JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 29, 1993 of Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City, whereby the appellant, Fodan Singh has been convicted and sentenced as under: U/s. 302 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-. U/s. 498-A I.P.C. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 201 I.P.C. Three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Deceased Smt. Asso was married to the appellant about 7-8 years prior to her death. She died on or about September 4, 1989 at her inlaws house in village Tantali. The report of the incident was made by RW. 3, Moni Singh, the father of the deceased on 11.9.89 i.e. after 7 days of the death. The report is Ex.R 8 on the record. It was stated in the report that at the time of the marriage of his daughter Smt. Asso, he had given presentation as per his capacity, but the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of her daughter were not happy and they were demanding more silver and gold. It was also stated that his daughter Smt. Asso used to make complaints through others that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, Jeth and other family members were harassing her for dowry and she was also being taunted for not giving birth to a child. It was also stated in the report that the father-in-law, mother-in- law, Jeth and other family members of her daughter committed murder after conspiring and her dead body was cremated in the night itself. It may be stated here that the report is a typed one. On this report, the S.H.O. Police Station, Todabhim, registered Crime No. 224/89 under section 304-B IPC. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against six persons, namely, the appellant, Fodan Singh, Sawai Singh, Smt. Maya Devi, Hanuman Singh, Janak Singh and Kishan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 120-B I.RC. However, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge vide his order dated, 26.2.92 discharged all the accused persons except the appellant. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A I.P.C. were framed against the appellant. 3. However, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge vide his order dated, 26.2.92 discharged all the accused persons except the appellant. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A I.P.C. were framed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examination 14 witnesses. No witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Court placing reliance on the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no legal evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. Learned counsel contended that there is no evidence on record that Smt. Asso met an unnatural death and after that she was cremated in an unusual manner. Learned counsel further contended that from the evidence on record it transpires that Smt. Asso died on account of a snake bite. 5. After going through the entire material on record and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor at length, we find that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained as there is no legal evidence to prove any of the offences against him. 6. PW. 1 Sethu Singh, is a resident of village Dantli. His evidence does not prove any incriminating circumstances against the appellant. He has only stated that while he was sitting under a Neem tree infront of his house Mool Singh and Sawai Singh were seen coming from the side of cremation ground and when they were asked, they replied that the wife of Fodan Singh appellant has died and they were returning after her cremation. On an enquiry, they also informed that she died on account of snake bite in the previous night. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was no on visiting terms with Fodan Singh and other villagers of Poora-Ka-Bas, where he resided.P.W. 2-Vijendra Singh is another witness of village Dantli. He has stated that the appellant Fodan Singh used to keep his wife well and she had died on account of a snake bite. He also stated that Fodan Singh's wife was not subjected to harassment by her mother-in-law or Jethani etc. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.P.W. 3-Moni Singh is the father of the deceased. He has stated that the marriage of his daughter Asso with appellant, Fodan Singh had taken place about 8 years ago and he had spent about Rs. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.P.W. 3-Moni Singh is the father of the deceased. He has stated that the marriage of his daughter Asso with appellant, Fodan Singh had taken place about 8 years ago and he had spent about Rs. 50,000/- at the time of her marriage, but her `Gona' was made after one year of her marriage. The witness then made a vague allegation that after her 'Gona' ceremony Smt. Asso used to be harassed and beaten by her Jethani Smt. Munna wife of Jagdish Singh, wife of Bhawani Singh, her mother-in-law, her sister-in-law Maya, Bhawani Singh and Jagdish Singh. Even in that statement no allegation was made against the appellant about beating to her daughter. The information to the witness was given by one Geeta. However, Geeta has not supported this version.In cross-examination, the witness stated that no particular demand was ever made by the appellant-Fodan Singh, his mother or father. After going through the entire statement of the witness we find that his statement is quite vague and in any case, it does not connect the appellant with the crime. Here it will be convenient to state that the prosecution has placed reliance on certain letters which have been produced by the prosecution. However, those letters do not help the prosecution at all. First, it is not proved by whom those letters have been written. Admittedly, deceased Smt Asso was an illiterate lady and none of the letters is in her