Judgment 1. Aggrieved by the same judgment and order dated 21 -9-2001 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial Nos. 198 of 2000/88 of 2000 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo R.I. for life under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, Indian Penal Code, 1860 ), appellants Dasrath Singh, Laxmi Devi alias Siya Devi and Sato alias Satya Narayan Singh have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 523 of 2001 and appellant Raja Ram Singh (sic) Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2002 which are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, case of prosecution is that deceased-Babita Devi, second daughter of informant Chinta Devi (PW-4) 4 years prior to 1-4-2000 was married to appellant Raja Ram Singh of Village Kasba Pachrukhi, District - Nawadah according to Hindu Rites. After the marriage deceased had told the informant that her husband was having illicit relationship with some other girl and informant then discussed this matter with her Samdhi appellant-Dasrath Singh who assured her that since appellant-Raja Ram Singh had been married everything would be settled but relations of deceased-Babita Devi went on deteriorating. One year prior to 1-4-2000 appellant-Raja Rama Singh took his wife Babita Devi to Calcutta where he used to work as Tempo driver. One week prior to 1-4-2000 appellant-Dasrath Singh brought Babita Devi from Calcutta to his Village Pachrukhi and knowing this, informant went to village Pachrukhi and requested appellant-Dasrath Singh and her Samdhin Laxmi Devi to allow Babita to come with her on which they said that when appellant-Raja Ram Singh would come from Calcutta they would send Babita to the village of informant, then informant came to her village. On 31-3-2000 appellant-Raja Ram Singh came to his village Pachrukhi from Calcutta and on the same day appellant-Dasrath Singh came to the village of informant and told her that it was not possible to send Babita to her house at that time and she would be allowed to go after 2-3 days. On 31-3-2000 appellant-Raja Ram Singh came to his village Pachrukhi from Calcutta and on the same day appellant-Dasrath Singh came to the village of informant and told her that it was not possible to send Babita to her house at that time and she would be allowed to go after 2-3 days. On 1-4-2000 informant received information that Babita Devi had been killed by the members of the family of her Sasural by setting fire to her and informant then came to Pachrukhi where she met her younger daughter Usha Kumari aged about 8 years who at that time was already living with Babita Devi in her Sasural and who told the informant that on the previous day in the night after taking meal all the four appellants caught hold of Babita Devi and took her to Khabari situate on the back side of the house where they assaulted her with lathi and after sprinkling kerosene oil put fire by a match box on her body as a result of which she died of burn injuries. On the same day i.e. 1-4-2000 Fardbeyan of informant was recorded by SI. Ravindra Ram (PW-13). The informant in her Fardbeyan alleged illicit relationship of appellant with some girl as motive of the appellants of committing murder of her daughter. 3. On the basis of Fardbeyan a case u/s. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the appellants. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under the same section against all the appellants. Cognizance of the case was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session where charge under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against the appellants and after trial all the appellants were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life u/s. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 4. Altogether 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Arjun Singh (PW-1), Shyam Sunder Singh (PW-2), Karu Singh (PW-3), Vidya Devi (PW-6), Vishundeo Paswan (PW-7), Mohan Paswan (PW-8), Parbati Devi (PW-9) and Munni Mistri (PW-10) have said that they know nothing about the occurrence and they have been declared hostile. Chinta Devi (PW-4) is the informant. Vinod Kumar (PW-5) is a formal witness who has proved Fardbeyan (Ext.1). Usha Kumari (PW-12) is the daughter of Informant. Chinta Devi (PW-4) is the informant. Vinod Kumar (PW-5) is a formal witness who has proved Fardbeyan (Ext.1). Usha Kumari (PW-12) is the daughter of Informant. Shiv Dayal Das (PW-11) is the doctor who had held autopsy on the dead body of deceased-Babita Devi and Ravindra Ram (PW-13) is the I.O. 5. "Dr. Shiv Dayal Das (PW-11) has said that on 1-4-2000 he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sadar Hospital, Nawadah and on that day at 1.45 p.m. he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Babita Devi and found burn injuries on her scalp, axilla, pubic hair, face, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvic area, back, both thigh, anteriorly and posteriorly upto knee, both arms and palm etc. He has further said that due to extensive burn no mark of violence was visible and no mark of assault by any hard and blunt substance was seen on the dead body. According to him cause of burn was flame burn and cause of death was asphyxia and shock due to burn. In cross-examination he has said that this case may be of an accidental death. Now it has to be seen that what evidence the prosecution has led against the appellants for making them responsible for burn injuries found on the dead body of deceased which resulted into her death. 6. Chinta Devi (PW-4), the informant, in her evidence has said that her daughter Babita Devi was married to appellant-Raja Ram Singh about 5 1/2 years ago and after marriage she was living in Calcutta with her husband and after living for one year at Calcutta she came to her Sasural and informant then went to her Sasural to meet her and asked her in-laws for sending her daughter with her on which appellant-Dasrath Singh told that after two days he would allow Babita Devi to go to the house of informant. She has further said that when she had gone to her Sasural for making request for allowing Babita to come with her, at that time her daughter Usha Kumari (PW-12) was with her and after getting assurance from appellant-Dasrath Singh she came back to her house and on one Friday appellant-Dasrath Singh came to her house and told that his son appellant-Raja Ram Singh had come from Calcutta and for this reason it was not possible to send Babita to her house and on one Saturday a Chaukidar came to her house and informed that Babita had died. She has further said that on receipt of this information she went to Sasural of Babita where she found Babita dead and her dead body was being carried by police. She has further said that her statement was recorded by police on which she put her L.T.I. In her cross-examination she has said that her deceased-daughter had no complain against her in-laws and her son-in-law used to live in Calcutta and Babita was also living with him. In para-10 of her cross-examination she has said that she had no complain against her son-in-law, Samdhi and Samdhin and in para-11 of her cross-examination she has said that she did not see the occurrence. In para-12 of her cross-examination she has said that she does not know what police recorded in her Fardbeyan and she put L.T.I. on the Fardbeyan when police told her to do so. She has admitted that she had entered into compromise with the appellants and does not want to pursue the case . 