Judgement D. K. SINHA, J. :- The present Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 20-6-2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 Cr. P.C. for their discharge was rejected in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 2007 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.137 of 2005. It was alleged in the Fardbeyan of the informant that in the evening of 19-9-2005 two unknown persons came to his house who asked his wife Sumitra Devi (since deceased) to accompany them for settlement of the land dispute. His wife accompanied them followed by his son and on the way his son was asked by them to stay and wait there. His wife Sumitra Devi proceeded with two unknown persons. After some time his son Madan Singh returned back who narrated to his father informant that her mother accompanied two unknown persons and hereafter she did not return. The informant made extensive search in and around the village as also in the forest. However, on 21-9-2005 the dead body of Sumitra Devi was recovered but without injury on her person. The police was informed with the help of the village Chaukidar and pursuant to that the police arrived there, recorded the statement of the informant and prepared inquest of the dead body. 2. Disclosing the genesis, the informant narrated that he had land dispute with the petitioners for the last 4 years in the backdrop that his aunt (father's sister) had executed gift deed by transferring 2.39 acres of land in favour of Sumitra Devi as his aunt was issueless and the petitioners being the near agnates of her aunt were nursing grudge by disputing the matter. The informant, therefore, had reason to believe that the petitioners along with two unknown persons had given effect to the occurrence. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and asphyxia was found to be the cause of death of Sumitra Devi in view of the fracture of hyoid bone and bruise 1" x 1" below the neck. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra were also found fractured. 3. Mr. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and asphyxia was found to be the cause of death of Sumitra Devi in view of the fracture of hyoid bone and bruise 1" x 1" below the neck. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra were also found fractured. 3. Mr. Singh, learned counsel submitted that the police after investigation submitted final form on 31-7-2006 but the C.J.M., Daltonganj after perusal of the case diary took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners with the observation that the police had made perfunctory investigation and at no point of time prayer was made by the Investigating Officer for issuance of the process against the petitioners. 4. The petitioners preferred petition under Section 227 Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge with their specific defence that there was nothing in the record except suspicion raised against them which cannot take the place of proof. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration that though Sumitra Devi accompanied two unknown persons in the night of 19-9-2005 as also that no force was applied to her but no information was lodged in respect of her missing by the informant and only on the recovery of her dead body on 22-9-2005 the case was instituted against the petitioners taking advantage of the stock of situation. Enmity cuts both way and only on account of enmity the informant implicated the petitioners by raising suspicion against them of their complicity and the police finding no material submitted final form after investigation. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contention and submitted that admittedly, the petitioners are the agnates of the father's sister of the informant who were nursing grudge and had anguish because she had transferred 2.39 acres of land by executing gift deed in favour of Sumitra Devi and for such transfer the petitioners were directly affected and deprived as the land was in their possession. The brother of the informant had certain apprehension that any occurrence would be given effect to for such land dispute. Yet the learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that there was neither direct evidence against the petitioners nor the unknown two persons could be spotted and identified who took away Sumitra Devi with them. 6. The brother of the informant had certain apprehension that any occurrence would be given effect to for such land dispute. Yet the learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that there was neither direct evidence against the petitioners nor the unknown two persons could be spotted and identified who took away Sumitra Devi with them. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the materials on record as well as the carbon copy of the case diary presented by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with the assistance of the learned A.P.P., I find that there is no material at all in the case diary either direct or circumstantial against the petitioners except suspicion raised against them on account of land dispute with the informant. It is settled law that the suspicion howsoever may be strong cannot take the place of proof and upon being satisfied that there is no material against the petitioners to proceed against them their criminal prosecution cannot sustain. I find merit and accordingly this Cr. Revision is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 7. The petitioners are discharged from their criminal liability in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 137 of 2005 corresponding to G.R.No. 1484 of 2005. Revision allowed.