writing. Even after going through the letters we do not find any incriminating circumstance against the appellant.PW. 4-Surendra Kumar Gupta was Head Constable at Police Station, Hindaun City on 15.1.89. He has only recorded statements of some of the witness under Section 161 Cr.PC.PW. 5 is Jal Singh, S.H.O. On 11.9.89 he was posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Todabhim and on the basis of the report he registered crime No. 224/89 under Section 304 I.PC.PW. 6 is Smt. Shankuntala mother of the deceased. In her examination in chief she stated that her daughter Smt. Asso was married 6-7 years prior to the incident. Her 'gona' ceremony was held after one year of her marriage. Then she has stated that when her daughter came from her in-laws house, she told her to arrange a residential plot in Hindaun City. In her examination in chief she stated that her daughter Smt. Asso was married 6-7 years prior to the incident. Her 'gona' ceremony was held after one year of her marriage. Then she has stated that when her daughter came from her in-laws house, she told her to arrange a residential plot in Hindaun City. She also has stated that the accused-appellant used to assault her daughter and demanded a residential plot at Hindaun. In cross-examination she has admitted that Smt. Mano is Jethani of her daughter Asso and she daughter of younger brother of her husband. He, then stated that Smt. Mano was having quarrel with Smt. Asso and the accused used to beat her at the instance of Smt. Manno. She also admitted that in her statement, Ex.D. 1, there is no mention about demand of residential plot. She also stated that the mother and father-in-law of her daughter were not happy as she did not give birth to a child.PW. 7 - Shanti Devi is the wife of Roop Singh, younger brother of Moni Singh father of the deceased. He has also made a vague statement that Bhawani Singh, Smt. Manno are Jeth and Jethani of Smt. Asso and they used to harass her for dowry. In cross-examination she admitted that Smt. Manno was her daughter. Smt. Manno is the jethani of Smt. Asso. She also stated that Smt. Asso used to tell that she did not want to live at her in-laws house on account of Smt. Manno. She also admitted that Smt. Asso did not say anything against the appellant. She also admitted that in her statement (Ex.D. 2), there is no mention about the demand of a plot by the in-laws of the deceased.PW. 8 is Kedar Singh. He is a resident of village Mothiapura where the father of the deceased resided. The daughter of this witness is also married to one Madan Singh in village Dantli. He has stated that he never went to village Dantli. According to the witness he was asked by RW. 3 Moni Singh and Anoop Singh to go at Dantli to enquire about the cause of death of their daughter. Thereupon, he went there where he was informed by the father of the appellant that she died on account of a snake bite, while other villagers told that she was killed and then murdered. 3 Moni Singh and Anoop Singh to go at Dantli to enquire about the cause of death of their daughter. Thereupon, he went there where he was informed by the father of the appellant that she died on account of a snake bite, while other villagers told that she was killed and then murdered. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not meet the neighbourers of the appellant and he stayed only 15-20 minutes at the house of Kesari Singh, father of the appellant.PW. 9 Anoop Singh is the younger brother of Moni Singh, father of Smt. Asso. He has only given a vague statement that her in laws used to harass Smt. Asso for dowry and that she used to complain against her father-in-law, Jethani and the appellant. He has then stated that he received a Post Card whereby he was informed that Smt. As so was done to death by strangulation. However, the name of the scribe was not written and thereafter, Kedar Singh was sent to enquire into the matter. In cross-examination, admitted that Smt. Manno is his niece and she is also married in village Dantli. She is wife of elder brother of the appellant and he did not have a talk with Smt. Manno. He also admitted that in his Police statement (Ex.D. 3) he did not state about the demand of a plot or for constructing a `Pator'.PW. 10-Kelia is of village Dantli. RW. 11-Mst. Saroj is wife of Bhagwan Singh of village Dantli. RW. 12 is Smt. Geeta wife of Madan Singh of village Dantli. None of these witnesses have supported the prosecution case. They are neighbourers having their houses near the house of the appellant in village Dantli.PW. 13- Prabhati Lal and RW. 14-Man Singh are Police Officers and they have spoken nothing against the appellant. 7. A careful examination of the above evidence makes it clear that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that Smt. Asso had met with an unnatural death. The evidence regarding the demand of a residential plot appears to be an after thought as this fact does not find place either in the report or in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.RC. Smt. Geeta wife of Madan Singh has not supported the prosecution case that the deceased Smt. Asso used to be harassed by her in-laws. Smt. Geeta wife of Madan Singh has not supported the prosecution case that the deceased Smt. Asso used to be harassed by her in-laws. The marriage had taken place 7-8 years prior to the incident. It also appears that immediately after the occurrence it was disclosed to all that Smt. Asso had died on account of snake bite. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the evidence on record we find that there is no convicting legal evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 29.5.93 as well as the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is in custody. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******