7. Usha Kumari (PW-12) is a child witness whose age at the time of recording her evidence on 2-6-2001 was estimated by the trial court as 4 years and she also stated her age as 4 years but the trial court opined that she was competent to give evidence and recorded her evidence. In para-1 of her evidence she has said that her sister Babita Devi was married in village Pachrukhi and she is dead now but she does not know how her sister died. In para-4 of her evidence she has said that she had stated before police that when she was sleeping with her sister, the appellants came there, caught hold her sister and assaulted her and after pressing her neck set fire to her body. In para-4 of her evidence she has said that she had stated before police that when she was sleeping with her sister, the appellants came there, caught hold her sister and assaulted her and after pressing her neck set fire to her body. In cross-examination she has said that she had deposed whatever was tutored to her by her lawyer. In para-7 of her cross-examination she has said that on the day when her sister died she was at Fatehpur with her mother and she did not see assault on her sister and her statement was not recorded by police. In view of this evidence she does not appear to be eye-witness because she herself has negatived her presence in Pachrukhi on the day of occurrence. 8. Ravindra Ram (PW-13) is the I.O. and he has stated that on 1-4-2000 he was posted at Akbarpur Police Station and on that day he recorded the Fardbeyan of informant and forwarded her Fardbeyan to office-in-charge and he was entrusted the investigation of the case. He has further said that he had prepared inquest report of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem and after completing investigation and receiving post-mortem examination report submitted charge-sheet. 9. The informant in her Fardbeyan has stated that when after receipt of information that her daughter had died she went to her Sasural. She met Usha Kumari who already at that time was living with the deceased in her Sasural but in her evidence she is completely silent on this point that she was told by Usha Kumari (PW-12) that appellants had assaulted her daughter and had set fire to her body. On the other hand, she has said that she had gone to Sasural of her deceased-daughter and requested her in-laws to allow her deceased-daughter to come with her and on that day Usha Kumari had accompanied her there. As stated above, Usha Kumari (PW-12) herself in her evidence has said that on the day of occurrence she was at Village Fatehpur along with her mother and she had not seen assault on her deceased sister. 10. As stated above, Usha Kumari (PW-12) herself in her evidence has said that on the day of occurrence she was at Village Fatehpur along with her mother and she had not seen assault on her deceased sister. 10. From the judgment of the court below we find that appellants have been convicted after considering some circumstances summarised by the trial court in para 18 of its judgment that deceased was married to appellant-Raja Ram Singh about 5 1/2 years ago, appellant-Dasrath Singh refused to perform Bidagiri of the deceased a day before the occurrence, appellant-Raja Ram Singh had illicit relationship with somebody else which resulted in strained relationship between him and deceased, deceased died of unnatural death in the house of appellants, doctor found ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased, appellants entered into compromise in order to escape from guilt, informant was not given information about the death of deceased by appellants and appellants have not given any satisfactory explanation in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. regarding the death of deceased. The court below has also held that because appellant-Raja Ram Singh was having illicit relationship with another girl, therefore, appellants had motive to commit the offence. 11. As discussed above, there is no evidence in this case against the appellants. About illicit relationship of appellant-Raja Ram Singh with another girl, the court below has considered the Fardbeyan. It is well settled principle of law that a Fardbeyan cannot be considered to be a substantive piece of evidence. There is no evidence on record that appellant-Raja Ram Singh was having illicit relationship with any girl. The circumstances that deceased was married to appellant-Raja Ram Singh about 5 1/2 years prior to occurrence and she died of an unnatural death which has been considered by the court below are not leading to any conclusion of the guilt of appellants because it is not a case of dowry death. Appellants have been charged u/s. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it was for the prosecution to prove the charge against them. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case and the circumstances which have been considered and which have been made bases for holding the appellants guilty under sec. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not the circumstances which lead to irresistible inference that appellants committed the murder of deceased. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case and the circumstances which have been considered and which have been made bases for holding the appellants guilty under sec. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not the circumstances which lead to irresistible inference that appellants committed the murder of deceased. So far evidence of informant that she saw the dead body of deceased in the house of appellants is concerned it is simply a circumstance giving rise to a suspicion against the appellants but then this suspicion in absence of any material against the appellants becomes very weak. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, it cannot take shape of evidence. 12. Considering the entire material on record we find that in this case there is no evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty. 13. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order of the court below convicting and sentencing the appellants are set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Appellant-Raja Ram Singh of Cr. Appeal No. 74 of 2002, who is in custody, be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Appellants-Dasrath Singh, Laxmi Singh alias Siya Devi and Sato alias Satya Narayan Singh who are on bail are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.