JUDGMENT M. K. Mukherjee, C. J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 22, 1978 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IInd Court, Mainpuri convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years, respectively, with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. The parents of the appellant who were also placed on trial to answer the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code were however acquitted. 2. The case for the prosecution briefly stated is as under: - In the afternoon of April 3,1977, the appellant, who is a resident of village Biltigarh within the police station of Khairgarh, went to the police station and lodged an information stating, inter alia, that his wife Krishna Devi was a chronic patient of rheumatism and in spite of best treatment she could not be cured. Owing to such ailment she was having occasional depressive fits and wanting to take away her life. In the early morning of that day, he could not find her in the house and on search some clothings belonging to her were found on the rign of well of Narain Kacchi of their village. He immediately thought that she had committed suicide by drowning and ultimately found her dead body inside the well. On that information, a case of suicide was registered and Sub-Inspector Ramdas case. He held inquest upon the dead body and then sent if for post mortem examination. As the report of the post mortem examination indicated that it was a case of murder, the police converted the case into one under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and his parents. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and his defence, needless to say, was that his wife had committed suicide. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined @ witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Surajmukhi (P.W. 1), her father Sunehari Lal (P.W. 2) and Nihal Singh (P.W. 3), all of whom are residents of the same village, did not support the case of prosecution at all and hence they were declared hostile. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Surajmukhi (P.W. 1), her father Sunehari Lal (P.W. 2) and Nihal Singh (P.W. 3), all of whom are residents of the same village, did not support the case of prosecution at all and hence they were declared hostile. The prosecution, therefore, rested its case upon Jahqri (P.W. 3) a resident of a different place altogether, who claimed to have heard a splashing sound in the well on the fateful night and seen the appellant present there, Shiv Kumar (P.W. 4), a cousin of the deceased, who claimed that appellant used to ill-treat his wife, Daulat Ram (P.W. 6), the village pradhan, who testified that the appellant confessed his guilt before him and Dr. P. P. Gupta (P.W. 8) who held the post mortem examination and opined that the death of the victim was by strangulation. The learned Trial Judge, however, outright rejected the testimonies of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 as, according to him, they were not truthful witnesses hut relying upon the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 8. He recorded the impugned order of conviction and sentence. 5. Having carefully gone through the evidence on record, while we are in complete agreement with the learned Trial Judge that the testimonies of P.Ws. 3 and 8 cannot at all be relied upon, we are unable to hold that the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 can be made the sole basis of conviction of the appellant. 6. In the context of the charges levelled against the appellant the prosecution has to first conclusively prove that Krishna Devi was murdered. To prove this part of its case the prosecution solely relied upon the evidence of P.W. 8. In the post mortem report and in his initial testimony the doctor opined that death of Krishna Devi was due to strangulation and not by drowning, but then in cross examination, he admitted that he did not find any ligature mark to indicate that she had been strangulated. He next admitted that he did not gel any mark of throttling. Lastly he stated in cross examination that even in certain cases of drowning water might not be found in the stomach of the victim as was the case in hand. He next admitted that he did not gel any mark of throttling. Lastly he stated in cross examination that even in certain cases of drowning water might not be found in the stomach of the victim as was the case in hand. In view of the above answers elicited in cross-examination, the opinion of the doctor that it was a case of strangulation and not of drowning cannot be treated sacrosanct so as to conclude that the victim was murdered. 7. The evidence of P.W. 4, even if it is accepted on its face value, only proves that the appellant had a motive for killing his wife, but only proof of motive cannot prove die offence. 8. On the conclusions as above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant committed the murder of his wife and threw her dead body in the well. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under sections 302/201 I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.