JUDGMENT 1. -By this appeal the appellant has challenged her conviction Ws. 302 of the IPC sentencing her to imprisonment for life. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal stated in brief are that the appellant-Channani was married to the deceased-Mohan but had illicit relationship with one Maliya. According to the prosecution a report was lodged in the Police Station on 8.2.1994 that Mohan son of Gulab is missing for several days and, therefore, he should be searched. In the report it is stated that he is a medium built and was wearing black shirt and white Dhoti. When he left the house he was not wearing any shoes. 3. On the basis of this report search for missing person called Mohan was undertaken and during investigation it was revealed that he is dead and his cloths were found in an unused qua try approximately 1000' deep. The appellant wife of Mohan was prosecuted for murdering her husband Mohan with the aid and assistance of her paramour Malia who also was prosecuted. 4. 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to support its case which basically was founded on the theory of the accused being seen with the deceased together lastly leaving the village which was their normal abode. There is no eye-witness to the killing. The body of the deceased was not found and consequently there is no post-mortem report. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand on appreciation of evidence found that there is no offence made out against Malia and, therefore, acquitted him but found the evidence of last seen together and certain cloths found in the disused quarry and convicted the wife Channani who being aggrieved by the conviction has preferred this appeal. 6. Arguing the appeal on behalf of the appellant it was strenuously contended on behalf of the appellant that he pressed the following points:- (1) In the absence of any evidence of corpus delicti the conviction is unsus-tainable in law. (2) There is no evidence connecting the accused-appellant with the death, the causing of which itself is not proved. (3) The cloths alleged to be those of the deceased having been proved to be belonging to the deceased by cogent evidence on record, and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that those cloths were of deceased-Mohan assuming that Mohan is dead. (3) The cloths alleged to be those of the deceased having been proved to be belonging to the deceased by cogent evidence on record, and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that those cloths were of deceased-Mohan assuming that Mohan is dead. (4) The learned Judge having rejected the extra-judicial confession has erred in law in convicting the appellant of murder when there was no evidence either of homicidal death or of murder by the appellant. (5) There is no evidence as to the manner in which the death was caused nor is there any evidence sufficient to prove that the death if caused was homicidal. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re-appreciated the evidence on record. PW I Wajki is the mother of Mohan who deposed that her son Mohan and daughter-in-law Channani had gone out to Mataji but she returned alone. On being asked why she came alone she stated that she does not know where she has gone. She was sent hack to search for the husband and she did not return to the village. This witness has also deposed that the disused quarry near Mataji temple was searched and certain cloths were found in it. There is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. All that has been proved by this is, therefore, the fact that her son left the house with his wife and did not return. 8. PW 2 Partiya has deposed that he was told by Channani that she has thrown Mohan in the disussed mine after killing him. The learned Judge has disbelieved his statement. PW 3 Lalu approves the map of the site where Mohan was allegedly killed. This witness has stated that he accompanied accused-Channani to the scene of offence where Channani stated that she pushed Mohan into the quarry and then strangulated him. There being no evidence of strangulation as the body itself was not found this evidence was also not acceptable to the learned Sessions Judge. 9. PW 4 Deva also speaks of accompanying Channani to the scene of offence with Lalu PW 3 and states that Channani stopped the vehicle and pointed out the place where she and Maliya strangulated Mohan. He corroborates presence of Lalu. 10. 9. PW 4 Deva also speaks of accompanying Channani to the scene of offence with Lalu PW 3 and states that Channani stopped the vehicle and pointed out the place where she and Maliya strangulated Mohan. He corroborates presence of Lalu. 10. PW 5 Mangilal speaks of Channani telling him in his presence to Vajki that she killed Mohan. He witnessed recovery of Chaddi. Baniyan. Bushirt. Towel and a diary of Mohan. PW 6 is a truck driver who gave lift to Mohan and Channani and he states that after 20 days of death he heard that Mohan has been killed by his wife. PW 7 Sava Ram states that Channani told him that she and Malia killed Mohan in the disused quarry. He states of recovery of a Chaddi, a Bushirt, a Dhoti, a towel and a diary from the scene of offence. Incidentally he is the only person who states of recovery of dhoti. PW 8 is Kanhaiya Lal. Khalasi of the truck driven by PW 6 in which lift was obtained by Mohan and his wife Channani. The same is the testimony of PW 9 Ratan. PW 10 is also the labourer who was riding the truck in which lift was obtained by Mohan and Channani. 