R. M. BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) INITIALLY Al to A5 were charged for different offences. The 1st charge against Al was under Section 302 ipc. The 2nd charge against A2 to A5 was under Section 302 read with Section 34 ipc. The 3rd charge against A2 to A5 was under Sections 302 and 109 IPC and the 4th charge against Al to A5 was under section 201 IPC. On evidence the learned sessions Judge found Al guilty in Sessions case No. 287 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 201 IPC. Therefore, Al was convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned Judge found A2 to A5 not guilty of the charges levelled against them and they were acquitted. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, 1st accused- appellant herein has filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case can briefly be narrated as follows: All the accused are residents of Nedunru. A4 is the father of al, A2 and A5. A3 is the wife of A2. PW1 was working as Police Constable, who happened to be elder brother of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW5 is the sister of the deceased. The marriage of Al and the deceased took place about 12 years prior to the incident. They were blessed with two sons and two daughters. Al was working as Clerk in Telecom department at Ravulapalem. Al had been shuttling between Nedunuru and ravulapalem so as to attend his office. All the accused and the deceased used to reside in the same house at Nedunuru. ( 4 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased used to reside in the same house at Nedunuru. The deceased used to visit her parents house now and then. She used to tell PW1 and her mother about the illicit intimacy between al and A3. The neighbours i. e. , PWs. 7 and 8 also informed PW1 about the illicit intimacy between Al and A3. ( 5 ) IT is further stated by the prosecution that on 20-10-1993 at about 7-00 a. m. , one V. Dharmaraju went to the house of PW1 and informed that his sister died. PW1, his parents and his younger sister went to Nedunuru at about 12-00 noon. ( 5 ) IT is further stated by the prosecution that on 20-10-1993 at about 7-00 a. m. , one V. Dharmaraju went to the house of PW1 and informed that his sister died. PW1, his parents and his younger sister went to Nedunuru at about 12-00 noon. By then the body of the deceased was lying in front of the house. PW1 noticed injuries on the neck by the side of right ear and on the waist of the deceased. PW1 drafted a report addressed to the Village Administrative Officer and handed over the Same to him. Ex. Pl is the said report. After returning from VAO s house, PW1 noticed one razor blade, one iron pipe (MO1) and one stick by the side of the dead body. He also noticed one cloth by the side of the dead body. MO2 is the saree worn by the deceased. MO3 is the white blouse of the deceased. MO4 is the piece of cloth (green colour), MO5 is the langa and MO6 is the gold nose stud of the deceased. ( 6 ) IT is further stated by the prosecution that PW3. the Village administrative Officer, gave a crime report ex. P2 along with Ex. Pl to the Inavilli Police station. On the strength of the reports received by the Police, the offence was registered by PW12 and investigation started. On receipt of the FIR from PW12, PW14, the Inspector of Police, Amalapuram, visited the scence of offence. He made an observation report through one yenkateswara rao, which is signed by PW3 and which is produced on record as Ex. P3. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. It was attested by PW3. PW4 is (he brother- in-law of the deceased. He went along with his wife PW5 after receiving phone message that the deceased dead. PWs. 6 to 11 are neighbours of the deceased. They did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. PW12 is the corpse constable. PW13 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy pver the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex. P17. He gave final report ex. Pl 8 stating that the death is the result of Asphyxia as a result of injury to the right side of the neck and to the submandibular region resulting in the fracture of the hyoid bone. P17. He gave final report ex. Pl 8 stating that the death is the result of Asphyxia as a result of injury to the right side of the neck and to the submandibular region resulting in the fracture of the hyoid bone. ( 7 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. . Thus, , on completion of investigation, PW14 filed the charge-sheet. ( 8 ) THE defence of the accused is of total denial. ( 9 ) IT is very much doubtful whether the deceased died homicidal death because of certain admissions given by the Doctor in the cross-examination. The Doctor stated that the deceased died because of asphyxia as a result of injury to the right side of the neck and to the submandibular region resulting in the fracture of the Hyoid bone. ( 10 ) THE Doctor has also admitted that no ligature mark was found when the ligature is soft. The Doctor himself is not very much positive to state that it is accidental death or suicidal death or homicidal death. Therefore, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion that the deceased died homicidal death. ( 11 ) OUT of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs. 6 to 11 did not support the prosecution. Now we have the evidence of PWs. l to 5. As a matter of fact they were not an eye-witnesses to the incident. But when they were given information regarding the death, PWs. l, 2,4 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and noticed that the dead body of the deceased was lying in front of the house. Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. ( 12 ) THE circumstances, which is tried to be brought on record by the prosecution so as to connect the accused with the crime that all the accused including the accused residing appellant herein were inmates where the deceased was residing. Admittedly it appears that the house is a tiled house having three bed-rooms. The deceased was sleeping in one of the bed- rooms along with her children. As per the defence that when Al entered into his house at about 11-00 p. m. , he noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging towards the roof. Admittedly it appears that the house is a tiled house having three bed-rooms. The deceased was sleeping in one of the bed- rooms along with her children. As per the defence that when Al entered into his house at about 11-00 p. m. , he noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging towards the roof. He along with the others removed the dead body from the hanging position and it was placed horizontally on the ground. ( 13 ) THE learned Sessions Judge appears to have convicted the accused-appellant herein only on the ground that the accused-appellant herein tried to take false defence of alibi which he could not be proved. Therefore, the accused-appellant herein alone must be held responsible for the offence punishable under Section 325 ipc. ( 14 ) I am unable to appreciate the finding of the trial Court that the accused- appellant herein is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. It appears that the learned Judge forget the fact that there were as many as six persons residing under the same roof. If at all the accused- appellant herein wants to kill his wife, he would have taken her to a remote place and would have committed the murder. In the present case, it has been the plea of the accused-appellant-herein when he entered the house; he saw the dead body of his wife in a hanging position. Therefore, with the help of others the dead body of the deceased was removed and placed horizontally on the ground and for that purpose the saree was cut. This fact is borne out from the inquest panchanama Ex. P4. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING the above facts as brought on record, it is difficult for me to sustain the conviction. Therefore, this court allows the appeal by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, rajahmundry in Sessions Case No. 287 of 1995 against the accused-appellant herein. He is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The bail bond executed by him stands cancelled. ( 16 ) IN the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.