Judgment S.N.Jha and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. One Khedu Singh of village Roshna Deshi tolo P.S. Pranpur DistrictKatihar made a fardbeyan before the Sub-Inspector of Police of Pranpur Police Station on 12.1.95 at 9.00 A.M. that his daughter Jhuro Devi was married with the appellant about eight months ago. Jhuro used to have altercation with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law on account of household matters, and sometimes she used to come to his house. On persuasion, she would return to her Sasural. On 10.1.95 at 3.00 P.M. she again came and stated that she had been abused by her mother-in-law Sukhiya Devi, husband Kailu Singh i.e. the appellant herein, sister-in-law Patani Devi and others. She stayed in the night and returned to her sasural. On 11.1.95 at 7.00 P.M. Devi Charan Singh-elder brother of the appellant who was put on trial but acquitted-informed him that she had committed suicide. 3. On the basis of the above fardbeyan Pranpur P.S. Case No. 2/95 was registered under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of investigation the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant as well as his mother Sukhiya Devi, elder brother Devi Charan Singh and his (Devi Charan) wife Patani Devi. At the trial which followed the prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case, out of whom P.W. 3 Siddhi Singh was tendered. The remaining witnesses are P.W. 1 Kodiya Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W. 2 Khedu Singh, the father of the deceased and the informant, P.W. 4 Shristi Singh co-villager, P.W. 5 Milick Chand Singh, another co-villager and P.W. 6 Dr. L. M. Mandal who had held post mortem. I.O. was not examined. At the end of the trial the trial court convicted the appellant in the manner as stated above while other accused were acquitted of the charges. 4. We have heard counsel for the appellant, Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah and Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad on behalf of the State. We are of the view that this is a case of no evidence and there was nothing to justify the appellants conviction. 5. P.W. 1, Kodiya Devi, the mother of the deceased in her evidence simply stated that her daughter died in sasural. We are of the view that this is a case of no evidence and there was nothing to justify the appellants conviction. 5. P.W. 1, Kodiya Devi, the mother of the deceased in her evidence simply stated that her daughter died in sasural. She was not aware as to how she died. Her Bhaisur i.e. Devi Charan had informed that she had committed suicide. When she went there she found her daughter dead. In the cross-examination she stated that the appellant was physically handicapped (lame). The deceased often came to her house without any information and used to return after persuasion. P.W. 2 Khedu Singh, the father and informant of the case, stated that after marriage the deceased used to live in her sasural. However, she often came complaining about altercation with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Gotni). On persuasion she used to return. Devi Charan Singh informed him about his daughter committing suicide. In cross-examination he stated that his daughter did not want to live in her sasural as her husband was handicapped. For this reason, without telling her in-laws she used to come to his house but on persuasion used to return. She had no trouble in her sasural. Nobody ill treated her there. P.W. 3, Siddhi Singh as mentioned above, was tendered in cross-examination. P.Ws. 4 and 5, also stated precious little in their evidence. P.W. 6 Dr. L. M. Mandal did not find any external injury except ligature mark on neck of the deceased. Ligature was in midneck. It was slightly oblique in right side. There was no knot mark on the neck. On dissection of the neck he found extra vasetion of blood in surrounding tissues. Slight laceration of tissues was present around and underneath ligature mark. He also found mouth gums and under wall of cheek on left side bruised. He opined that the death was due to strangulation caused by a rope. The death in his opinion was homicidal. 6. It would thus appear that except the fact that the deceased died in her sasural and that she died an unnatural death, there is nothing in the prosecution case. The only question for consideration is whether she committed suicide or she was killed. It is to be kept in mind that even the parents of the deceased did not make any allegation against the appellant and/or other in-laws (since acquitted) about any ill treatment. The only question for consideration is whether she committed suicide or she was killed. It is to be kept in mind that even the parents of the deceased did not make any allegation against the appellant and/or other in-laws (since acquitted) about any ill treatment. All that their evidence suggests is that the deceased used to have tiff with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She, in fact, did not want to live with her husband, the appellant, on account of his physical handicap. For this reason often she used to come to her parental house. The circumstances, as indeed the findings of the Doctor, suggest that it was a case of suicide rather than homicide. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.