11. PW I 1 Varda is another witness from the village who stated:- " fQj iqfyl okyksa us pan.kh dks okil cqyk;k o dwVk rks pan.kh us dgk fd tksx dk [kknjk esa eSaus ejok;k gSA ekfy;k ls ejok;k gSA " Obviously his statement is before the Police after necessary duress and there fore, is inadmissible in evidence and no reliance could he placed on the same. 12. PW 12 is a Panch witness who proves the seizure memo under which cloths, hair and bones were seized from the scene of offence. PW 13 Mana is the other witness to this seizure. PW 14 is Gulab who states that he was told that her son is missing and is not found inspire of search. She claims Mohan to be his son and admits that his mental equilibrium is disturbed. No reliance can he placed on such witness. PW 15 Man Singh is a Police Officer who recorded the first information report. PW 16 is Narain Singh, constable who took the articles from the Malkhana to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. She claims Mohan to be his son and admits that his mental equilibrium is disturbed. No reliance can he placed on such witness. PW 15 Man Singh is a Police Officer who recorded the first information report. PW 16 is Narain Singh, constable who took the articles from the Malkhana to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 17 is Nandudi who states of relationship between Channani and Maliya. The testimony of this witness is wholly inconsequential. PW 18 is Smt. Lalki who talks of illicit relationship between Channani and Maliya. PW 19 is one Roda who speaks of illicit relationship between Channani and Maliya. PW 20 Jagdish Chandra is the Investigation Officer who investigated the case and has deposed the manner m which and the extent in which investigation was carried on. He states of discovery of human bones from a disused any where some quantity of blood was lying and some cloths were also found. PW 21 Bharugiri is the police constable who carried the other sealed packets from Malkhana to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 22 Dunbar Singh is Police Head Constable who recorded the first information report. 13. It is on appreciation of this evidence and after rejecting the extra-judicial confession that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there is no evidence against accused Malia and proceeded to acquit him. However, relying on evidence of last seen together and the evidence of certain cloths being found proceeded to convict the appellant under section 302 of the IPC as aforesaid. The conviction is challenged on the grounds mentioned above. 14. On re-appreciation of evidence as is noted above we arc of the opinion that on the basis of this evidence the conviction as recorded by the learned Judge is not sustainable in law. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Mohan who was reported to he seen last with the appellant is dead. There is no dead body in the present case. According to the extra-judicial confession which has been allegedly made by Channani accused-appellant-accused persons killed Mohan by pushing him in a 1000' deep quarry and strangulating him there. It is impossible to believe that stray animals around either successfully dehoved the body or removed it from the place leaving the cloths behind. There. is. therefore, no evidence of dead body produced before the police. The prosecution have therefore. It is impossible to believe that stray animals around either successfully dehoved the body or removed it from the place leaving the cloths behind. There. is. therefore, no evidence of dead body produced before the police. The prosecution have therefore. failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mohan is dead. The learned Judge, therefore, erred in recording the conviction in the absence of corpus delict. 15. It is obvious from the evidence on record that the dead body could not have been found in the disused quarry. It is unbelievable that the body was eaten away by stray animals and yet the shirt and dhoti or the under-wear were found intact. It is physically impossible that the stray animals will first depend the body and then will dehov it. 16. The learned Judge should have seen that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged cloths recovered from the disused quarry have not been produced in the Court nor they have been proved to he belonging to the deceased Mohan. In the absence of such proof there is no connection between the cloths found and the deceased nor is there any connection between the accused being last seen with the deceased-Mohan and the discovery of certain cloths. There is no evidence on record stating in unequivocal terms that Mohan was seen last together with the accused-Channani in black shirt and dhoti and the dhoti and the shirt recovered was the same which was used by Mohan while leaving the house. It was necessary for the prosecution to have established this link to sustain the charge of murder against the appellant. The prosecution has failed to rove it and. therefore. the learned Judge has erred in recording a conviction against the 17. Even if the entire prosecution evidence as is discussed by us above is accepted. It is not permissible in law to record a finding that Mohan is dead and that it is an irresistible conclusion from this evidence that his death is caused by Channani. In such circumstances we are unableto sustain the order of conviction. 18. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction as passed by the learned Session Judge, Rajsamand is setaside and the accused-appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required for may other offence.Appeal allowed. *******