Honble ARORA, J.—These two appeals one through jail and the another represented, are directed against the judgment dated January 31, 1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. (2) The appellant, alongwith Smt. Rambha, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge Pali, for the offences under Sections 302/34, 392/34 and 397/34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted accused Smt. Rambha, but convicted the present appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. He, however acquitted the accused-appellant of the offences under Section 392/34 and 397/34 IPC. (3) The case of the prosecution is that on 9-6-1981, Seeta alongwith Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha went to jungle for collecting wood. In the afternoon, accused Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha came back but Seeta did not return. The case of the prosecution further is that Seeta was murdered by Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha by throating and her dead-body was thrown by them in the water course and thereafter the accused threw a stone weighing about 6 kg. on her. This incident was witnessed by PW 8 Magna Ram and PW9 Kana Ram. PW 2 Chuna Ram was the person who had seen the accused going towards the jungle alongwith deceased Seeta and saw the accused-appellant and Smt. Rambha coming from the jungle and at that time Seeta was not with them. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses. The nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution, consists of the statement of PW 8 Magna Ram and PW 9 Kana Ram who are said to be the eye witnesses of occurrence. PW 2 Chuna Ram is the person who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused-appellant Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha. PW 1 Gamna, PW 5 Narsingh, PW 6 Durga and PW 7 Nariya and the four persons who went in search of Seeta as she did not return to the house and found her dead-body in the jungle from where it was brought to the village. PW 3 Shaitan Singh is the witness the arrest of both the accused. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of the ornaments belonging to the deceased Seeta. The arrest memo Ex. P.1 and Ex.P.2 and the recovery memo Ex. PW 3 Shaitan Singh is the witness the arrest of both the accused. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of the ornaments belonging to the deceased Seeta. The arrest memo Ex. P.1 and Ex.P.2 and the recovery memo Ex. P. 3 bear his signatures. PW 4 Mool Singh is the Motbir witness, in whose presence the dead-body of Seeta was recovered vide Ex. P. 5. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of the clothes of the deceased, which were recovered vide EX P.6. PW 10 is Dhagla Ram, the father-in-law of the deceased Seeta, who has been produced to show that deceased Seeta was engaged with his son Narain and at the time of the engagement, two Karaliyas of hands and legs and one Hansli were given by him to has daughter-in-law Seeta about two and 2- years before, which were got manufactured from Bhanwar Lal Sunar (PW 11). PW 11 Bhanwar Lal Sunar is the witness who manufactured the ornaments Article. These Article, were identified by Bhanwar Lal Sunar (PW 11) vide Ex.P. 8 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate during the Identification. PW 12 Dr. Sohan Singh conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased Seeta and found two ligature marks below chin with transverse wounds and according to him the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. PW 13 Daulat Singh is the Station House Officer, Incharge, Police Station, Siriyari, who registered the First information Report, conducted the investigation and presented the challan against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial disbelieved the two eye-witnesses, viz., PW 8 Magna Ram and PW 9 Kana Ram, but, however, he accepted the evidence of PW 2 Chuna Ram regarding the last seen of the accused alongwith the deceased while they were going to the jungle. The learned Sessions Judge, also, placed reliance over the recovery of four Karliyas and one Hansli made at the instance and on the basis of the information supplied by him. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 and 379. IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 IPC. Both the sentence were directed to run concurrently. The learned Session Judge however, acquitted the accused-appellant of the offences under Section 392/34 and 397/34 IPC. IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 IPC. Both the sentence were directed to run concurrently. The learned Session Judge however, acquitted the accused-appellant of the offences under Section 392/34 and 397/34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, also, did not find any case against accused Smt. Rambha and acquitted her of all the charges. (4) PW 8 Magna Ram and PW 9 Kana Ram are the two eye witnesses of the occurrence. These witnesses are chance witnesses. Their presence at the scene of the occurrence was not probable. They have stated that they saw the accused killing Seeta but they did not make any effort to save the girl. Even after the occurrence they did not narrate the incident to any person. They even did not inform any person of the village that these accused have committed the offence or that they killed the deceased. Though they kept mum for about 24 hours but on the next day, they informed Narsingha that they had seen the accused killing the deceased. PW 5 Narsingha has stated that the was informed by PW 9 Kana Ram that he had seen the accused-appellant Kankudi and Smt. Rambha throttling Seeta, but the other three witness, viz., PW 1 Gamna, PW 6 Durga and PW 7 Nariya, have not supported this part of the story. PW 1 Gamna and PW 7 Nariya have specifically stated that nobody met them in the way and when they reached in the jungle, they found the dead-body of Seeta lying there. The conduct of these witnesses coupled with the circumstances of the case, clearly shows that these two witnesses had not seen the occurrence and they were not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence does not inspire confidence and the learned Sessions Judge was justified in discarding the evidence of these two witnesses. (5) The circumstance, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court is that the deceased Seeta was last seen with the accused-appellant and Smt. Rambha going in the jungle for collecting the wood and after sometime, accused-appellant Kankudi and Smt. Rambha returned from the jungle but at that time Seeta was not with them. (5) The circumstance, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court is that the deceased Seeta was last seen with the accused-appellant and Smt. Rambha going in the jungle for collecting the wood and after sometime, accused-appellant Kankudi and Smt. Rambha returned from the jungle but at that time Seeta was not with them. PW 2 Chuna Ram has stated that about twelve months before he saw Smt. Kankudi, Smt. Rambha and deceased Seeta going towards the jungle while he was at his well and at about 12.00/1.00 p.m. Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha returned from the jungle but at that time Seeta was not with them. In the evening, Narsingha, Gamna, Nariya and Durga met him, who were going in search of Seeta and to whom he informed that he had seen the accused-appellant Kankudi. Smt. Rambha and Seeta going towards the forest and thereafter he saw the accused-appellant Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha coming from the jungle. This witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that several times before also, he had seen Seeta going in the jungle with the accused and several time saw them returning separately. Seeta used to return from the forest several times alone and several times alongwith the accused. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the persons going in the way cannot be identified by a person standing on the well of his field. He has further admitted that he could not identify the persons who were going in the way on that day as he was not concerned with it. If certain other persons had passed through that way, he had not taken note of because the girl had died, therefore, it struck to his mind. He has, also, admitted that he cannot say on what date and which person passed through that way. He even admitted that he could not say that yesterday how much and who were the persons who passed through that way. This witness cannot identify the persons who passed through the way even on the earlier day and has specifically admitted that the person passing through the way cannot be identified by a person standing near the well. He even admitted that he could not say that yesterday how much and who were the persons who passed through that way. This witness cannot identify the persons who passed through the way even on the earlier day and has specifically admitted that the person passing through the way cannot be identified by a person standing near the well. Moreover, PW 1 Gamna and PW 7 Nariya did not corroborate the statement of PW 5 Narsingha regarding the going of them to this witness and making an enquiry from him regarding the whereabouts of Seeta. PW Gamna has specifically stated that Narsingha came to him and asked that Seeta has not come to the house so we should make a search for her and thereafter he, Narsingha Durgiya and Nariya went in search of Seeta and found her dead-body in the jungle. In the way, nobody met them, but Kana Ram and Magna Ram, of course, met Narsingha. PW 7 Nariya has stated that Narsingha came to him while he was in the field and informed him that he knows that Seeta has been murdered by Smt. Rambha and Smt. Kankudi and the dead-body of Seeta is lying in the Kankad so he should accompany him, and so he along with others, went to the Kankad where the dead-body of Seeta was found. These two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case on this point. Of course, PW 5 Narsinga and PW 6 Durga have stated that PW 2 Chuna informed them regarding going of Seeta alongwith the accused. This witness Chuna has admitted in the cross-examination that several times, Seeta used to go with the accused Smt. Kankudi and Smt. Rambha in the forest for collecting the wood and several times, she used to come alone. It was not only on that day that she went with them and, therefore, nothing can be turned-up on this evidence. Moreover, it was not possible for this witness to have identified the deceased going with the accused persons. Taking an over-all view of the statement of this witness, it cannot be firmly said that this witness has been the accused-appellant and Smt. Rambha going in the jungle alongwith deceased Seeta and, therefore, the statement of this witness does not inspire confidence and no conviction can be based on the testimony of such a witness. Taking an over-all view of the statement of this witness, it cannot be firmly said that this witness has been the accused-appellant and Smt. Rambha going in the jungle alongwith deceased Seeta and, therefore, the statement of this witness does not inspire confidence and no conviction can be based on the testimony of such a witness. (6) Now coming to the recoveries of the silver ornaments made at the instance and on the information supplied by the accused-appellant. Ex. P. 13 is the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the basis of which the recoveries of the silver ornaments were made vide Ex. P/33. After recoveries, the identification of these ornaments were held but the prosecution did not produce Shri Amrit Lal Shah, R.J.S. the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, conducted the identification. Therefore, the identification conducted earlier, also, is of no avail. So far as these silver ornaments are concerned, they are the ornaments which are usually worn by the village ladies in the area and no specific identification marks was found on these ornaments. Even the father and the mother of the deceased Seeta have not been produced by the prosecution for identification of these ornaments. Only the father-in law of deceased Seeta and the gold-smith, who manufactured the ornaments were produced. The father-in-law of deceased Seeta has merely stated that at the time of engagement ceremony, these ornaments were given by him to his daughter in-law-Seeta. PW 11 Bhanwar Lal Sunar has also, stated that he manufactured these ornaments. When no specific identification marks was present on the ornaments and they had seen the ornaments only two years before and these are the ornaments which are worn by the village ladies in that area, then it is not possible to say that these were the same ornaments which were prepared by Bhanwar Lal Sunar and were given to Seeta by her father-in-law. At the most, it can be inferred that these ornaments might have been prepared by Bhanwar Lal Sunar, but whether these were the same ornaments which were given to the deceased by her father-in-law, does not stand proved. Further more, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution on the point that at the time when Seeta went to the jungle at that time she was wearing these ornaments. Further more, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution on the point that at the time when Seeta went to the jungle at that time she was wearing these ornaments. The only evidence that has been produced by the prosecution is that she used to wear these ornaments. The recovery of these ornaments at the instance of the accused, also, does not help the prosecution. Moreover, the evidence produced by the prosecution is the same so far the accused-appellant Kankudi and Smt. Rambha the other co-accused acquitted acquitted are concerned. But the learned Sessions, Judge acquitted co-accused Smt. Rambha while dis-believeing the prosecution case but convicted the accused appellant only on the basis of the recoveries made from her. The case of the prosecution, so far as the murder committed by these two accused, was identical and there was no distinction in the prosecution case so far as the offence committed by them is concerned. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in discriminating the case of these two accused. (7) Now, so far as the offence under Section 379 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence on record implicating the accused-appellant with the offence under Section 379 IPC. So far as the evidence of the eye-witnesses is concerned that has been disbelieved by us and from the evidence produced by the prosecution, no presumption against the accused-appellant can be drawn that she has committed this offence. Such type of ornaments are generally worn by the village women folk. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove the offence under Section 379 IPC, also, against the accused- appellant. (8) The prosecution has, thus, miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant and, also, failed to prove any case against her beyond reasonable manner of doubt. (9) In the result, we allow the appeal, filed by the accused-appellant Smt. Kakudi, set aside the judgment dated January 31, 1983, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant Smt. Kankudi and acquit her of all the offences. She is in jail. She should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.