L. M. GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) IT is a sad tale we have here - Sandhya Ruj, a girl of tender age, met her death ultimately as a result of some injuries caused by throwing of acid. Two other persons - the younger brother and the younger sister of Sandhya Ruj - were also said to have been injured by the said acid throwing. ( 2 ) ON 24-4-84, Sandhya Ruj, Nimai Ruj and Alo Ruj were sleeping in the western room of the house belonging to PW-1, Kshirode Gopal Ruj. Sandhya was the daughter of PW-1, Kshirode Gopal, and PW-3, Sushama Ruj. On that date, in the night, while the three were sleeping, suddenly an alarm was raised by the three children of Sushama that they were having burning sensation. They all came upon the verandah. Sushama herself was sleeping that night on the verandah. PW-1, Sushama s husband had been outside to see a picture. Before PW-1 came back home, Sandhya and others were taken to the hospital. After PW-1 came back, PW-3 narrated the incident to him. PW-1 went to the hospital at first and then to the P. S. Sandhya had suffered burning injuries and she could not speak well for first 2/3 days. From the hospital, PW-1 went to the P. S. and there he delivered an FIR, written by Biswanath, a neighbour. Police took up the investigation of the case. After about four days, the prosecution alleges, Sandhya made some statement to the mother and uncle, implicating the accused. On 24-4-84, the 1. 0. got information about the name of the accused from Sandhya Ruj at 10. 30 A. M. Sandhya ultimately died on 15-5-84 at the hospital. ( 3 ) THE accused, Bhombal Roy Kartick, faced trial on two charges: on the charge under Section 304 of the IPC for causing the death of Sandhya the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and also under Section 307 of the IPC for attempting to cause death of Ale Ruj and Nimai Ruj. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC for causing the death of Sandhya. He, however, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused, Bhombal, has preferred this appeal from jail. Mr. Subrata Ghosh and Mr. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC for causing the death of Sandhya. He, however, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused, Bhombal, has preferred this appeal from jail. Mr. Subrata Ghosh and Mr. Anami Sikdar appear for the Appellant. Mr. Arun Mukherjee has appeared for the State. Mr. Ghosh has contended that there is no legal evidence against the accused appellant. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the Court has to look into the probabilities of the case having regard to the surrounding circumstances. ( 4 ) HAVING gone through the materials in their entirety, we find that there is absolutely no legal evidence on which the conviction of the accused could be founded. It is no doubt a sari tale that a girl of tender age met her death because of the mislead of some miscreant. It is also sad that the facts could not be brought to the surface and the guilty could not be hanled up. But even then, we must dispose of the case on the legal evidence and suspicion cannot be any substitute for legal evidence. ( 5 ) MAINLY speaking, the evidence against the accused consists of the dying declaration of the deceased. This dying declaration, as per evidence, consists of two parts: first it is said that Sandhya, after her condition became a little better, made a dying declaration to PW-3, the mother and PW-5, the uncle, that apart, secondly the dying declaration of Sandhya was also reduced into writing by PW-9, the Magistrate. Coming first to the oral evidence of the dying declaration, we again refer to the evidence of PW s. 3and 5. So far as the material part of the evidence of PW-3 is concerned, it is that Sandhya narrated in the hospital that the accused, Bhombal, used to tease her on her way to the school and also on her way to fetch water and used to offer to marry her and also to go to the pictures. The further narration is that on her refusal, he threatened to put her to death by burning. Similar is the evidence of PW5, the uncle. The further narration is that on her refusal, he threatened to put her to death by burning. Similar is the evidence of PW5, the uncle. We find that taking this evidence as cent percent true, we do not get that the accused was responsible for offence, though such might have been his anterior conduct and unbecoming behaviour. We do not attach much importance to the criticism made on behalf of the appellant that the girl did not narrate the story to PW-2, a neighbour, who is supposed to be an independent witness. It is not an inflexible rule or a universal mode of conduct that the dying declaration must be repeated in presence of all. The girl might have narrated the incident to her dear mother and the uncle but not to PW-2, though he might have been present in the hospital on occasions after Sandhya regained her consciousness. Nothing turns upon that. But as referred to earlier, the evidence of PW5. 3 and 5 cannot be considered sufficient to fix the responsibility upon the appellant. The appellant might have made overtures and gestures towards Sandhya and even might have been guilty of misdemeanour but from that alone we cannot come to the conclusion that he must have thrown the acid upon Sandhya. That would be harbouring suspicion and basing judicial conviction on mere suspicion. ( 6 ) THE same is to be said about the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, PW-9. Ext. 5 is that dying declaration. This Ext. 5 contains similar narration as deposed by PW5. 3 and 5. Then there is a summing up that except the accused Bhombal Roy the girl does not suspect any other person. She repeats in Ext. 5 that it is her impression that Bhombal must have thrown the acid. That is to say, her statement is based on inference or conjectures. Ext. 5 itself makes it clear. Nowhere, either in course of statement before the witnesses, or in Ext. 5, the girl made a statement that she saw the appellant throwing acid. Such being the position pronounce there is no legal evidence to sustain ultimately the conviction of the accused appellant, however suspicious the circumstances relating to him might be. As there is no legal evidence about the act itself of the accused, he cannot be held guilty under any circumstances. Such being the position pronounce there is no legal evidence to sustain ultimately the conviction of the accused appellant, however suspicious the circumstances relating to him might be. As there is no legal evidence about the act itself of the accused, he cannot be held guilty under any circumstances. We find that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. Accordingly, he must be acquitted. ( 7 ) THE appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan, convicting the accused under Section 304 (part-I) of the IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i/d to R. I. for 6 months, are hereby set aside. The accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 30-4 (part-I) of the IPC and is acquitted of the charge. He be released at once, if not required to be detained in connection with any order offence or case. Appeal allowed.