Judgment N.Pandey and A.K.Verma JJ. 1. These three appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been further convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Shyam Babu Yadav alias Jitendra Kumar in Cr. Appeal No. 311 of 1992 is the husband of deceased Parmeshwdri Devi alias Lali Devi whereas appellant Subash Yadav in Cr. Appeal No. 306 of 1992 is the father-in-law and Bhagwati Devi in Cr. Appeal No. 267 of 1992 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Allegation against these appellants, on the basis of a written report made on 7.5.1989 by informant Ram Janam Yadav (PW 4), in short is that his sister deceased Parmeshwari Devi was married to appellant Shyam Babu Yadav. But, unfortunately from the very beginning, the accused persons used to tell her kulakshani (a lady of inauspicious character). Therefore, they were not having good relationship. The informant has further said that two months prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased had gone to her sasural. The informant had also gone to the village of her sister on 4.5.1989 to meet her. In the meantime, on 7.5.1989, one Indal Yadav (PW 2) informed the informant that his sister was murdered by her in-laws. Having got such information, the informant along with his brother Ramayan Yadav (PW 3) went to the village of his sister, but unfortunately, the house was found locked. They learnt from the villagers that the accused persons, after committing the murder of his sister, had fled away. In the background of the facts, stated above, the informant on the same day submitted a written report before the officer-in-charge, Bikram Police Station, on the basis of which a regular First Information Report was lodged. The police on getting such information, went to the place of occurrence and seized the relevant materials and ultimately having found a prima facie case, submitted the charge-sheet, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, calling upon the accused persons to face trial. 3. The police on getting such information, went to the place of occurrence and seized the relevant materials and ultimately having found a prima facie case, submitted the charge-sheet, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, calling upon the accused persons to face trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons, as would appear from their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the trend of cross-examination to the prosecution witnesses was total denial of the allegation. An attempt was also made to show that Parmeshwari Devi (deceased) had illicit relation with one Anjani Yadav of the informants village. Therefore, in order to save the prestige and position in the society, it was the informant, who committed her murder and got the accused persons implicated. 4. At the very outset, admittedly this case wholly based on the circumstantial evidence since there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution, therefore, in order to establish its case, has examined altogether six witnesses. Out of them, PW 1 (Suryadeo Yadav) is a village chowkidar, who having got the information regarding the murder of Parmeshwari Devi, had gone to the place of occurrence and was also present with the officer-in-charge at the time when he visited the place of occurrence and recovered the dead body. PW 2 (Indal Yadav) is a resident of PO village. According to his statement, he having learnt about the murder of Parmeshwari Devi arrived at the village of the informant to inform about the occurrence. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, it also transpired that he had learnt about the occurrence and the murder of Parmeshwari Devi from one Binod Yadav, who, of course, has not been examined by the prosecution. 5. PW 3 (Ramayan Yadav), as stated above, is the brother of the deceased. As would appear from the evidence of this witness, on getting information from PW 2 (Indal Yadav), he along with the informant went to the PO village. But, all the appellants had fled away after locking their house. He also supported the case of the prosecution as it was narrated in the written report, submitted before the police. This witness was also present along with the officer-in-charge when the dead body was recovered. But, all the appellants had fled away after locking their house. He also supported the case of the prosecution as it was narrated in the written report, submitted before the police. This witness was also present along with the officer-in-charge when the dead body was recovered. He has also claimed to have identified the dead body of his sister by having noticed her bichhia, blouse and bangles. Both PWs 3 and 4 have further alleged that appellant Shyam Babu Yadav had illicit relation with the daughter of one Hari Yadav of the village, which was not being liked by Parmeshwari Devi. Therefore, in order to get rid of her, the appellant Shyam Babu Yadav committed her murder. Although, the defence had occasion to cross-examine these witnesses at length, but nothing could be found in substance on the basis of which their credibility can be doubted. 