JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by appellant Kisto Singh Munda alias Kisto Munda against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 5th June, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, Singhbhum (West), in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the alleged offence for committing murder of his pregnant wife. 2. The prosecution has arisen on the basis of fardbeyan of one Dhananjay Singh Munda (PW 1), brother of deceased Purni Mundain (wife of the appellant), lodged on 19th April, 1993 at 3.00 p.m., wherein he has alleged that his younger sister Purni (deceased) was married about 10-12 years ago with the appellant Kisto Singh Munda and they have a daughter, aged about 6-7 years, who is known as Rajeshwari. It was further stated that on the said day i.e. 19th April, 1993 in the morning when he was in his house, his co-villager Hikim Singh Munda (PW 3) told him that his sister Purni has been murdered by his brother-in-law (appellant) in his house. Having got such information, when he along with Jailal Singh Munda (PW 4) went to the house of his brother-in-law (appellant), he found his sister Purni lying on the floor and blood was oozing out of her nose, ear and mouth and was taking last breath. At the place of occurrence, neither his brother-in-law (appellant) nor any other person was present. Thereafter, he along with Jailal (PW 4) proceeded to call doctor and asked his wife Chaiti Mundain (PW 10) to remain there. When they came back to the village along with the doctor, his wife told him that Purni had died in the meantime. The doctor had to return back and the information was given to the chowkidar for reporting the matter to the police. A First Information Report was registered on 20th April, 1993 at 7.00 a.m. and Ichagarh Police Station Case No. 13 of 1993 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The doctor had to return back and the information was given to the chowkidar for reporting the matter to the police. A First Information Report was registered on 20th April, 1993 at 7.00 a.m. and Ichagarh Police Station Case No. 13 of 1993 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, levelled against the appellant, has produced altogether ten witnesses. PW 1 Dhananjay Singh Munda (informant) is the brother of the deceased; PW 2 Keshowati is the wife of younger brother of Hikim Singh; a neighbour and PW 3 Hikim Singh Munda is a co- villager i.e. brother-in-law of PW 2 Keshowati, who claims himself to be an eye- witness of the alleged occurrence. While PW 4 Jailal Singh Munda and PW 5 Thakur Singh Munda have been tendered by the prosecution, PW 7 Bhupen Munda has been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. PW 6 Dr. Yogendra Nath has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Purni Mundain and has prepared Post-mortem Report (Ext. 2). PW8 Ghasi Ram Munda is a seizure list witness. PW 9 Budhni Mundain is the mother of the appellant whereas PW 10 Chaiti Mundain is the wife of the informant i.e. sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased. 4. PW 1 Dhananjay Singh Munda and his wife PW 10 Chaiti Mundain, both of them have claim that on Monday morning in the month of Baishakh, Hikim Singh Munda (PW 3) came to their house and informed that Purni has been murdered in the house of the accused. According to PW 10, Hikim Singh Munda also disclosed the name of Kisto Singh Munda (appellant). During the cross-examination, PW 1 Dhananjay Singh Munda (informant) has stated that he has made statement before the Daroga in the house of his sister (deceased) but he signed the same in Thana. However, in the First Information Report, he has stated that he had given the statement in Thana. During the cross-examination, PW 1 Dhananjay Singh Munda (informant) has stated that he has made statement before the Daroga in the house of his sister (deceased) but he signed the same in Thana. However, in the First Information Report, he has stated that he had given the statement in Thana. He has accepted that he had not signed the fardbeyan in the house of his sister, though he has stated that he had made the statement at the place of occurrence. He has further stated that he had not asked the chowkidar to inform the police, though in the fardbeyan he has stated that he informed the matter to the chowkidar to report the same to the police. PW 1 has been neither stated that he had seen the occurrence nor has stated as to who murdered Purni. He has simply stated that Hikim Singh Munda informed that her sister has been murdered and thereby asked him to proceed to see her. 5. PW 2 Keshowati, a neighbour of the deceased, has stated that during summer, in the month of Chaiti, she heard the cry of marai dela (I have been killed) from the house of Kisto Singh Munda and on hearing such cry, she informed the matter to his brother-in-law (Bhaisur-Hikim Singh Munda). She has not stated as to who killed the deceased. 6. PW 3 Hikim Singh Munda has stated that during the last Baisakh his sister- in-law Keshowari (PW 2) told him about the noise of quarrel, coming from the house of Kisto Singh Munda (appellant). Accordingly, he went to the house of Kisto Singh Munda when Kisto Singh Munda left the house from the same door. At that place, the wife of Kisto i.e. Purni, sister of the informant Dhananjay Singh Munda, was lying and blood was oozing out of her nose, mouth and ear. She was taking last breath. 7. PW 3 Hikim Singh Munda has not stated the informant or anybody else that he has seen the accused leaving the house. In fact, no villager was informed by him. The informant Dhananjay Singh Munda (PW 1) though has stated that PW 3 informed him that his sister had been murdered in her house, but has not stated that PW 3 Hikim Singh Munda told that appellant had murdered his wife (Purni). In fact, no villager was informed by him. The informant Dhananjay Singh Munda (PW 1) though has stated that PW 3 informed him that his sister had been murdered in her house, but has not stated that PW 3 Hikim Singh Munda told that appellant had murdered his wife (Purni). From the fardbeyan and the statement of PW 1 (informant) it will be further evident that PW 3 had not stated him (informant) that he had seen the accused leaving the house. 