Judgment B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.1.1980 passed by Sri M.M. Sharan, the then Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in S.T. No. 75 of 1979, whereby, he convicted the accused-appellant Smt. Goriya of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. We have heard counsel and have also gone through the record. The deceased in this case were Km. Parwati aged 3 years and Ram Sahai aged 5 years, both issues of Smt. Goriya accused-appellant and Balua C.W. 2. The prosecution story was that a quarrel had taken place on 1.7.1979 at 11.30 a.m. between Smt. Goriya accused-appellant and her Devrani (wife of her husband's younger brother Bhayya Lal) in which Smt. Goriya and her Devrani were abusing each other, that the accused-appellant took her daughter Km. Parwati in her lap and caught hold of her son Ram Sahai by his hand and threatened that he would throw them in well and would make the entire household accused of their murder and left the village and proceeded towards well, that at 1.00 p.m. she reached at the well of Tapran in rage and pushed both the deceased into the well whereupon, the informant Parwat Lal, Jahar Singh and Luxmi Narain who were at the Tapran for eating Jamun (the fruits of Jamun tree) and saw the pushing of children by her, raised an alarm and rushed towards the well whereupon the accused-appellant ran away from there. Since there was a lot of water in the well, both the deceased drowned. Other villagers also reached at the spot. Parwat Lal informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. on the same day at 3.45 p.m. at P.S. Mehroni, district Lalitpur which was 8 kms. away. The case was registered and inquest proceedings followed, and post-mortem was made which showed death by drowning. 3. At the trial, eye-witness account about the drowning was given by Parwat Lal informant P.W. 1, Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 and Zahar Singh P.W. 3. In her statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the accused-appellant denied the prosecution story of altercation with other women of the house and the throwing of the deceased by her into the well. 3. At the trial, eye-witness account about the drowning was given by Parwat Lal informant P.W. 1, Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 and Zahar Singh P.W. 3. In her statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the accused-appellant denied the prosecution story of altercation with other women of the house and the throwing of the deceased by her into the well. She claimed that the witnesses wanted to force her to leave her house (i.e., her husband's house), that the witness Zahar Singh, Parwat Lal and Luxmi Narain assaulted her husband when he came to meet her in jail and asked him not to meet her, that her husband does not want to leave her but these persons wanted to force him to do so. She further claimed that at that time, she was cooking food as her husband asked her to cook food as he was hungry, that her children went away from the house along with other children for eating Jamun where other children might have pushed them in well or they might have accidentally fallen into the well due to thrust of air. She also claimed that the son of Parwat Lal informant told her that her children have fallen in well, "Main Apne Bachchey Kaise Maar Deti?" 4. The accused-appellant was defended at the trial by an amicus curiae. Witness of inquest Gajraj Singh was discharged by the prosecution. He was subsequently examined at the trial as Court witness at the application of the learned D.G.C. as a witness of motive. Balua, the husband of the accused-appellant was discharged by the prosecution and also not examined by the defence. He was examined by the trial court as C.W. 2. Both C.Ws. were examined after the close of prosecution evidence and the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 5. It is not in controversy that the two deceased died as a result of drowning in the well in question which as per site plan was about 1 km. towards east from the village Bamhauri where the accused-appellant and her husband Balua lived. The site plan shows the presence of the grove in the vicinity in which 3 trees of Jamun and Mahuwa also appeared to be present and two Guava trees were at the eastern side of the well. towards east from the village Bamhauri where the accused-appellant and her husband Balua lived. The site plan shows the presence of the grove in the vicinity in which 3 trees of Jamun and Mahuwa also appeared to be present and two Guava trees were at the eastern side of the well. The prosecution examined 3 eye-witnesses about pushing of the two deceased into the well by the accused-appellant, namely, Parwat Lal, Luxmi Narain and Zahar Singh but all the three witnesses were chance witnesses and chance witnesses are proverbially false. Parwat Lal informant is the cousin brother of Balua, the husband of the accused-appellant and he also claimed that he was co-sharer in the Jamun grove along with Smt. Goriya accused-appellant. However, he did not say that he had gone to the grove to guard it. All that he says is that he along with Zahar Singh and Luxmi Narain witnesses had gone to the grove for eating Jamun. He also claimed that all the 3 had gone together to the grove for this purpose. Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 claimed that he was eating Jamun in the grove at the time of occurrence, accompanied by Parwat Lal and Zahar Singh. Zahar Singh P.W. 3 too claimed that he was eating Jamun in the grove of Tapran accompanied with Parwat Lal and Luxmi Narain. In the ordinary course, while children of the village may be expected to visit the grove for eating Jamun, it does not stand to reason that all the 3 persons together would go to the grove at 1 p.m. for the common purpose of eating Jamun. Another point of importance is that though Parwat Lal informant claimed that the accused-appellant was carrying the children with him in a fit of injured feeling "Khisiyati Aa Rahi Thi" and was pushing the children in the way in hurry and asking them to move fast, he did not claim that he intervened and asked her as to what was the matter. He diluted his assertions by saying that she was not beating the children nor saying that she will push the children in the well. He also stated that she was not holding him (the son) by her hand. He diluted his assertions by saying that she was not beating the children nor saying that she will push the children in the well. He also stated that she was not holding him (the son) by her hand. In the ordinary course, if he was really going in a fit of rage or disenchantment to throw the children into the well, she would certainly be holding the son by the hand while pushing or dragging him forward. 6. Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 claimed that she was holding the son by her hand but did not say in his examination-in-chief that she was crying in anger. Cross-examined, by the defence, he started claiming that she was abusing the child (son) and pulling him forward and going ahead. He further claimed that Parwat Lal informant has asked her as to why she was showing her annoyance but she did not give any reply to it. Thus, he has gone beyond the testimony of the informant about the display of anger and contradicted the informant by claiming that he asked an explanation from the accused-appellant. Zahar Singh P.W. 3 in his examination-in-chief stated that she came along with her children, stood at the Patel of the well and made her son to stand at the Patel and threw the daughter in the well and pushed the son also in the well. Lateron, he stated, "Goriya bachchon se khisyayee huyee aa rahi thi" i.e., she was coming disenchanted with the children. In his cross-examination, he claimed that he saw her coming from a distance of one furlong, that she was coming expressing her anger and some times pushed the children also. He, however, stated that neither he nor the other two witnesses intervened at this. He further stated that she was crying in so high a pitch that they may hear it. It does not stand to reason that if she was going to the well with the purpose of drowning the children into it, she would keep on crying and exhibiting anger so as to attract others, the natural result of which would be that they would intervene and not let her throw the children in the well. It does not stand to reason that if she was going to the well with the purpose of drowning the children into it, she would keep on crying and exhibiting anger so as to attract others, the natural result of which would be that they would intervene and not let her throw the children in the well. His further statement was that 5 to 7 minutes after they had seen her expressing her annoyance, she pushed the children into the well, that she threw the child of the lap and then immediately threw the son (into the well). He then said that she threw both the children into the well all at once. It will be seen that the statements of the witnesses conflict with each other. In the ordinary course, if she was coming in a fit of anger or disenchantment carrying the infant daughter in her lap and holding the hand of her minor son, these three witnesses, if present, would have certainly intervened as to what is the matter and would have let her push or threw the children most of all, the informant must have intervened who was related to her as her Jeth. Another improbability in their testimony is that none of them tried to catch hold of her even though, all these witnesses have claimed with one voice that she had pushed her both issues into the well. Here it may be mentioned that Parwat Lal witness in his examination-in-chief stated "Muljima mehrauli ki taraf pashchim ki taraf chali gayee." meaning thereby that she went away leisurely which could not be expected from her if these three witnesses were around. Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 claimed in his testimony that she ran away from the spot and claimed again that she was running towards Mehrauli and Zahar Singh P.W. 3 also made a similar claim that she ran away towards Mehrauli, however, none of these 3 witnesses claimed to have apprehended the accused-appellant at the spot. If they were present there as claimed by them and the accused-appellant had actually thrown her two innocent children into the well in broad daylight, these 3 witnesses could never have allowed her to escape from the spot. If they were present there as claimed by them and the accused-appellant had actually thrown her two innocent children into the well in broad daylight, these 3 witnesses could never have allowed her to escape from the spot. It is not a case where the culprit is or culprits are armed with a deadly weapon and the witnesses hold their breath and helplessly see the culprit or culprits going away from the spot. Parwat Lal informant P.W. 1 claimed that effort was not made to arrest the accused-appellant because they got themselves busy in saving the children and thought where she could go except to her own house being a woman. 7. Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 stated in his cross-examination that none of them chased the accused-appellant who was running towards Mehrauli in the west. Zahar Singh P.W. 3 also claimed that after she pushed the children into the well, they raised an alarm. He further stated that they did not try to apprehend her and got busy in the search of a rope. Parwat Lal informant claimed that all the three of them ran towards Tapran for taking rope and came to the well with rope but in the meantime, the children had drowned and since water in the well was more, so they could not take out the children. The other two witnesses Luxmi Narain and Zahar Singh claimed alike. It is clear that if they had seen the children being pushed into well, they would have taken out the children from the well and would not have allowed them to die in the well as in the ordinary course rope and Balti are present on well. The story of search for rope is only an eye-wash. They did not claim to have made any effort to take out the children even after the alleged bringing of rope. The evidence is that the bodies were taken out only after the arrival of the police to the spot. So the very presence of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence becomes highly doubtful and consequently their testimony merits rejection. 