Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the choukidar Chandrama Manjhi, PW 9, informant of this case reported to the SI of Jadopur Police Station at 10 Oclock in the night of 27th June, 1987 at Hirapakar overbridge. He reported to the SI that in the morning of 26th June, 1987, he heard a rumour that a dead body was lying in Mahadia Soti and he had gone to Mahadia Soti in search of the dead body but, did not find it. On the same day, he was informed by a secret man that Manti Devi (deceased) daughter of Shankar Awadhia of Hirapakar was married five years ago with Prabhu Prasad of village Kararia and the deceased mostly used to stay at her fathers house. It has been stated that the deceased had illegal relation with co-accused Ragha Prasad of village Hirapakar, due to which she became pregnant. It has been stated that, one and half month before the report of the informant, the deceased Manti had gone to her in-laws house and after 15 to 20 days of her going there, her father had brought her back. It has been stated that the inmates of her sasural were aware about her pregnancy and due to that, they had sent her back to her fathers house. It has been alleged that about 10 days before the report of the informant, the deceased Manti Devi was taken away in the night by the appellant Shankar Awadhia, Prabhu Prasad, Satya Narayan Prasad and Laldeo Prasad for the purpose of killing her and she did not return back to her house. When the informant enquired from the appellant, he said that his daughter Manti Devi was in her sasural. Then, the informant went to the sasural of the deceased to enquire about her but, she was not there the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by SI Sheoji Singh of Jadopur Police Station on 27.6.1987 at 01.00 hour at Hirapakar Nahar Pul, on the basis of which the FIR of this case was drawn. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. On the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. On the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 12 witnesses, out of whom PWs 1, 5, 7 and 8 have been declared hostile; PWs 2 and 6 have been tendered; PWs 3,4 and 11 are formal witnesses. PW 9 is the chowkidar informant. PW 10 is Dr. Tirthanand Singh, Civil Assistant Surgeon. He has held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Manti Devi. PW 12 is the IO of this case. 5. PW 9, chowkidar, the informant has stated that, more than a year of the occurrence there was a hulla that a dead body was lying thrown near Mahadia Soti and when he went there he did not find any dead body. He has further stated that he learnt about 10 days back that the appellant had taken away his daughter and she was traceless. According to him, the appellant told him that the daughter was in her sasural, but, the informant did not find her in her sasural. He learnt that appellant Shankar Awadhia had taken her away. He has further stated that the Police called the appellant and he confessed that he along with three others had killed his daughter. He also told him about the dead body. He has further stated that the appellant went to the place, where the dead body was found. In that field, the appellant said that the dead body was buried in a field, which belonged to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant with the help of kudal took out the dead body of deceased Manti Devi. According to him, the father-in-law of the deceased was also there and he also identified the dead body. But, at paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he has stated that the body of the deceased was completely de-composed and it was not possible to identify the body of the deceased. 6. PW 10 is the Dr. According to him, the father-in-law of the deceased was also there and he also identified the dead body. But, at paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he has stated that the body of the deceased was completely de-composed and it was not possible to identify the body of the deceased. 6. PW 10 is the Dr. Tirthanand Singh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who held the post-mortem examination on the dea,d body of the deceased, found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Manti Devi : (i) A wound on the medial side of right foot 3-1 /2" x 2" x deep to bone surface with separation of muscle and tendon over the bony onesa. The margin of would could not be defined due to in process of decomposition and wound filled with muddy soil. (ii) A lacerated wound on forehead 1" x 1" x deep to partial thickness of skin. (iii) On dissection fracture of rib on left side 2nd to 4th just piercing to mediastinum and pluera muscles in front of neck torn and lacerated and extravasation of blood into the subcutaneous tissues as well as adjacent muscle of the neck. Ring of trachea torn and fractured. There was fracture of cornea hyoid bone larius and trachea containing frazy mucus brownish in colour. On dissection of uterus 3.5 months size) a dead macerated foetus was found. 7 PW 12, the IO of this case is Sheoji Singh. He has stated that appellant has confessed that after killing his daughter he had buried her in sugarcane field in Mahadia Soti and the dead body was recovered from the place pointed by the appellant. 8. In this case, no witness has stated that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased or also when she was buried in the earth. The informant chowkidar has also stated that when the dead body was taken out of the earth, it was not possible to identify her. He has stated that father-in-law of the deceased was present when the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the earth but, he has not been examined. Therefore, in this case, there is no eye-witness on the point of burying the dead body of the deceased in earth. Now, in view of the above, it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the oral evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, in this case, there is no eye-witness on the point of burying the dead body of the deceased in earth. Now, in view of the above, it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the oral evidence of the witnesses. The appellant deserves benefit of doubt. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him and is discharged from the liability of bail bond in the result, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appeal is allowed.