has also stated that when Bhagwan Singh came along with the SHO, he did not inquire from him as to how he had come to know about the death of the child, and who had informed him that the dead-body of the child was lying on the stairs of the Bavri. This is an important aspect. The head constable prior to arrival of the SHO knew the fact, and he bad taken out the child from the Bavri and put it on the platform. Prabhulal PW 5 had informed him about the death of the child. So, the head-constable knew that a child had been murdered and somebody had kept the dead-body there. At that time, he did not know that child was of Bhagwan Singh arrived at the spot along with the SHO, he should have inquired from Bhagwan Singh as to how he had come to know about the death of the child and how he went to police station to lodge the report. There is no explanation on this aspect by the learned Public Prosecutor. 14. In view of our above discussion, we find that the entire case is a false and concocted one. There is no explanation on this aspect by the learned Public Prosecutor. 14. In view of our above discussion, we find that the entire case is a false and concocted one. The investigation in this case was not at all done fairly and properly; and the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant.In the result, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and the sentence passed against the accused-appellant by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, under section 302, IPC, are, therefore set aside. The appellant is not fou d guilty of this offence. As such, she is acquitted of the charge levelled against her. The accused-appellant, Mst. Labh kanwar is in jail. She be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal accepted. *******