8. As noted earlier, the informant was not a stranger but was a co-sharer in the grove with the accused-appellant on his own showing. So he could have had a motive for implicating her falsely. He cannot be treated as an independent witness. 8. As noted earlier, the informant was not a stranger but was a co-sharer in the grove with the accused-appellant on his own showing. So he could have had a motive for implicating her falsely. He cannot be treated as an independent witness. The accused-appellant was a woman and if she has really pushed her children including the male son in a fit of rage or disenchantment, she must have herself also jumped and died in the well. But she did not do so. She is also not alleged to have absconded. Parwat Lal, P.W. 1, claimed that after the occurrence, the accused-appellant did not meet her that day but met them on the next day. It would tend to show that she was in the village and did not try to run. Luxmi Narain P.W. 2, admitted in his cross-examination at the fag end that she (the accused-appellant) was present at her house in the evening, "Goriya sham ko apeny ghar per thee". This statement may be read along with the testimony of Parwat Lal informant P.W. 1 in his cross-examination that on the evening of the date of occurrence, Balua husband of the accused-appellant met him in the evening in the village. This showed that accused-appellant and her husband both were in the village in the evening after the occurrence. As noted earlier, if she were the culprit, she would have died herself by jumping in the well or at least absconded and would never have returned to her husband's house and if she returned, her husband would not have spared her once she had pushed not only his daughter but also his only son into the well leading to their death. Something has come in the evidence about uneven terms between the accused-appellant and her husband but whether the terms were even or uneven, he could not have countenanced her at her house after this incident, if she was really guilty. I may mention here that though in his examination-in-chief, the I.O. Kamta Singh P.W. 7 did not tell as to when and where he arrested the accused-appellant. I may mention here that though in his examination-in-chief, the I.O. Kamta Singh P.W. 7 did not tell as to when and where he arrested the accused-appellant. It was, however, elicited from him in cross-examination that on the day following the date of occurrence, he found the accused-appellant present in her house in which her husband lived, "Doosre din mujhe Goriya usi ghar men milee jismen uska admi rahta tha." This statement of the I.O. shows that the aforesaid admissions of these witnesses are not casual admissions of these witnesses but are statements of fact. In our view, the fact that the accused-appellant did not herself jump in well or even abscond but kept on living with her husband as an inmate of his house is an important circumstance in her favour and rules out the prosecution story of the children being pushed by her into the well. 9. The defence of the accused-appellant appears to have been conducted by the amicus curiae apparently more to entrap her rather than to defend her. The prosecution has placed reliance on the various suggestions made by the amicus in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The suggestion to the informant in his cross-examination appeared to be that there were strained relations between the accused-appellant and her husband. The witness pleaded ignorance. He also pleaded ignorance if any quarrel had taken place amongst the woman and if the accused-appellant's husband wanted to keep another woman and wanted to force the accused-appellant to run away. A suggestion was also recorded that he wants to grab the property of the accused-appellant's husband and that this false case has been concocted in concert by him and the elder brother of Balua. Luxmi Narain P.W. 2 was suggested by the amicus curiae that her husband did not want to keep her and marpit used to take place between them. The witness denied the suggestion. Another suggestion was made that his giving evidence against her under the influence of the informant and Balua. Zahar Singh P.W. 3 was also suggested that her husband was keeping another woman and did not want to keep her and so falsely implicated her. The witness also denied the suggestion. 10. The witness denied the suggestion. Another suggestion was made that his giving evidence against her under the influence of the informant and Balua. Zahar Singh P.W. 3 was also suggested that her husband was keeping another woman and did not want to keep her and so falsely implicated her. The witness also denied the suggestion. 