JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Smt. Tammu was tried by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Banswara on the charges Under Sections 302 & 309 Indian Penal Code. After examining the prosecution witnesses, recording the statement of the accused appellant, Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that both the charges were proved. Consequently, he convicted the appellant Under section 302 as well as 309 Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- and rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine for the offence punishable Under section 302 Indian Penal Code and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine for the offence punishable Under section 309 Indian Penal Code. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded by the report submitted Under section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is to the effect that on the night intervening 14/15.5.1980, one Ratan Lal Lohar quarrelled with Smt. Tammu the appellant and, threatened to defame her on the next morning and on account of this incident Smt. Tammu attempted to commit suicide by jumping herself inside the well and also caused the death of her 7 years old son by pushing him inside the well. The FIR about the incident was submitted by Shri Shanker on 15.5.1980 in which it was stated by him that Smt. Tammu alongwith her son had fallen inside the well and it was not known as to how she fell in the well. It was also stated in the FIR that while Smt. Tammu is alive, her son had died and his dead body was floating on the water and that Smt. Tammu had been taken out of the well by the villagers, who reached at the spot. On the basis of this information, proceedings Under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code were commenced. Thereafter the police registered a case under Sections 302 & 309 of the Indian Penal Code and after usual investigation submitted a challan in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, where Smt. Tammu was tried and convicted as described above. 4. Thereafter the police registered a case under Sections 302 & 309 of the Indian Penal Code and after usual investigation submitted a challan in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, where Smt. Tammu was tried and convicted as described above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case there is no evidence worth the name to prove that Smt. Tammu caused the death of her son or that she attempted to commit suicide and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are not justified by the evidence produced by the prosecution. 5. We have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Shanker, PW 2 Kachru, PW 3 Kalu Ram, PW 4 Kachru, PW 5 Ratan Lal, PW 6 Dr. P.K. Jain, PW 7 Moti Singh, PW 8 Mohan Lal, S.H.O. and PW 9 Sajjan Singh. 6. Shanker (PW 1) is the person, who had lodged the FIR (Ex. P/1). According to him at about 7.30 a.m. Smt. Tammu was found inside the well and the child by that time had died. The well in which Smt. Tammu and her child's dead body was found was used for the purpose of fetching water by the villagers. Shanker has clearly stated that he did not see Smt. Tammu falling in the well or jumping into the well. Kachru (PW 2) has given evidence to the effect that at about 6.30 a.m. he heard rumour that Shanker Luhar's wife had fallen into the well. Therefore, he went to the well alongwith two other villagers and saw that Smt. Tammu was standing inside the well and her child's dead body was floating in the water. At that time Kalu Ram, Balji Patel and Shanker and several other villagers took out Smt. Tammu from the well with the help of ropes. Thereafter the FIR was lodged. In his cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that there was no bad blood between Tammu and her husband or Smt. Tammu and her in-laws, nor Smt. Tammu was angry with her child and no body had made any complaint against the character of Smt. Tammu. Kalu Ram (PW 3) has also given a similar statement. This witness has, however, been declared hostile by the prosecution. Kalu Ram (PW 3) has also given a similar statement. This witness has, however, been declared hostile by the prosecution. There is nothing in the statement of this witness to prove that Smt. Tammu jumped into the well for committing suicide or caused the death of her child by pushing or throwing him inside the well. Kachru (PW 4) is an eye-witness of the fact that Smt. Tammu was taken out of the well. He has not supported the prosecution story. He has also been declared hostile. 7. Ratan Lal (PW 5) is one of the relatives of the appellant. According to his statement Smt. Tammu had three sons, Ramesh, Dinesh and Gajendra and on the date of alleged occurrence Ramesh was in Bombay and the husband of the appellant had gone to see a fair alongwith Amba Lal and Gajendra leaving the appellant and her son Dinesh at the house. Ratan Lal (PW 5) has further added that on the night of the occurrence he did not see Sajjan Singh the Forester entering into the house of Smt. Tammu nor he on that night talked to Shri Sajjan Singh. There is nothing in the statement of Ratan Lal (PW 5) to prove the alleged offences. 8. Dr. P.K. Jain (PW 6) is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dinesh aged 7 years, who is alleged to have been murdered by the appellant by throwing him inside the well. The post-mortem report (Ex. P/11) has been proved by Dr. P.K. Jain. According to him, the cause of death was drowning in water. Rigor mortis was present and white froth was coming out from both the nostrils and there was dirty water present in the stomach. But the quantity of the water in the lungs was about half a glass. But he has opined that in cases of drowning, water can be taken out of the stomach though in the present case he does not know whether water had been taken out from the stomach or not. 9. Moti Singh, Head Constable (PW 7) has deposed that Shanker (PW 1) gave an information to the Station House Officer Mohan Lal and that information was sent to him by the Station House Officer. He registered a case on the basis of that information. Mohan Lal (PW 8) is the Investigating Officer. 9. Moti Singh, Head Constable (PW 7) has deposed that Shanker (PW 1) gave an information to the Station House Officer Mohan Lal and that information was sent to him by the Station House Officer. He registered a case on the basis of that information. Mohan Lal (PW 8) is the Investigating Officer. Sajjan Singh (PW 9) has simply stated that he never went to the house of the appellant but he had heard that Shanker's wife had fallen inside the well. This witness has also been declared hostile. 10. A resume of the prosecution evidence given above clearly shows that there is nothing to suggest much less prove that the appellant committed the murder of her son Dinesh by pushing him or throwing him inside the well or she attempted to commit suicide by throwing herself into the well. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant Under Sections 302 & 309 Indian Penal Code was unjustified and cannot be sustained. The learned Sessions Judge has not given any cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant committed the offences with which she was charged. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge appear to be based more on conjectures than on proper appreciation of the evidence. The alleged motive to commit suicide and cause the death of her son is said to be the rape committed on the appellant on the night intervening 14/15.5.1980 by Sajjan Singh (PW 9). Sajjan Singh has not supported the prosecution case in this behalf. The learned Sessions Judge has in his judgment relied upon the statements of Kalu Ram and Kachru, who as stated above, do not appear to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Kalu Ram (PW 3) has been declared hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case and Kachru (PW 2) has proved this fact that Smt. Tammu the appellant was found standing inside the well and the dead body of her son was floating in the water and that with the help of ropes the appellant was taken out from the well. In her statement recorded Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant has stated that she had gone to the well to fetch water. In her statement recorded Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant has stated that she had gone to the well to fetch water. At that time her child slipped in the well and in order to take her son out of the well she entered in the well and as she was lame she slipped and thereafter she stood inside the well by holding a stone and that she was taken out of the well on the same day at about 8 a.m. The explanation given by the accused-appellant in her statement Under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be discarded as false, particularly when the prosecution has altogether failed to discharge its burden to prove the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The burden in criminal cases to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution and it never shifts and wherever the statute requires certain intention or knowledge or both on the part of the accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that intention or knowledge with which the alleged act was committed. In the present case the prosecution has completely failed to prove that Dinesh was pushed into the well by the appellant or that the appellant herself jumped into the well. The intention to commit suicide or to cause the death of her son Dinesh has also not been proved by the prosecution by its evidence. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in saying that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be maintained and must be set aside. 11. We, therefore, accept the appeal. Set aside the verdict of conviction as well as sentence imposed on the appellant. Acquit her of the charges Under Sections 302 & 309 Indian Penal Code and hereby cancel her bail bonds. She need not surrender.Appeal Allowed. *******