Bhawani Prasad has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29th March, 1986 of Sri Kazi Khurshed Ahmad, Special Judge/ad ditional Sessions Judge, Gonda convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sec tion 3021. P. C. to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that the house of informant Abhimanu Kumar is in Mohalla Bhagwatiganj, Balrampur which was previously in the district of Gonda. The appellant was tenant in one of the rooms of the house of the informant and he used to reside there along with his wife, one daughter and one son. The first wife of the appellant had earlier died leaving be hind two sons, but two sons from the pre vious wife of the appellant used to reside in their ancestral house as they were having strained relations with appellant who had taken a second wife. Informant Abhimanyu Kumar used to go for Jajmani and on the fateful day when he returned from Jajmani and was taking dinner at about 9. 00 - 10. 00 p. m. he heard some shouts of the wife of the appellant. He reached the room of the appellant and found that the appellant was delivering blows with a sickle to his wife and was hurling abuses. The informant tried to intervene but in vain. The informant thereafter rushed to police out-post Bhagwatiganj where he narrated the incident to the Head Constable. When the policemen accompanied with the in formant came to the room of the appellant, they found that the wife of the appellant and his son were ling dead on the cot. 3. The appellant was also lying on the same cot and was under the influence of intoxication. 4. The prosecution case is that the appellant could not pull on well with his wife and therefore, he killed her. The F. I. R. was lodged on the same day, i. e. 7-10-1985 at about 11. 30 p. m. and a case was registered against the appellant. The police sent the bodies for post-mortem examination and the appellant who was found there was also sent for medical ex amination. Injury report Ext. Ka-22 shows that two injuries were found on the person of the appellant. One was lacerated wound on the chin while the other was abrasion of the left side of head. The appellant was found to be under influence of liquor. Injury report Ext. Ka-22 shows that two injuries were found on the person of the appellant. One was lacerated wound on the chin while the other was abrasion of the left side of head. The appellant was found to be under influence of liquor. The post- mortem examination of Smt. Kishore Devi, wife of the appellant, reveals twelve injuries on her person which were incised wounds. On the body of Rajesh too there were nine incised wounds. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted that in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty, but the learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Court. 5. We have heard Sri R. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and thee learned Government Advocate. We have also perused the evidence on record of the case. 6. In support of his case the prosecu tion examined in all seven witnesses. P. W. 1 Abhimanu Kumar is the informant. He was the key stone of the prosecution case, but he has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P. W 7 is Dr. U. C. Dwivedi who conducted the post-mor tem examination and rest of the prosecution witnesses were formal in nature. 7. It is no doubt true that in the F. I. R. it is mentioned that the appellant was seen inflicting injuries with sickle on the person of his wife. However, it is well settled that an F. I. R. is not substantive evidence and can be used cither to contradict or corroborate its maker i. e. P. W. 1 Abhimanu Kumar. We have already mentioned above that P. W. 1 Abhimanu Kumar has not sup ported the prosecution case and he stated at the trial that when he returned after Jajmani at about 7. 00 - 7. 30 p. m. he found that the appellant was quarrelling with his wife. He wanted to turn them out but they did not listen and continued to quarrel. He added that he went to the police out-post and thereafter he returned to his house and after taking his meal he went to bed. He added that when he was sleeping, the police arrived and woke him. He wanted to turn them out but they did not listen and continued to quarrel. He added that he went to the police out-post and thereafter he returned to his house and after taking his meal he went to bed. He added that when he was sleeping, the police arrived and woke him. He came out and saw that the deceased were lying dead and the appellant was also lying on the same cot. He also found that the daughter of the appellant was com fortably sleeping outside the house. Ab himanu Kumar has further stated that when the policemen asked him as to what had happened, he told them that he had gone to sleep and he did not give any further information to them. After this, he was declared hostile by the prosecution and was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. We have perused the cross-examination of P. W. 1 Abhimanu Kumar and we do not find any such fact elicited in the cross-examination of the learned Public Prosecutor that may go to support the prosecution case qua the fact that the appellant was the person who was responsible for murdering his wife and his son. At the most, the evidence of Ab himanu Kumar may show that there was some quarrel between the husband and the wife but the rest of the prosecution case which has been unfolded in the EI. R. has not been supported by him. There is no other evidence that may go to corroborate the fact that the appellant was responsible for the crime. The defence suggestion is that RW 5 Vishwanath son of informant had an evil eye over Smt. Kishore Devi and it was he who was respon sible for the crime. In the absence of clinching evidence that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife, one may simply entertain a serious doubt that the appel lant might have been responsible for com mitting the crime, but that is not enough for a Court to arrive at a finding of convic tion against the appellant. Suspicion, how soever great, cannot take place of proof. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the F. I. R. in this case is highly doubtful. In the first place, recitals contained in the F. I. R. have been disowned by the maker. Suspicion, how soever great, cannot take place of proof. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the F. I. R. in this case is highly doubtful. In the first place, recitals contained in the F. I. R. have been disowned by the maker. In the second place, there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that initially what the informant was con veyed at the police out-post was not reduced in the shape of written informa tion and we do not know what was the earliest version of the informant given to the police. In view of all the above discus sions, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 9. It is unfortunate that the appellant has remained in jail for more than fourteen years by now as he could not get bail right from the time of arrest. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that for a very short period, the appellant remained on short bail and he remained in jail for rest of the period. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is al lowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set side and he is acquitted. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other connection. Appeal allowed. .