8. PW 4 Jailal Singh Munda and PW 5 Thakur Singh Munda both have been tendered by the prosecution whereas PW 7 Dhupen Munda has been declared hostile by the prosecution and, as such, nothing being substantive in their evidence, there is nothing to discuss it. 9. PW 6 Dr. Yogendra Nath has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Purni Mundain on 20th April, 1993 at 11.15 a. m. and has prepared the Post-mortem Report" (Ext. 2). He has found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person : -- (A) Abrasions : (i) 3 x 2 cm. left side of face. (ii) 4 x 3 cm on right temporo-orbital area. (B) Internal: (i) There was contusion of right fronto-temporo-parietal scalp. Left chest wall-fracture of left 7th, 8th and 9th ribs. Right half of brain was contused. The abdominal wall distended and contained enlarged uterus filled with female child 7-8 months duration. Size of uterus 25 x 22 cm. The wall of uterus was contused with dead foetus. Size of dead foetus head to bottom 22 cm. Head to sole 39 cm. Scalps, hairs and nails were developed. The uterus contained blood and blood clotts. Right kidney contused. He opined that all the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance, like Mudgar (wooden log) and the death was due to the injuries to uterus and head, given within 36 to 72 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. During cross-examination, however, he (PW 6) has accepted that the above injuries are also possible by fall from a high level and the death might have been caused in between 17th and 18th April, 1993. 10. PW 8 Ghasi Ram Munda is a seizure list witness. During cross-examination, however, he (PW 6) has accepted that the above injuries are also possible by fall from a high level and the death might have been caused in between 17th and 18th April, 1993. 10. PW 8 Ghasi Ram Munda is a seizure list witness. He has stated that no seizure list was prepared in his presence and he was merely shown a piece of wood by which paddy crops are thrashed and was asked to sign on a paper. He has further stated that the piece of wood, which was shown to him, has not been produced before the Court. The chowkidar took him to the police station, where the police obtained his signature on a blank paper. The piece of wood was also not seized in his presence. The aforesaid statement of so called seizure list witness raises doubt on the seizure of Mugdar, a wooden piece, which is alleged to have been used to cause murder of the deceased. The statement of this seizure list witness also goes to show that the chowkidar was present while the police reached the place of occurrence, as stated by the informant in his fardbeyan but denied by him in his deposition. 11. PW 9 Budhni Mundain is the mother of the appellant. She was stated that during the last Chaiti she was out her house and had gone to attend the marriage of the daughter of her brother. PW 7 Bhupen Munda came there and asked her to go. When she came back, she saw the dead body of her daughter-in-law. She has not heard as to who killed her (Purni). She has stated that Kisto (appellant) is her son and her husband is old and cannot hear. She has further stated that her son Kisto (appellant herein) works out of the village and before the incident, he had gone out of the house for work and was not present in the house. She has further stated that no quarrel took place between the husband and wife prior to the date of occurrence. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and if her statement is accepted, it will be evident that the accused was not in his house, as he serves out of the village. PW 10 Chaiti Mundain is the wife of the informant (PW 1). This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and if her statement is accepted, it will be evident that the accused was not in his house, as he serves out of the village. PW 10 Chaiti Mundain is the wife of the informant (PW 1). While she made similar statement like the informant, has stated that PW 3 Hikim Singh Munda told her that the appellant killed Purni, though no such statement has been made by the informant (PW 1) either in his examination-in-chief or lengthy cross- examination. 12. In the present case, neither the prosecution has explained the motive nor the Investigating Officer has been examined. It has already been seen that PW 8, a seizure list witness, has denied the seizure of any mugdar and PW 9 has stated that the accused had left home much prior to the occurrence. It has also been pointed out that PW 3 has not stated in his evidence that he told anybody that accused was leaving the house, while he reached there. Even no villager was informed by PW 3. 13. In the present case, the Court was left with only the medical evidence. But there in no ocular evidence to corroborate the medical evidence. Even the doctor (PW 6) has opined that all the injuries were also possible by fall from high level and the death might have been caused in between 17th and 18th April, 1993. In the present case, though one may doubt that the appellant has committed murder of his wife, but that can not be a ground for conviction. One can not be punished merely on suspicion and there is a lot of difference in between "might have committed" and "has actually committed" the heinous crime like murder, which requires strict proof before a person can be held guilty of such heinous crime. 14. When considered all the pros and cons of the prosecution case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, including the so called eye-witness Hikim Singh Munda (PW 3) as also the fact that the same is not being corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and taking into consideration the probabilities of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against the appellant, beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. Hence the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. 15. In the result, I find merit in this Criminal Appeal, which succeeds and is hereby, allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentenced both dated 5th June, 1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, Singhbhum (West), in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1993, is, accordingly, set aside. The appellant is, hereby, directed to be released forthwith from jail custody, if not required in any other case. Hari Shankar Pd., J. 16. I agree.