Judgment Loknath Prasad and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.1993 passed by Smt. V.P. Singh, Vth Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 675/91 through which she found the sole appellant guilty under Sec. 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short is that the daughter of the informant, Rafail Oraon, namely, Charia Oraih was married in village Ghaghra Tikratoli. But after the death of her husband, she was living in her matrimonial house alone and in the morning of 26.4.1991, the informant learnt from one Bandeo Oraon of village Ghaghra Tikratoli that the appellant, who is the cousin bhaisur of the deceased committed murder of the deceased, the daughter of the informant and after that sprinkled kerosine oil and set fire on the deadbody to destroy the evidence. The informant then along with his son P.W. 1 Ramdeo Oraon and a naphew P.W. 2 Jhawra oraon came to village Ghaghra Tikratoli and found the deadbody of his daughter and also found a jerkin of kerosine oil and a match near the deadbody and there was also scent of kerosine oil near about that. The informant could learn from the villagers that the appellant had illegal connection and established sexual relationship foreibly with the deceased, though the deceased was protesting and when she become pregnent and threatened to make disclosure to her parents, she was done to death. 3. The informant then on 26.4.1991 at about 4 P.M or so lodged the FIR at Bero P.S. in whose jurisdiction the P.O. lies. The police came into action, instituted the case as against the appellant and at the P.O. inquest was prepared and the deadbody was sent for post mortem examination. The police after completing the investigation submitted chargesheet as against the appellant. 4. When the trial was taken up before the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, the appellant claimed himself innocent and denied to have committed the murder of the deceased or had and illegal relationship with her. On the other hand, a defence case was set up that Bande Oraon of the same village had illegal relation with the deceased and so the deceased became pregnent which also caused annoyance to the appellant and out of shame the deceased herself committed suicide by setting fire on her body. On the other hand, a defence case was set up that Bande Oraon of the same village had illegal relation with the deceased and so the deceased became pregnent which also caused annoyance to the appellant and out of shame the deceased herself committed suicide by setting fire on her body. However, the trial court rejected the defence version and accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction, this appeal has been filed and findings of the court below were challenged on various grounds. 5. Admittedly, the deceased was a widow and after the death of her husband, she was living in village Ghaghra Tikratoli alone and appellant is the cousin elder brother (bhaisur) of the husband. The prosecution case is the appellant forcibly established sexual relation with the deceased and when the deceased become pregnent and threatened to make disclosure to her parents, she was done to death by pressing the neck and in order to destroy the evidence, the deadbody was set on fire. 6. To prove the case, on behalf of the prosecution as many as seven witnesses were examined out of them P.W. 4 had been declared hostile and P.W. 5 is a tender witness. P.W. 1 Ramdeo Oraon and P.W. 2 Jhowra Oraon are only hear say witnesses and P.W. 1 is the own brother of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the cousin and both of them came to P.O. alongwith the informant and according to their evidence they learnt about the occurrence, that is, about the murder of their sister from Bandeo Baldeo and this very Baldeo disclosed to them that the appellant had established sexual relationship with the deceased and to avoid detection of pregnency, she was done to death by the appellant, but, surprisingly, the author of the disclosure, that is, from whom these witnesses learnt about the entire occurrence though cited as a witness in the chargesheet, had not been examined. In that view of the matter, the entire evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 will not be admissible; consequently not of any help to the prosecution. 7. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 3 Chimni Orain was examined and she is the only eye witness of the occurrence. In that view of the matter, the entire evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 will not be admissible; consequently not of any help to the prosecution. 7. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 3 Chimni Orain was examined and she is the only eye witness of the occurrence. She had claimed that she is the younger sister of the husband of the deceased and she came to the P.O. in that very house on the relevant day and the deceased who is bhabhi disclosed that the appellant had forcibly established sexual relationship due to that she was in advance stage of pregnency and when the appellant learnt about this fact, he also assaulted P.W. 3 and was annoyed with the deceased as to why she disclosed a facts to her and in the night the appellant and the deceased came together in the house and entered in the room and the appellant also said to the deceased as to why she disclosed all the facts to her and then set fire on the body of the deceased. Due to that, she died. The evidence of this solitary eye witness was criticised by the defence mainly on the ground that her evidence suffers from material infirmity because her conduct appears to be highly suspicious. As this witness had claimed that when the deceased disclosed about the illegal relationship and pregnency, then the appellant became annoyed and also assaulted this witness and also threatened the deceased, but still from the evidence of this witness, it can be said that the deceased and the appellant subsequently came to the residential house of the deceased together and they entered in a room and the appellant set fire on her, but this witness had neither raised any alarm even though she was first of all assaulted by the appellant, nor at the time of setting fire she raised any alarm or tried to extinguish the fire. It appears that the entire conduct of this witness appears to be highly suspicious and not in consonance with the conduct of a prudent person. 8. It appears that the entire conduct of this witness appears to be highly suspicious and not in consonance with the conduct of a prudent person. 8. Moreover, the informant who has figured P.W. 6 also admitted in his evidence that she learnt about the entire occurrence that the deceased was first of all throttled and then she was set on fire, from P.W. 3 then he had gone to the police station, but surprisingly in the FIR practically there is no reference that he learnt about the occurrence from P.W. 3; rather simply claimed that she learnt about the occurrence from the villagers. Moreover, the informant has also admitted in his evidence that 3-4 months prior to the occurrence, the deceased herself made a disclosure to him that the appellant had established sexual relationship forcibly again will and due to that she became pregnent, but surprisingly for that no action was taken and a peculiar case was made that because the deceased made a threatening to the appellant that she will disclose about the affairs to the parents, she was done to death, though actually the deceased had already disclosed about the entire fact to her parents long ago. So the presence of PW 3 and claim of P.W. 3 that she had seen the entire occurrence also appears to be doubtful and in any view of the matter, in such a situation when the evidence appears to be improbable we are not inclined to accept the testimony of this solitary witness. 9. Furthermore, the prosecution case also appears to be doubtful in view of the evidence of P.W. 3, the case made out in the FIR and the evidence of the doctor. It is the prosecution case that first of all the deceased was throttled and after the death burning was made by the appellant by sprinkling kerosine oil, more probably, to destory the evidence, but the evidence of the doctor who has figured as P.W. 7 and held post mortem examination immediately on the deadbody, said that the simply found burn injuries which were anti-mortem in nature and according to the doctor these burn injuries caused the death of the deceased Doctor has not said anything to show whether the tongue of the deceased was protruding as claimed by the witnesses and that there was any sign of throttling. So the evidence of the doctor indicates that P.W. 3 has not seen the occurrence. If the evidence of P.W. 3 appears to be doubtful or at last shaky then it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case as against the appellant because the prosecution case depends solely on this eye-witness and other three witnesses are merely hearsay witnesses and their evidence on this point is not admissible because Baldeo Oroan through whom they learnt about t he occurrence had not been examined. 10. So from the discussion made above, we are inclined to allow this appeal and so much this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by Smt. Vidyut Prabha Singh, 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 675/91 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges and as he is in custody, he is to be released from the custody if not required in any other case.