6. PW 5 (Dr. Shailendra Kumar) had conducted the autopsy of the deceased. During the post-mortem examination, he had found positive evidence that the head of the deceased was severed by sharp-cutting weapon. He also noticed certain burn injuries, post-mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Doctor, death of Parmeshwari Devi had taken place due to the cut injury on the neck. 7. PW 6 (Anil Kumar) is the Investigating Officer, who immediately after recording the First Information Report had proceeded to the place of occurrence and found the house of the accused persons locked as they were absconding. His evidence further shows that he got the house opened in presence of the informant (PW 4) and chowkidar (PW 1) and also inspected the room of the deceased. In course of inspection, he had found a cot without bed and also a tin box. His evidence will further show that at certain places, the earth of the floor of the room was removed and it was re-filled with fresh earth. He had also noticed certain spots of black marks on the wall. The entire room was cleaned by applying thick layer of earth and cow-dung. After having complete inspection of the room, the Investigating Officer also made a search of the dead body of Parmeshwari Devi in the wells of the village, but nothing was traced. At last, he arrived at the place where the dead bodies of children used to be burried and ultimately found a skull of a female having long hairs. After having complete inspection of the room, the Investigating Officer also made a search of the dead body of Parmeshwari Devi in the wells of the village, but nothing was traced. At last, he arrived at the place where the dead bodies of children used to be burried and ultimately found a skull of a female having long hairs. At that very place, the dead body of the deceased was found burried. The informant (PW 4) and his another brother (PW 3) identified the dead body of Parmeshwari Devi. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that as would appear from the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 or the Investigating Officer, the head of the dead body was severed. Therefore, although the skull was recovered, but it was not possible to identify. The witness have claimed to have identified the dead body while noticing a bichhia on her fingers as also the bangles, etc. But, it was not possible for the informant or his brother (PW 3) to identify the dead body merely noticing the bichhia and bangles. Because in normal course, it is not expected from a brother to identify the dead body of his sister on the basis of bichhia or bangles. 9. In our view, true it is if other circumstances, which have been shown by the prosecution, are ignored, certainly the identification of the dead body only on the basis of bichhia or bangles would not be sufficient. But, in this case, there are certain circumstances, which lead us to a conclusion that it was appellant Shyam Babu Yadav, who was responsible for the murder of his wife. We have already noticed that from the evidence of the prosecution, it is evident that the deceased at the time of her death was residing with this appellant. There is no denial that when the Investigating Officer visited the room of the deceased, he found certain materials on the basis of which there cannot be any doubt that the deceased was done to death in the room itself. It is also significant to notice when PWs 3 and 4 or the police officer having learnt about the death of Parmeshwari Devi arrived at the house, entire house was found locked and the accused-persons were traceless. It is also significant to notice when PWs 3 and 4 or the police officer having learnt about the death of Parmeshwari Devi arrived at the house, entire house was found locked and the accused-persons were traceless. This is not the case of the defence that at the relevant time, anybody else was residing in the house with the deceased. It has also come in evidence that this appellant was not having a good relation with his wife, since he was in love with the daughter of Hari Yadav. Therefore, there are strong circumstances to hold that it was the appellant, who committed the murder and got the dead body burried. 10. But, so far as the case of the appellants Bhagwati Devi and her husband Subash Yadav is concerned, there is no circumstance on the basis of which these accused persons can be held guilty. Because the specific case of the prosecution is that Shyam Babu Yadav had illicit relation with the daughter of Hari Yadav of the village, therefore, he wanted to get rid of his wife and thus, committed her murder. The Investigating Officer as we have already noticed, had also found sufficient mark of violence in the room where the deceased used to reside. Therefore, in absence of any other evidence against these appellants, it is the sole responsibility of appellant Shyam Babu Yadav to explain under what circumstances his wife was done to death. 11. Therefore, in the background of the facts, stated above, in absence of any positive or circumstantial evidence against these two appellants, namely, Bhagwati Devi and Subash Yadav, it wouid not be proper to hold them guilty. Because, it was only appellant Shyam Babu Yadav, who was instrumental to commit her murder so that he could freely enjoy his life with the daughter of Hari Yadav. 12. We, therefore, taking into consideration the facts, stated above, feel inclined to acquit these two appellants, namely, Bhagwati Devi and Subash Yadav by giving them a benefit of doubt and accordingly, their appeals are allowed. But, so far as the conviction and sentence against appellant Shyam Babu Yadav is concerned, the same is affirmed and his appeal is dismissed. 13. Appellants Bhagwati Devi and Subash Yadav are on bail. Therefore, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Cr. A 267/92 & 306/92 allowed Cr. A 311/92 dismissed.