Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. The appellant Charitra Bhuiyan has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, vide his judgment dated 18th May, 1994 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo irapriment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant and his wife Kawlesia Devi were residing along with their daughter aged about six year at Angarpathra. Chhapparitand, within Katras P.S. in the district of Dhanbad. There were quarrels between wife and husband. In the afternoon of 4-6-1993 the couple fell out tor some unknown reasons and the appellant started assaulting his wife Kawlesia Devi by an iron rod. On seeing her mother being assaulted by the accused, Pramila, daughter of appellant, rushed to her maternal grand-father Biltu Bhuiyan who was working as wagon loader at Angarpathra Colliery. At that time on getting this information the said Biltu Bhuiyan rushed to the house of the appellant and found that the appellant was assaulting his daughter Kawlesia Devi who had sustained multiple injuries and separated the appellant from her who had fallen on the ground. At that time he tried to lift her to be taken to the hospital for medical treatment and he found that she had already expired. In the meantime the officer-in-charge of Angarpathra police station reached there on getting an information of the occurrence and a First Information Report (Ext. 2) was lodged by Biltu Bhuiyaq. 3. During the trial the prosecution examined PW 1 Biltu Bhuiyan, the father-in-law of the appellant and father of the deceased, PW 2 Pramila Devi, the daughter of the accused and the deceased, PW 3 Dr. D. K. Dhiraj of Patliputra Medical College Hospital and PW 4 Dinesh Prasad Shukla. 4. PW 1 Biltu Bhuiyan has stated in his deposition that on getting information from his grand-daughter Pramila Devi (PW 2) he had rushed to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead and her deadbody was found covered with a Chadarsheet. According to him, he went to the house of the accused, he found his daughter Kawlesia Devi lying dead on ground. On being declared hostile the witness was cross examined by the learned prosecutor in course of which his attention was drawn to his statement made in the F.I.R. He also stated that two persons namely Bhuneshwar Turi and Gopal Turi had caught hold of the accused. 5. On being declared hostile the witness was cross examined by the learned prosecutor in course of which his attention was drawn to his statement made in the F.I.R. He also stated that two persons namely Bhuneshwar Turi and Gopal Turi had caught hold of the accused. 5. PW 2 Pramila Devi has stated in court that her mother has died but could not say the cause of her death. She also stated that she had gone to PW 1 but she added that he had gone there with his food. In course of her cross-examination she has stated that her parents were living peacefully and on the day of occurrence they had not fallen out. 6. PW 3 Dr. D.K.. Dhiraj had performed post-mortem examination of the deadbody of the deceased on 5-6-1993 and found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased : (1) Bruise with swelling 4" x 2" on upper part of back and inner portion of right forearm. (2) Bruise with swelling on the lower 2/3rd of the right leg and foot with two lacerations 1" apart 1/4" X 1/4" muscle deep over middle portion of front of the leg. (3) Bruise with swelling 2" X 1-1/4 on left deltoid area. (4) Bruise with swelling on the back of the left forearm and dorsum of hand with a laceration 1/4" X 1/5" muscle deep on the back forearm in the upper third. The muscles were lacerated underneath with fracture of both bones of the forearm at the junction of upper and middle and middle and lower thirds of the forearm. (5) Bruise with swelling on the whole left leg and on the dorsum of the foot with fracture of the middle portion of fibula and a laceration 1/4" X 1/4 X skin deep in the middle third of the front of the left leg. According to him, she had died due to internal haemmorhage and shocks as result of the ante-mortem injuries which might have been caused by an iron rod. 7 PW 4, officer-in-charge of Angarpathra Police Station stated that he got a vague information at about 4.30 p.m. that a woman had been murdered near H.C.C.L. workshop. Thereafter he made an entry in the station diary of the outpost bearing No. 49 dated 4-6-1993 and proceeded tor the site. He reached there at about 5 in the evening. 7 PW 4, officer-in-charge of Angarpathra Police Station stated that he got a vague information at about 4.30 p.m. that a woman had been murdered near H.C.C.L. workshop. Thereafter he made an entry in the station diary of the outpost bearing No. 49 dated 4-6-1993 and proceeded tor the site. He reached there at about 5 in the evening. He has also stated that inside the room on the southern side he found the deadbody of the deceased lying on the ground and some blood had also fallen on the ground. A 3 feet long iron rod was lying by the side of the deadbody. He has also stated that he held inquest of the deadbody in presence of witnesses Harinandan Prasad Gandhi and Ramesh Prasad and prepared inquest report which is Ext. 3 PW 4 also stated that at that place he had recorded the statement of PW 1 Biltu Bhuiyan which is Ext-2. 8. In course of the accuseds statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused has stated that he is a poor rickshaw puller and on that day he arrived at about 3 p.m. in the night and went to bed. Therefore, he could not tell how the deceased had died. 9. Although the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life we find that there is no evidence to connect him with the crime as the evidence of the witnesses discussed above only goes to show that the deceased was found dead in her husbands house by her father who was informed by his grand-daughter. No doubt in cross-examination PW 1 has stated that he was informed by PW 2 Pramila Devi that it was the present accused who had assaulted his daughter. Although earlier he had denied that Pramila Devi had divulged the name of the assailant of her mother. Pramila Devi in her statement has denied that her father was pressing the neck of her mother. Moreover the statement of Pramila Devi to PW 1 that the father had assaulted her mother and therefore she had died cannot be accepted as legal evidence being hearsay to connect the appellant with the crime. 10. Even the statement of PW 2 does not support the prosecution case. Moreover the statement of Pramila Devi to PW 1 that the father had assaulted her mother and therefore she had died cannot be accepted as legal evidence being hearsay to connect the appellant with the crime. 10. Even the statement of PW 2 does not support the prosecution case. At the outset she has stated that although her mother bad died but she could not say in what manner and how. According to her, when she came back with her maternal uncle her mother had already died. Moreover, it is not safe to rely on Pramila Devi, PW 2 who is child witness, to connect the appellant with the crime in view of her contradictory answers to the questions put to her in court. Further Bhuneshwar Turi and Gopal Turi who are alleged to have caught hold of the appellant when PW 1 Biltu Bhuiyan reached in his house along with his grand-daughter have not been exaimined by the prosecution. An adverse inference has to be drawn against it. 11. Further the failure of the Investigating Officer in sending the blood stained earth for chemical examination also goes against the prosecution case. In this connection it needs mention to discuss here that in his testimony PW 4 categorically stated that some blood was found lying on the ground at the spot where the deadbody of the deceased was lying. 12. We are thus left with only the medical evidence. But in absence of any corroborative occular evidence, it is not possible to hold the appellant guilty of charge of murder. 13. At best it is a case where according to the evidence the appellant may have committed the murder of his wife but there is lot of difference between "may have committed" and "must have committed" and the law requires strict proof before a person can be held guilty of such a heinous crime as murder and such a proof is not available in the present case. 14. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the conviction of the appellant and sentence imposed by the trial court are set aside and he is hereby acquitted. Since the appellant is in custody he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. R.N.Sahay, J. 15 I agree.