10. Now Gajraj Singh who was merely a witness of inquest was examined by the Court as a Court witness at the instance of the D.G.C. (Crl.) and therein he said that on the date of occurrence at 11.30 a.m., he was sitting at the shop of a tailor which was adjoining the house of Smt. Goriya accused-appellant and an altercation had taken place between her and her Devrani who was wife of Bhayya Lal in which they were abusing each other and that Smt. Goriya accused-appellant took her infant daughter in her lap and caught hold of the hand of her son and said, "inko kuyen men fenk aayengey aur ghar bhar ko hatyara banayengey" and saying thus, she left the village, that he stopped her but she did not agree. He was cross-examined by the amicus. In that cross examination, it was elicited that the fact that the quarrel was taken place between Smt. Goriya accused-appellant and her Devrani was not told by him to the I.O. nor did he tell the I.O. about her threatening to throw the children in well. It was further elicited from him in his cross-examination that he did not tell these facts to anyone in the village or to any one else upto the time of his evidence in this Court as Court witness. In view of this admission, little credence could be given to his testimony on the point of motive. A suggestion was no doubt made to the witness by the learned amicus that the husband of the accused-appellant wanted to get some other woman and wanted to turn her out and also turn out the children and a quarrel took place. The witness denied this suggestion. A suggestion was no doubt made to the witness by the learned amicus that the husband of the accused-appellant wanted to get some other woman and wanted to turn her out and also turn out the children and a quarrel took place. The witness denied this suggestion. Nevertheless, there was a suggestion made to the witness that no quarrel took place between the accused-appellant and her Devrani in the presence of this witness and the suggestion was also made to him that she did not take the children and go towards the well and a further suggestion was made that he was giving the testimony under the influence of the I.O. Taking the defence suggestion, it does not by any means follow that because of any such stained relations and some quarrel with the husband, she took the children to the well and threw them into the well. There is a time gap of one and half hours between the altercation in the village where she and her husband lived and the pushing of children into the well which is said to have taken place at 1.00 p.m., at the same day only one km. away from the village. It cannot be believed that if Smt. Goriya had any intention of taking revenge with her Devrani, she would have made a public declaration about it and it is also improbable that this witness Gajraj Singh would try to stop her but fail in the same in the village Abadi. So it cannot be said that the evidence of this witness corroborated the ocular testimony as discussed earlier. An important circumstance that is to be kept in the mind is that the prosecution did not examine the Devrani of the accused-appellant with whom the quarrel is said to have taken place, though, there was nothing in the evidence to show that she had died or had become incapable to give evidence, etc. This circumstance goes very much against the prosecution. 11. There remains the testimony of Balua, the husband of the accused-appellant. It is to be kept in mind that he was not a witness of the defence so what he will say would not bind the defence. This circumstance goes very much against the prosecution. 11. There remains the testimony of Balua, the husband of the accused-appellant. It is to be kept in mind that he was not a witness of the defence so what he will say would not bind the defence. In his cross-examination by the Court, he stated that he did not know whether any quarrel had taken place in her house between his wife Smt. Goriya and the other woman of the house or not. He also stated that he did not know as to how his children Ram Sahai and Parwati fell in the well. Cross-examined by the learned D.G.C., he stated that on the date of occurrence Smt. Goriya had met her in the way at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. near Bandha which was 3 miles from the well and told him that both the children fell in well and he further stated that she did not tell him about any quarrel. He further stated that he seated her in his cart and brought her to the house. He further stated that he asked her as to how the children fell into the well to which her reply was that the children were playing there and fell in the well and died. He resiled from his statement before the I.O. that a quarrel had taken place at the house and the children died. In reply to the questions by the defence, he said that when the accused-appellant met her on his return from Mehroli, she narrated the fact while weeping. This weeping was not inconsistent with her innocence. Even if we take this statement of this witness in his cross-examination by the learned D.G.C. (Crl.), it does not disprove the innocence of the accused-appellant. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he stated that Parwat Lal P.W. 1 and the women of the house used to quarrel with the accused-appellant and used to threaten to turn her along with her children from the house because they were displeased with her failure to work. Even taking this statement as such, it did not necessarily follow that she had taken the children to the well and thrown them in the same. In the facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, it is difficult to believe the prosecution evidence about the pushing of the children by her into the well. 12. Even taking this statement as such, it did not necessarily follow that she had taken the children to the well and thrown them in the same. In the facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, it is difficult to believe the prosecution evidence about the pushing of the children by her into the well. 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the accused-appellant is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Smt. Goriya are set aside and she is acquitted of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. She is on bail from this Court. She need not surrender to it. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge concerned for information and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted to the Court within a month from today.